Sunday Reading

14 comments on “Sunday Reading ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Dr Terry 1

   25 November 2012 at 10:54 am

   I think we do have to accept that politicians (especially Party leaders) are but human, with all associated frailties, like the rest of us. Sometimes I know that I expect too much of them. Nevertheless, they wanted the job, and they are well rewarded for performing their tasks. They must take what goes with it. Hopefully, most politicians are not overly “thin-skinned”! Hopefully too, they have the skills and desire to listen and to hear the voice of the people (whether pro or anti).
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   25 November 2012 at 12:39 pm

   From austerity is here to stay

   In China, a nation where annual growth in the last 20 years has never been less than twice that of Europe, even when Europe was thriving, a new leadership is seamlessly introduced for another 10-year span.

   In Europe, by contrast, a series of weak leaders, vulnerable to democratic rejection of a sort with which Xi Jinping will not need to concern himself, struggle to assert some degree of control over a floundering currency and unification project. Meanwhile in the US, a re-elected but domestically weak president faces a series of defining political battles over spending and taxes, with only limited chance of achieving radical outcomes, even if that is what he wants.

   See, that’s a disturbing passage as it implies that democracy is the problem and that the solution is actually more authoritarian actions by the government. Pretty sure that the right wing parties like National will like it though as they tend to authoritarian modes of government – just look to Canterbury and the implementation of the Auckland Supercity.

   Actually, that entire article seems to be in favour of the rich ruling everyone else.
   • Populuxe1 2.1

     25 November 2012 at 3:39 pm

     Economic growth is hardly an adequate measure of standard of living.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       25 November 2012 at 4:13 pm

       Yep. Especially when 95% of the benefits of that growth get channeled to the top 5%.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2

       25 November 2012 at 7:17 pm

       Agreed, economic growth is used to hide the fact that only a few people benefit from our economy while everyone else is promised more if growth continues. Personally, I’m in favour of “economic”* contraction. IMO, we can significantly reduce our use of resources while maintaining a good living standard.

       * What passes for economics these days isn’t even close to it. Economics is about the use of scarce resources while the “economists” go on about money.
3. Rogue Trooper 3

   25 November 2012 at 12:49 pm

   Well, U know what i think by now 🙂
4. McFlock 4

   25 November 2012 at 1:55 pm

   really interesting links, thanks 🙂
5. Jenny 5

   25 November 2012 at 2:12 pm

   ‘

   World Bank urge action to stop the 4C warming

   Thanks for this Bunji

   It seems clear that climate change in a 4°C world could seriously undermine poverty alleviation in many regions. This is supported by past observations of the negative effects of climate change on economic growth in developing countries. While developed countries have been and are projected to be adversely affected by impacts resulting from climate change, adaptive capacities in developing regions are weaker. The burden of climate change in the future will very likely be borne differentially by those in regions already highly vulnerable to climate change and variability. Given that it remains uncertain whether adaptation and further progress toward development goals will be possible at this level of climate change, the projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur—the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen.

   World Bank

   As leader of the UN development programme for developing countries, this explains why Helen Clark made discussion of climate change such a big part of her recent lectures in Wellington and Dunedin leading up to the Labour Party Conference. It also explains why Shearer very pointedly stayed away.

   Least developed countries and small island developing states have done the least to cause climate change, and can least afford the costs of adaptation and mitigation to it, but they are most at risk from increased climate volatility…..

   “It would be a tragedy for future generations if today’s leaders and decision-makers prove incapable of taking the bold decisions which are necessary to stop catastrophic and irreversible change to the world’s climate.”

   Helen Clark From speech delivered at Victoria University, Nov. 13, 2012

   Dealing with climate change needed urgent, radical transformation because climate change exacerbated inequalities

   Helen Clark From speech delivered in Dunedin’s Mayfair theatre, Nov. 14, 2012

   Helen Clark, head of the UN development programme, argues that “climate change undermines gains in the developing world, threatening their lives, their livelihoods, and their countries’ prospects”. She adds that the “international community needs to make the transition to green and inclusive economies that tackle inequality, advance development and stop the ongoing assault on our ecosystem”.

   Helen Clark The Guardian, Nov. 23, 2012

   At the end of her speech at Wellington’s Victoria University Clark went to up to parliament to see David Shearer who had chosen not to attend her lecture. As she reports it, Shearer to meet her was sitting in his beehive office strumming his guitar. The almost studied insult conveyed by Shearer’s body language, whether conscious or unconscious, couldn’t have been clearer. I am not that busy and could have attended your lecture, but chose not to. I do not have enough respect for you or your views to extend you any sort of formal greeting.

   Clark has refused to divulge anything of her conversation with Shearer. But you can bet that Shearer would not have taken much notice of Clark’s message on climate change and the need to take the bold decisions necessary to combat it.
   • Populuxe1 5.1

     25 November 2012 at 3:42 pm

     I’m not quite sure I grasp how climate change exacerbates inequalities excep that the “haves” find it easier to move away from drought-affected or flooded areas than the “have nots”.
     • kiwi_prometheus 5.1.1

       25 November 2012 at 3:57 pm

       Because it is poor nations that are taking the brunt of the climate change disaster, pushing them further down the socioeconomic development ladder – while it is mostly advanced industrial countries who have brought about climate change with 150yrs or so of economic development.
6. Rogue Trooper 6

   25 November 2012 at 3:02 pm

   To little miss can’t be wrong,
   (not you Jenny)

   Dear Sam, a Telegram
   a blue Tale 😉

   “Based on the television series of the same name, John Bradshaw focuses on the dynamics of the family
   how the rules and attitudes learned while growing up become encoded within each family Member”
   (mirror in the bathroom) “As 96% of all families are to some degree emotionally impaired” (Go West)
   “the unhealthy rules we are now living by are handed down from generation to generation”
   -this generation shall not see it ” and ultimately to society at large. Our society is sick
   because our families are sick. And our families are sick because we are living inherited rules
   we never wrote”
   Bradshaw on The Family: A Revolutionary Way (well Popular Culture really) of Self-Discovery

   The funniest track I have seen lately was a cat backing out of the box three times.larf? ^^

   Love, RocketMan,
   “I’m not the man they think I am at home…….”

   but you hang there in your Jesus Christ Pose
7. kiwi_prometheus 7

   25 November 2012 at 4:08 pm

   ” 19% of Congress is female, why not half?”

   The conclusion of the article that women just need more encouragement is kind of lame.

   Why does the author refuse to consider the possibility that female aversion to a political career is genetic?

   After all I don’t see the Race, Gender and Culture Warriors of the Left asking why only 0.000000000001% of remote exploration drillers offsiders or concreters in the Pilbara WA are female instead of 50%?
   • lprent 7.1

     25 November 2012 at 6:27 pm

     …why only 0.000000000001% of… in the Pilbara WA are female instead of 50%?

     Since that would imply a population in Pilbara WA that exceeds the world population by many orders of magnitude (I didn’t bother counting zeros), then I suspect that many if not most of your readers would consider that your argument is most likely 100% crap.

     If you are going to use figures to support an argument, then don’t be a complete fuckwit on how you use them. Without even looking at anything else, I looked at the number you used, the geographic area you described, and relegated your demographic argument (and you) to the ignorant bullshitter fringe.
   • Ben Clark 7.2

     26 November 2012 at 12:52 pm

     the possibility that female aversion to a political career is genetic?
     I see you’re channeling Tony Abbott.

     More likely is that our political system is inherently sexist, from old school ties to the adverserial nature of parliamentary proceedings, and that’s somewhat off-putting to a large number of potential female candidates…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS