Open mike 29/03/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 29th, 2016 - 125 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

125 comments on “Open mike 29/03/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • b waghorn 1.1
      29 March 2016 at 7:13 am

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/78314101/editorial-labours-universal-basic-income-idea-deserves-consideration
      A more considered version, the affect on at home carers would be huge , and in MHO that’s how you sell the idea.

      • Sacha 1.1.1
        29 March 2016 at 10:56 am

        Herald editorial concludes a UBI would be dangerous socialism: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11612852

        • maui 1.1.1.1
          29 March 2016 at 12:07 pm

          Emphasis mine, wording unchanged.

          The Labour Party appears to be considering a RADICAL new system of social welfare.

          The pedigree of this one is certainly LEFT-WING. “Universal” welfare programmes effectively make EVERYBODY a beneficiary…

          People earning more than a moderate income would return their universal payment in tax – probably a GREAT DEAL of tax.

          Panic stations! 😀

      • alwyn 1.1.2
        29 March 2016 at 3:59 pm

        Did you notice this in the Stuff piece?
        “Economist Brian Easton has written that, with a universal income, either “the required tax rates are horrendous or the minimum income is so low” it won’t eliminate poverty”.
        If you have Brian, who is fairly much of the left, saying your ideas are barmy you are really in trouble.
        My prediction is that in a couple of months Labour will simply stop talking about it and quietly drop the whole scheme. Pity really.

        • b waghorn 1.1.2.1
          29 March 2016 at 5:39 pm

          “Pity really”
          Why?
          You have to admit its got people talking about important things instead of the flag.

          • Chuck 1.1.2.1.1
            29 March 2016 at 8:27 pm

            Labour have thrown the dice on UBI…lets see if it gives them some traction, or becomes a liability come the serious debates in 2017.

            Which ever way one looks at a UBI, it can’t be done without a major rehash of the tax system in NZ. Money does not grow on tree’s (although I imagine more than 1 commentator here would say it does!! all that’s required is a printing press).

    • BM 1.2
      29 March 2016 at 7:46 am

      Labour are fools for mentioning the UBI, honestly, it’s as if they’ve forgotten how to be a political party.

      This is not the path a major party should be going down, this is the sort of thing the Greens should be doing.

      Seriously, where’s the damage control?

      • b waghorn 1.2.1
        29 March 2016 at 7:55 am

        Oh common bm if it was the greens you would be here telling us how it proves the greens are , insert meme of the week here.
        Robinson points out that the tpu are not to be taken seriously and leaves unspoken the fact that they are tools for the right.

        • BM 1.2.1.1
          29 March 2016 at 8:05 am

          Greens are a 10% party you’d expect them to promote more radical ideas.

          Labour is supposed to be the foundation party of the left coalition, their role is to provide stability not wackiness.

          • weka 1.2.1.1.1
            29 March 2016 at 8:45 am

            Yes, dear, we really want your advice about the left should be doing 🙄

            • maui 1.2.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2016 at 9:12 am

              It’s very cute, you would almost think he cares about Labour.. almost.

              • weka …
                29 March 2016 at 11:16 am

                Or cares about the left, lol.

              • the lone haranguer …
                29 March 2016 at 1:50 pm

                Some of us do nearly care about the NZLP.

                As a democracy we need an effective opposition to try and hinder the Government from doing dumb things,and Labour is the best bet we have.

                We dont see the Greens fulfilling that role, Winston’s not really doing it either, so while we may not vote Labour, we do care about its role in our democracy.

                The Nats recovered from the low 20s and I expect that Labour will recover from its time in the 20s also.

          • Stuart Munro 1.2.1.1.2
            29 March 2016 at 9:41 am

            From the moran who worships the party that created $120 billion worth of debt without creating growth, jobs, or infrastructure.

            • She'll be right 1.2.1.1.2.1
              29 March 2016 at 1:19 pm

              Hmmm

              Growth: 2-3% per year over the next several years.
              Jobs: Unemployment fallen to 5.3%
              Infrastructure: Fibre Broadband, Roads of National Significance, Christchurch Rebuild.

              Unfortunately Stuart your comment is without foundation.

              I partially agree with you about the debt though – I am sure the government could have limited their spending over the last 7 years to minimize how much debt they incurred.

      • adam 1.2.2
        29 March 2016 at 9:35 am

        Oh do be quite BM.

        Your advise about labour is always wrong. Actually never seen when you have been right. You jump on the band wagon of us who criticise the labour party with child like glee. But never in a constructive manor, unless it is to support some right wing nut job inside the labour party. It’s a bore.

        and your fake pathos about the labour party is sickening.

        You and yours just don’t want people to do better, are you opposed to helping the poor? Are you opposed to a society that thinks all it’s members are worth something?

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.3
        29 March 2016 at 10:57 am

        And the RWNJ come in to tell the Left how they should act and why what we’re doing is all so bad.

        Wonder what they’re afraid of.

    • maui 1.3
      29 March 2016 at 9:19 am

      The TPU study authored by Jim Rose, the guy who frequently bombards the Green facebook page with his writings to get his point across. Hmm credible…

    • Incognito 1.4
      29 March 2016 at 3:20 pm

      To make them sleep easier I’d suggest introduction of a TPPA or Tax on Property Profit Actualised AKA CGT; it must be the TPU’s equivalent of a ‘nocturnal emission’.

  2. AsleepWhileWalking 2
    29 March 2016 at 8:00 am

    Interesting.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/78321021/fidel-castro-to-barack-obama-we-dont-need-your-presents

    “Quoting Obama’s declaration that “it is time, now, for us to leave the past behind,” the man who shaped Cuba during the second half of the 20th century writes that “I imagine that any one of us ran the risk of having a heart attack on hearing these words from the President of the United States.”

    Castro then returns to a review of a half-century of US aggression against Cuba. Those events include the decades-long US trade embargo against the island; the 1961 Bay of Pigs attack and the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner backed by exiles who took refuge in the US.

    He ends with a dig at the Obama administration’s drive to increase business ties with Cuba.”

  3. Agora 3
    29 March 2016 at 8:29 am

    The problem with Gallipoli is that it promotes Edwardian concepts of war as a purifying force for the nation.

    What happens if Erdogan starts selling the ocean views to ISIS veterans ?

  4. Nic the NZer 4
    29 March 2016 at 8:36 am

    Useful discussion of Indias very large scale Job Guarantee scheme in practice.
    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33238

    • Magisterium 5.1
      29 March 2016 at 11:02 am

      Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament

      Sue Moroney (Labour, List)

      Family home (jointly owned), Waikato
      Rental property (jointly owned), Waikato
      Apartment (jointly owned), Wellington
      Holiday home (jointly owned), Coromandel

    • the pigman 5.2
      29 March 2016 at 7:38 pm

      Clearly the Farrar/Slater/Lusk talking point du jour. Managed to generate 2 damning opinion pieces on Stuff politics already.

      I look forward to National MPs receiving the same hysterical scrutiny of their twitter feeds.

    • millsy 5.3
      29 March 2016 at 10:46 pm

      Looks like she didnt bow and scrape to the rich like everyone is expected to in John Key’s (and to a lesser extent, Helen Clark’s) NZ.

      You wont catch me paying fealty to the rich.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    29 March 2016 at 11:16 am

    Something for the RWNJs, who keep telling us that people want more sprawl, to think about:

    Even 60% of families with 3+ kids would trade a large home for a smaller one if it came with walkability & transit.

    Isn’t it truly amazing how the RWNJs are almost always wrong in their beliefs.

    • James 6.1
      29 March 2016 at 12:11 pm

      You neglect to mention this is not a NZ study.

      I bet it would be different here.

      Isnt it truly amazing that LWI’s are almost always 1/2 quoting something trying to make it fit their own personal agenda.

      /sarc

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        29 March 2016 at 12:44 pm

        You neglect to mention this is not a NZ study.

        I thought it was pretty obvious.

        I bet it would be different here.

        I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be but it would be nice to have actual study on it. Oh, here’s one:

        he findings from the 84 in-depth interviews provided information on residents’ perceptions and experiences of living in medium density housing. the findings afforded us the opportunity to assess how effectively the outcomes of smart growth policies have met the expectations,
        aspirations, and needs of this group of intensive housing residents.

        Seems that it’s probably the same in NZ as in Australia.

      • McFlock 6.1.2
        29 March 2016 at 3:08 pm

        How different do you think it would be?

        Do you think NZers are lazier than the overseas sample?

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1
          29 March 2016 at 8:21 pm

          hah, if they were lazier then they’d be demanding high density housing because it’s cheaper.

  7. adam 7
    29 March 2016 at 11:27 am

    I really do love Samantha Bee

  8. weka 8
    29 March 2016 at 11:30 am

    Just wondering what Matthew Hooton will do once he becomes part of the precariat. Does he have any skills other than speaking with a forked tongue? What could he retrain as?

    Good to hear the left wing guy challenging his bullshit on Nine to Noon.

    • Morrissey 8.1
      29 March 2016 at 11:39 am

      Good to hear the left wing guy challenging his bullshit on Nine to Noon.

      I agree, weka. Stephen Mills actually seemed to have thought about what he was going to say today, and to have worked out that Hooton needs to be challenged constantly.

      I was concerned, however, that Hooton still does the great majority of the talking, and still gets away with the most outrageous statements.

      Still, a much better performance from Stephen Mills. He’s given Hooton a hard time in the past….
      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-07122015/#comment-1105872

      Certainly Mills performed to a much higher standard than he has on some recent programs….
      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-18012016/#comment-1119733

  9. North 9
    29 March 2016 at 11:34 am

    Key-Sucker Audrey Young still picking over the corpse of her darling’s flag fuck up. Presumably to impress that there’s something essentially rum in the result. No Audrey. Your darling Man-Child’s vanity fucked him up. You as well need to grow up. As a journalist you’re an irresponsible disgrace.

  10. maui 10
    29 March 2016 at 12:37 pm

    Reposting this excellent doco (50mins) on Glyphosate that TMM posted the other day. Glyphosate is the most common weed killer used in farming, and it’s also used globally and domestically for preparing fields for crop production. Basically we eat plant material that comes into contact with a poison:

    It’s also interesting the reassurance we get from the media from the likes of a New Zealand weed scientist “expert”:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/295040/glyphosate-ban-would-change-farming

    It’s deactivated almost immediately when it hits soil colloids and that’s why it’s used for preparing land for planting crops. You can plant the next day or even the same day,

    This seems to be at odds with the documentary, that glyphosate isn’t deactivated at all.

    • Magisterium 10.1
      29 March 2016 at 12:44 pm

      Yes but it’s reactivated by the formula in the chemtrails.

      • maui 10.1.1
        29 March 2016 at 1:17 pm

        You would do well as a spokesperson for the manufacturer Monsanto, who can’t seem to put up a good case for it being safe other than it’s been in use for 40 years. Then let the state and any other not for profit organisation do all the fact finding for you on the actual risks.

      • Macro 10.1.2
        29 March 2016 at 1:54 pm

        The half-life of glyphosate ranges from several weeks to years, but averages two months. In water, glyphosate is rapidly dissipated through adsorption to suspended and bottom sediments, and has a half-life of 12 days to ten weeks. Glyphosate by itself is of relatively low toxicity to birds, mammals, and fish, and at least one formulation sold as Rodeo® is registered for aquatic use.
        Some surfactants that are included in some formulations of lyphosate, however, are highly toxic to aquatic organisms, and these formulations are not registered for aquatic use.

        From the Weeds Control Methods Handbook pdf

        So the RNZ “expert” was basically talking bull shit.

        • Macro 10.1.2.1
          29 March 2016 at 2:00 pm

          Further to the above its not difficult to find many studies that confirm that Round Up as sold by Monsanto is more toxic than was once thought. Here is one reviewed in Scientific American

          Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

          One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”

          • Psycho Milt 10.1.2.1.1
            29 March 2016 at 4:01 pm

            It’s hardly astonishing, given that glyphosate works by suppressing an enzyme that’s found in plants but not animals. The list of things more deadly to human embryonic cells than glyphosate would be a very, very long one that included some really-not-very-toxic-at-all stuff on it.

            • Macro 10.1.2.1.1.1
              29 March 2016 at 4:56 pm

              🙄

              Ok so I’m sure you would be happy to drink it.

              If you were to read the studies further you would see:

              ““This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.

              The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.”

              “The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures,” Seralini’s team wrote.

              The EPA’s classification of Roundup was initially done in 1993 and hasn’t been reviewed since. The study quoted above was done in 2009. I would not place a great deal of reliance on the EPA’s assessment at this stage. Particularly as most of the research was conducted by the chemical industry and in particular Monsanto itself:

              But the EPA’s exoneration — which means that the agency will not require additional tests of the chemical’s effects on the hormonal system — is undercut by the fact that the decision was based almost entirely on pesticide industry studies. Only five independently funded studies were considered in the review of whether glyphosate interferes with the endocrine system. Twenty-seven out of 32 studies that looked at glyphosate’s effect on hormones and were cited in the June review — most of which are not publicly available and were obtained by The Intercept through a Freedom of Information Act request — were either conducted or funded by industry. Most of the studies were sponsored by Monsanto or an industry group called the Joint Glyphosate Task Force. One study was by Syngenta, which sells its own glyphosate-containing herbicide, Touchdown.

              • Psycho Milt …
                29 March 2016 at 5:37 pm

                Ok so I’m sure you would be happy to drink it.

                No.
                1. Less toxic than many other things != non-toxic.
                2. Just about everything’s lethal in a big enough dose.

                Re the studies claiming glyphosate is dangerous, is that the same Seralini whose study claiming that GMOs caused tumours in rats had to be withdrawn because it was so bad? The EU says: “To date, more than 800 studies have been conducted along with evaluations carried out by regulatory authorities across the world, all of which have confirmed the safety of glyphosate.”

                • Macro …
                  29 March 2016 at 6:40 pm

                  “To date, more than 800 studies have been conducted along with evaluations carried out by regulatory authorities across the world, all of which have confirmed the safety of glyphosate.”
                  That is not what the concern is about – talk about shifting goal posts!
                  The problem is with the mixture of glyphosate and POEA. Few of the so-called “independent” reviews consider this. Certainly not the regulatory authorities who take their “research” from the manufacturers and then those outside the states who take their research from the EPA. It’s all a big back scratching exercise. No wonder people are turning off, and doubting “scientific” regulatory authorities when their research is so compromised. It’s like asking the Koch Bros to give a dissertation on Global Warming!
                  Then to cite 800 studies – well they would not all have been done in the past year would they. And Roundup has been around for a few years now – but its only in the recent past that people have begun to wonder if some of the things they are experiencing now might not be connected with this product. I myself used Roundup extensively on the farm for a number of years and before that Paraquat – before it was taken off the market because of its toxicity. oh and the EU approved the use of it 2004!

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    29 March 2016 at 7:16 pm

                    So, yeah, shifting goalposts. Apparently, glyphosate isn’t anything to worry about, but polyoxyethyleneamine is. I wouldn’t know enough about it to comment, but if that is the situation maybe people could stop wittering on about glyphosate?

                    And when it comes to “compromised” research that can’t be trusted, you really couldn’t find a better example than anti-GMO activist Gilles-Eric Seralini. After the rat-tumours propaganda fiasco, any research with his name on it is worthless.

                    • Macro …
                      29 March 2016 at 9:37 pm

                      Almost all of the criticism against the Seralini research was from researchers primarily funded by the Industry, and that includes the regulatory bodies which (as I have previously pointed out) rely heavily on Industry funded research. If the critics of Serelini really wanted to prove their point then they would repeat the research with greater numbers of animals, rats less susceptible to cancer, and controls which they were happy with. They may not like the results however.

                    • Macro …
                      29 March 2016 at 10:19 pm

                      Roundup weed-killer – glyphosate – is “probably carcinogenic,” according the World Health Organization. The decision was laid out in an analysis in The Lancet Oncology.
                      And who am I to argue with that.

    • Rosie 10.2
      29 March 2016 at 1:03 pm

      Glyphosate is also one of the most commonly used garden herbicides, as well as the most commonly used in agriculture. It is sold under different names but everyone knows it as Roundup.

      With our she’ll be right attitude here in NZ we tend to use it with wild abandon at the sight of the tiniest of weeds, not knowing or understanding just how toxic it is. I mean, it’s sold on supermarket shelves so it must be safe right?
      Our local council seems to love Monsanto too. It sprays council berms, gutters and parks liberally and excessively.

      As well as being a health risk it’s also largely unnecessary. You can pull weeds out of the ground. For free! Or if you have tough weeds on a paved patio you can sprinkle the weeds with the cheapest table salt you can buy and pour boiling water over and your weeds die almost instantly. I’ve done this successfully in the past. Or for large scale weeding you can purchase a hand held weed burner, powered by a gas cannister.

      • maui 10.2.1
        29 March 2016 at 8:48 pm

        Good tips Rosie, I have been thinking about this a bit lately. I don’t get why people would want to liberally go around and poison weed spray over everything around their house (I have seen it a couple of times recently). After all it is just going to come back in a few months, and you’ve created a possible health risk, changed soil conditions and had an effect on the insect life too.

        I also see it with councils where they spray along fencelines and edges of tracks. Most of it is unnecessary, unless there is something like a blackberry infestation growing across a track its a good idea. But spraying fencelines again and again to create some scorched earth at the bottom of it is crazy, especially with a toxic chemical.

        I have tried a salt and vinegar spray before on blackberry, with dishwashing liquid to make it stick to the leaves, but it didn’t really work, only a small amount of the leaves browned off. So I might look into that gas torch idea. Thanks.

        • Rosie 10.2.1.1
          29 March 2016 at 10:04 pm

          Blackberry is particularly hard to get rid of and even Roundup won’t be effective. Good luck with the gas torch. Heavy duty herbicides such as Tordon and Scrub Cutter are used on blackberry. Even though 2,4,D is banned in NZ, a variant of this chemical is used in the manufacture of these two herbicides. You need full PPE to apply this stuff, but I wouldn’t go near it myself.

          Tordon was used aerially on gorse on a farm near us a few years ago. There were two breaches of the regional council’s rules. One was a lack of notification to nearby residents and the other was a breach of the 300 metre buffer zone. The helicopter pilot dumped this crap, literally, over our neighbourhood, as people were walking up the street to the bus stop and cycling to work in the morning rush. Despite the evidence people gathered, it took a massive effort to get the regional council to act. The pilot ended up with a “please don’t do this again” note. We really do have such a lazze faire approach to agrichemical safety in this country.

          Final point. I used to work in the organic food industry in the 90’s, 2000’s. I remember visiting a supplier’s apple orchard. As well as the air being alive with bee’s and butterflies due to the lack of pesticides there was a marked difference in the quality of the soil around his tree’s compared to the soil around the tree’s of his neighbours. His neighbour was a supplier of conventionally grown apples to the supermarkets. Despite it being a dry time of the year, the soil on the organic orchard retained it’s structure and a bit more moisture, where as the soil of the roundup sprayed tree bases were crumbly and in large chunks. It looked dead.

          The health of the different soils were in stark contrast. And the neighbour had all that extra cost too.

    • Psycho Milt 10.3
      29 March 2016 at 1:03 pm

      Basically we eat plant material that comes into contact with a poison

      It comes into contact with dirt and the excretions of a wide variety of different creatures, too. If you’re going to panic about stuff you can’t see that is entering the sacred temple of your body, the risk of microbiological contamination offers far better material than whatever traces of herbicide might still be on there.

      • weka 10.3.1
        29 March 2016 at 1:24 pm

        “the risk of microbiological contamination offers far better material than whatever traces of herbicide might still be on there.”

        Only if you are microbe-phobic.

        The issue is what humans have evolved with. We’re actually pretty good at living alongside microbes and dirt, with some notable exceptions, because we have millions of years of co-evolution (those that best fit survived). The number of chemicals we are exposed to now is massively higher than pre-industrial revolution, and science is still not so good at studying culmulative effect, multiple variables, and individual response.

        We know that some herbicides are dangerous (which is why we’ve banned them), so unless you are arguing that Glyphosate-based herbicides are a special class of chemicals with zero side effects (would love to see that), we’re talking a matter of degrees. A big part of the problem is that PR has been a major driver of information (Monsanto are the new tobacco companies), so you have conflicting ideas about what the problem might be, let alone what it actually is. Fortunately there does seem to be much more non-industry research being done now to present a more comprehensive picture of what the issue are.

        • Psycho Milt 10.3.1.1
          29 March 2016 at 1:39 pm

          The thing about evolution is that the microbes also evolve, and quicker than we do. You’re far more likely to get sick from microbial life forms in your food than from glyphosate, which is pretty much never found in quantities that have a chance of being harmful to humans (and that’s not because big government and Monsanto have prevented anyone testing the levels remaining in food, it’s because there’s been plenty of testing and the results show no threat).

          We do know that some herbicides are dangerous and have banned them, which is one of the main reasons glyphosate is so ubiquitous – it works and is (relatively) safe. If it wasn’t, it would be among those banned herbicides. This is a subject like vaccination, in which anti-science irrationalists convince themselves that the lack of evidence something is harmful doesn’t trump their gut instinct that it just has to be.

          • maui 10.3.1.1.1
            29 March 2016 at 2:00 pm

            Uh, then why is it being found in German mother’s breast milk in far greater levels than what is regulated for humans?
            http://www.globalresearch.ca/intolerable-levels-of-monsantos-glyphosate-roundup-found-in-breast-milk/5459080

            And why is it in the documentary they show evidence that the chemical can change gene structures and destroy good gut bacteria. In studies with rats they found feeding them human tolerable amounts of glyphosate that the rats grew large tumors. And why were several farmers finding that their livestock were having lower reproductive rates and higher birth defects when their stock was being fed glyphosate based feed?

            The industry response is that these trials/tests didn’t follow some proper scientific process, so they should be ignored. Industry don’t seem to want to conduct their own trials with matching conditions – funny that! You’re the one sounding like the science irrationalist I’m afraid.

            • Psycho Milt 10.3.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2016 at 3:42 pm

              The thing is, those studies really don’t follow proper scientific process. Actual scientists do study this stuff – and come up with results like “glyphosate, the main ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, does not accumulate in mother’s breast milk.” (Washington State University study).

              The WSU study was a scientific one conducted by a biological scientist who is “an executive committee member for the International Society for Research in Human Milk and Lactation and a national spokesperson for the American Society for Nutrition.”

              The German study claimed to have been carried out by the Green Party is mentioned on globalresearch.ca, an anti-globalisation activist site, and a detox nutter site, with the study itself not available. The American study that prompted it was carried out by “anti-GMO activist group Moms Across America with “Sustainable Pulse,” an online “news service” published by anti-GMO campaigner and organic food entrepreneur Henry Rowlands.” (academicsreview.org, in a piece aptly titled “Debunking pseudo science “lab testing” health risk claims about glyphosate (Roundup)”).

              • gsays …
                29 March 2016 at 4:45 pm

                hi pm,
                i would like to point you in the direction of you-tube and dr don huber and what he has to say about glyphosate.

                very reasonable man making some uncomfortable points.

              • Editractor …
                29 March 2016 at 6:39 pm

                The thing is, those studies really don’t follow proper scientific process…The WSU study was a scientific one…

                It is a non-peer reviewed study done in conjunction with Monsanto. The authors have since published a paper specifically on their quantification method ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4743594/ ) but not on the methodology of their overall study, which was presented as a report at a conference.

              • Editractor …
                29 March 2016 at 6:55 pm

                “The thing is, those studies really don’t follow proper scientific process…
                The WSU study was a scientific one…”

                The WSU study is a non-peer reviewed report presented at a conference and done in conjunction with Monsanto. The authors have now published a paper specifically on their quantification method but not on the methodology of the overall study.

              • maui …
                29 March 2016 at 8:28 pm

                Ok, so the breast milk study is looking dubious. Here’s a couple of other studies that looks like “proper scientific process” to me, but what would I know.
                http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
                http://www.gmoevidence.com/dr-jayasumana-glyphosate-leads-to-5-fold-increase-in-deadly-kidney-disease-risk/

                I find it interesting that you’ve avoided that evidence that does look like proper science and that the World Health Organisation thinks it’s a carcinogen. This should be swept aside because we have nothing to worry about right?.. Wouldn’t best practice be, lets stop it’s use until we find out what it’s doing and what it’s effects are. Maybe that’s the approach that countries like Sri Lanka and some in Europe who have banned it already, will go down.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  29 March 2016 at 8:52 pm

                  The list of things the WHO thinks “probably causes cancer” is a very long one and is of little value in the absence of the info “what level of risk” and “at what dose.” For example, they think red meat “probably causes cancer,” ie some studies have shown a slight increase in risk if you eat lots of it. This comes under the heading of “Big Whoop.”

                  A useful rule of thumb when considering how credible studies about glyphosate are, is to figure out whether the people carrying out the studies are anti-GMO activists or not. Activism and science are about as compatible as religion and science – ie, not very. Both the articles you’ve linked to are anti-GMO activism – one is featured on an anti-GMO activist web site and the other involves Gilles-Eric Seralini, whose reputation hasn’t survived his rat-tumours propaganda exercise.

  11. greywarshark 11
    29 March 2016 at 12:53 pm

    A quote from Oscar Wilde who is still amusing and satirical.
    Sincerity
    A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    29 March 2016 at 12:55 pm

    Little cops a fair amount of flak for republic referendum suggestion

    I’d quote but it was just a selection of inane BS comments from off of Facebook seemingly selected to show that there’s no support for becoming a republic.

    Really, if they want to report on the public’s feeling of becoming a republic then the should be doing a poll. Like this:

    The poll, by Curia Market Research, was commissioned by New Zealand Republic. It shows support for a New Zealand Head of State has risen to 44%. Support from people aged 18-30 is at now at 66%. Support for using the next British Monarch as our next head of state has fallen to 46%.

    Yeah, we won’t be staying part of the British monarchy for much longer.

    • weka 12.1
      29 March 2016 at 1:27 pm

      Looks like it’s a matter of time. When Liz goes I expect it will become an issue. I really hope we don’t do it soon though, can you imagine National running the process?

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1
        29 March 2016 at 2:16 pm

        I really hope we don’t do it soon though, can you imagine National running the process?

        You’re trying to give me nightmares aren’t you?

        Actually, there was that constitution review that National launched a couple of years ago and seems to have sunk without a ripple.

    • Colonial Viper 12.2
      29 March 2016 at 9:12 pm

      Yeah, we won’t be staying part of the British monarchy for much longer.

      Quite safe for at least the next 10 years. And probably 20.

  13. The Chairman 13
    29 March 2016 at 1:53 pm

    I see Grant has totally ruled out Labour having a policy of a tax rate of 50 per cent.

    I also see Labour are following the debate on a UBI with interest.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78316664/taxpayers-union-rubbishes-universal-basic-income-idea

    Lets hope they are following the debate on The Standard (Hickey on the UBI).

    It would be good to see him put to rest the concern Labour want to stick it to the elderly (and some) through the introduction of a capital tax.

    • Magisterium 13.1
      29 March 2016 at 3:19 pm

      lol no-one is going to do anything to the elderly other than kiss their arses while they remain registered voters.

      • The Chairman 13.1.1
        29 March 2016 at 3:29 pm

        Labour were going to stick it to them last time.

        They also wanted a CGT.

        Leaving some concerned Labour may use the UBI as a backdoor to do it again.

        Therefore, it would be good if Grant could put this concern to bed.

        • Nic the NZer 13.1.1.1
          29 March 2016 at 3:50 pm

          What makes you think using a UBI to stick it to the elderly isn’t Grants plan? I have certainly seen plenty of comments which argue a UBI is a good way to smuggle in and restructure the entire tax system which appears to be popular with the commentariat on here.

          • The Chairman 13.1.1.1.1
            29 March 2016 at 4:02 pm

            Seeing how quickly he came out to put the 50% tax rate to bed, yet no comment to date on this, you could well be right.

            Moreover, we all know the party is still captured by the right within.

            The ball is now in your court Grant. Your silence (Grant) only affirms the suspicion.

            • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2016 at 9:09 pm

              GR2020

            • weka 13.1.1.1.1.2
              29 March 2016 at 10:15 pm

              I think it’s better that Labour don’t start commenting on this. They don’t have a policy, and I’m guessing they haven’t done to much more work on a UBI other than the report they commissioned. They put the report out for discussion. That’s what is happening. I’d like to see a whole range of people grapple with this before Labour get too involved. Let people hash it out.

              • The Chairman …
                30 March 2016 at 8:52 am

                We all know they haven’t formulated a policy on this yet. However, they have been quick to totally rule things out. Like the 50% tax rate.

                With talk of replacing benefits, coupled with a UBI rate centered around $200 a week and the possibility of a capital tax, a number of pensioners and home owning low income earners are becoming rather concerned.

                Therefore, to put an end to their concern and keep the discussion on track, if they have ruled this out they should inform us.

                It’s a total waste of time having the public hash things out when they have (if that is the case) been totally ruled out.

                Labour wanted to have this debate, the least they can do is partake a little more. Keeping us all up to date with what has and hasn’t been ruled out as the discussion moves forward.

                And by partaking, it also acknowledges the discussion is being heard. It only takes a brief comment, like good points made to achieve this.

  14. adam 14
    29 March 2016 at 2:28 pm

    This is very descriptive

  15. Refelusion 15
    29 March 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Reminds me of a mad man Howling at the moon

  16. John Shears 16
    29 March 2016 at 4:11 pm

    An Emmerson cartoon that the Herald kept off the digital version until today.I have been chuckling since Saturday and was about to copy and post today when it appeared. Here you are Standardistas have a laugh.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news-cartoons/news/article.cfm?c_id=500814&objectid=11611763

    The Shroud of Key

  17. joe90 17
    29 March 2016 at 6:18 pm

    The bloke in 23B may not have been too happy but mate, ponyboy would be beside himself thinking he’d done died and gone to heaven!.

    Dante Ramos Verified account
    ‏@danteramos

    Congrats to the ponytailed young woman in seat 22B. You’ve invented a whole new way to be awful at 35,000 feet.

    https://twitter.com/danteramos/status/714624999391363073

    • b waghorn 17.1
      29 March 2016 at 6:44 pm

      She’s bloody lucky they don’t allow siccors on planes, I’d chop half that thing off.

  18. Chooky 18
    29 March 2016 at 7:16 pm

    At least Boris Johnson is speaking out:

    ‘Russia questions UK silence on retaking Palmyra from ISIS’

    https://www.rt.com/uk/337442-russia-slams-uk-palmyra/

    …”Meanwhile, London Mayor Boris Johnson has chosen to speak out, despite the silence of his country’s prime minister.

    Praising the “ruthless clarity” of Russian President Vladimir Putin in aiding the Syrian government’s removal of “maniac” Islamic State jihadists from Palmyra, Johnson said that Moscow has made the West look “ineffective.”

    “If reports are to be believed, the Russians have not only been engaged in airstrikes against Assad’s opponents, but have been seen on the ground as well. If Putin’s troops have helped winkle the maniacs from Palmyra, then (it pains me to admit) that is very much to the credit of the Russians. They have made the West look ineffective; and so now is the time for us to make amends, and to play to our strengths,” Johnson wrote in his column for the Telegraph.

    Johnson went on to note the archaeological and historical significance of the city, much of which has been destroyed by Islamic State.

    “The victory of Assad is a victory for archaeology, a victory for all those who care about the ancient monuments of one of the most amazing cultural sites on Earth,” Johnson wrote….

  19. Anne 19
    29 March 2016 at 7:34 pm

    Since there is no Daily Review I’ll put this here:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11613375

    Good on you Little for not shying away from Hooton’s vicious attacks. Hooton claims he doesn’t know what he (Little) is talking about and says – he ought to demand an apology but doesn’t think he’ll bother. You bet he won’t bother because anyone who listens to the RNZ political spot on a Monday morning or reads his media opinions knows how true it is.

    And anyone who dares to stand up to Hooton is painted as an idiot/crazy/mad and deranged according the maddest/craziest and most deranged “commentator” in the country.

    Please do a post someone so we can all verbally attack him with relish.

    • b waghorn 19.1
      29 March 2016 at 8:09 pm

      So Little says hooton is part of the problem and hooton responds by calling the leader of the second biggest political party an idiot, there by proving Little right. Your a fucking moron hooton.

    • Tinshed 19.2
      29 March 2016 at 8:26 pm

      And anyone who dares to stand up to Hooton is painted as an idiot/crazy/mad and deranged according the maddest/craziest and most deranged “commentator” in the country.

      Hooton doesn’t need “standing up to”. He is a political commentator who says things some people don’t agree with. No more, no less. Disagreeing with him, easily done through any of the the myriad of social media available, isn’t “standing up” to him in the sense of implying courage and determination in the face of threats and pressure. Not need to over-egg it.

      And calling him names doesn’t help either. Is he really the most “deranged” commentator in the country? If you think that, you need to get out more.

      • RedLogix 19.2.1
        29 March 2016 at 8:45 pm

        Yes … ‘deranged’ was a poor word choice. I would have gone with ‘devious’.

      • Anne 19.2.2
        29 March 2016 at 8:55 pm

        Tinshed. It was Hooton who recently called someone “deranged”. He has also used the words “idiot”, “mad” and “crazy” to describe various opposition politicians. I was using his own words against him with some accuracy – as anyone who has listened to him on radio and elsewhere could testify.

        You need to learn to read text more carefully.

        And for your edification, Hooton is a verbal bully who needs to be stood up to.

      • Gabby 19.2.3
        29 March 2016 at 9:27 pm

        Are you a FAYBEEYUN? ARE YOU?

  20. weka 20
    29 March 2016 at 7:34 pm

    “#degrowth means contraction of accumulatn, capitalism, exploitatn & predation; point is to chlnge concept of accumulation itself” Latouche

    https://mobile.twitter.com/KTrebeck/status/714678397813841920

  21. Tinshed 21
    29 March 2016 at 7:43 pm

    I note that nothing has been said today about the death threats received by Paula Bennett on Facebook. Andrew Little has indicated that while he does not condone, of course, such comments, given the difficult economic times combined with the harsh rhetoric of commentators like Matthew Hooton, such aggressive actions are, to some degree, a factor in such threats. Is that the view shared by most people? I would have thought threatening to kill a Cabinet Minister was pretty serious stuff and required not only Police action, but unequivocal rejection and condemnation by all. Violence, or threats of violence, have no place in political discourse.

    [edited for minor clarification]

    • Gangnam Style 21.1
      29 March 2016 at 7:54 pm

      Someone called Mike Hosking a moron on Twitter that got a lot of media attention. Someone told his psychiatrist he wanted to bomb John Key & was imprisoned. Helen Clark had an axe through her window. Dildos, meringues, buckets of mud. The hoi polloi are getting restless. Hooton thrives on hatred.

    • Anne 21.2
      29 March 2016 at 8:24 pm

      See my comment @ 19 Tinshed. Read the link because Andrew Little made it clear there was no justification for that type of aggressive behaviour. He then goes on to say he has observed an upsurge in such behaviour in recent years and he believed it was partly in response to the struggle so many NZers are experiencing because of harsh government actions.

      And in case there is an attempt to “blame the behaviour on Labour”, he pointed out that the kind of vicious commentary some right wing PR commentators indulge in is also adding to the problem. (I paraphrase)

      He is correct on both counts.

      Edit: My last sentence @19 is tongue in cheek. I’m not encouraging “aggressive” action be taken against Hooton as some rwnj might try to claim.

      • Tinshed 21.2.1
        29 March 2016 at 8:33 pm

        @Anne

        My issue with the factors you raise – that Little condemned the behaviour and then went on to observe that harsh government actions makes such behaviour understandable, is that it reeks of victim-blaming. It is kinda of like having a bob each way – violence is unacceptable but I understand why people are violent. I suspect that many people hear is only the second part – times are hard, so violence is understandable. I am not sure that is the right response to threats to kill politicians.

        • Anne 21.2.1.1
          29 March 2016 at 8:41 pm

          So Tinshed you’re saying that a political leader is not allowed to reflect on what might be causing the behaviour? That is precisely what Andrew Little should be doing when it is appropriate. And it is appropriate to point out the treatment meted out to so many people by this government is what is behind the increase in the behaviour. It is also appropriate to point out the aggressive verbal attacks by right wing commentators also plays a role in the behaviour. Matthew Hooton in particular is a purveyor of hatred.

          • Tinshed 21.2.1.1.1
            29 March 2016 at 9:01 pm

            @Anne

            What I observe is that no-one here really condemns the implied violence directed at Paula Bennett, but instead finds reasons for the behaviour elsewhere. Matthew Hooton is just a political commentator who most here disagree with. He doesn’t publish death threats, yet those that do seem to get a free pass. I find it odd that some commentators here seem so eager to criticise Matthew Hooton as a purveyor of hate, yet are much less inclined to condemn the violence directed at National Party Cabinet ministers. I believe Andrew Little also falls into that category. You may see this as Little merely “reflecting” on what he sees, but I see it differently. Violence has no place in our political discourse and must be unreservedly denounced.

            • Anne 21.2.1.1.1.1
              29 March 2016 at 9:11 pm

              Violence has no place in our political discourse and must be unreservedly denounced.

              Well, I call dubbing opposition politicians mad/stupid/ idiots/deranged as being a form of violent political discourse. Especially when they are patently untrue. So how about you reserve some of your ‘denouncing’ for Matthew Hooton.

              And what about the violence directed and Labour and Green politicians eh? There’s plenty of it but they tend not to make too much of a fuss about it.

              • Tinshed …
                29 March 2016 at 10:31 pm

                @Anne

                Well, I call dubbing opposition politicians mad/stupid/ idiots/deranged as being a form of violent political discourse.

                With respect, from someone who also said,and I quote, I was using his own words against him with some accuracy – as anyone who has listened to him on radio and elsewhere could testify.. What you seem to be saying is that it is OK to call Hooton mad/stupid/idiots/deranged because a) he used these words to describe other people b) they are true when describing him, but should anyone else uses the very same adjectives to describe opposition politicians then they are engaging in political violence. Sorry, I don’y see that way and suggest you are demonstrating a double standard.

                • Anne …
                  29 March 2016 at 10:39 pm

                  Sorry, I don’y see that way and suggest you are demonstrating a double standard.

                  Nope. You are being wilfully dumb. Not worth ‘discoursing’ with you.

                  Over and out.

            • joe90 21.2.1.1.1.2
              29 March 2016 at 9:21 pm

              He doesn’t publish death threats

              He’s a fixer.

              Hooton says the one thing he was ashamed about “when you read it in the cold light of day” was the bit where the blogger Cactus Kate (real name Cathy Odgers) asks for Hager’s home address, so she can pass it on to wealthy Chinese clients angered by a study Hager co-authored about tax havens: “Chop chop for Nicky, ” wrote Odgers. Hooton gave her Hager’s street name (but not number)

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68984535/matthew-hooton-and-dirty-politics-anatomy-of-the-vast-rightwing-conspiracy

        • Puddleglum 21.2.1.2
          29 March 2016 at 11:14 pm

          Hi Tinshed,

          The words ‘acceptable’ and ‘understandable’ are quite different.

          If you reject the understandability of violence then you are elevating violence to some kind of mystical phenomenon.

          Do you really think that the possibility of understanding violence is that hopeless?

    • joe90 21.3
      29 March 2016 at 8:36 pm

      So, rather than the traditional bloodbath, polite political discourse is going to bring change in the 21st century?.

      /

      • Tinshed 21.3.1
        29 March 2016 at 8:47 pm

        joe90

        I am not sure that the means of political change are as stark as you suggest.

        • joe90 21.3.1.1
          29 March 2016 at 9:01 pm

          Thirty years ago we were told there is no alternative and ever since it’s been all down hill for an awful lot of people.

          I doubt our children will pursue polite political discourse and wait another thirty years.

    • maui 21.4
      29 March 2016 at 10:03 pm

      There’s other stuff that never makes it into political discourse. Like how many suicides, mental health issues, domestic violence and regular violent incidents happen each year that can be linked to the effect of WINZ policies and culture? But then again maybe it’s more important we talk about Bennett instead..

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    29 March 2016 at 8:17 pm

    Bicycling Triples In London While Driving Halves

    The streets of London have seen an increase in bike riders and a decrease in car commuters. According to an article published by the BBC, the number of cyclists during rush hour will outnumber cars within the new few years.

    According to Transport for London, over the last decade and a half car drivers have decreased by almost 50% – from 137,000 in 2000 to 64,000 in 2014 – while the number of cyclists has tripled from 12,000 to 36,000. The authority touts the statistics as “a feat unprecedented in any major city.”

    More bad news for supporters of the status quo and good news for the rest of us.

  23. the pigman 23
    29 March 2016 at 9:03 pm

    Well-written and engaging blog post featured by Russell Brown by “Six”, a trans-female living rough in the Auckland CBD: http://publicaddress.net/speaker/her-outdoors/

  24. Tautoko Mango Mata 24
    29 March 2016 at 10:47 pm

    1 of a series on TPP
    Beware of TPP’s Investor–State Dispute Settlement Provision
    By Joseph Stiglitz | 03.28.16
    ,blockquote>The alleged goal of ISDS is to increase security for investors in states without an adequate “rule of law.” But the fact that the U.S. is insisting on the same provisions in Europe, where legal safeguards are as strong as they are in the U.S., suggests another motive: the desire to make it harder to adopt new financial regulations, environmental laws, worker protections, and food and health safety standards.
    http://rooseveltinstitute.org/beware-tpps-investor-state-dispute-settlement-provision/

    Also well worth a read from a study by Krzysztof J. Pelc

    Using newly released data covering 696 investment disputes, I
    assess some of the central claims about ISDS. I argue that the regime has indeed undergone a major shift: a majority of claims deal not with direct takings by low rule of law countries, but with regulation in democratic states. The result of this shift towards indirect expropriation affects firms’ incentives:claimants may gain even when they lose a challenge, if litigation can deter governments’ regulatory ambitions. The result, as I show, is an increase in the number of cases, accompanied by a precipitous decrease in their legal merit. Investors bringing indirect expropriation claims also appear far less likely to settle, and more likely to publicize the dispute,
    consistently with theoretical expectations.

    http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/42486/frivolity.pdf

  25. linda 25
    29 March 2016 at 11:02 pm

    i see someone wants to shoot paula bennett i wonder why what could the evil bitch have done ?????shes quite a wide not exactly slim