it's a water-themed christmas this year, so a little rain is not a worry.
snorkeling goat island, diving the poor knights, walking the bridge to waitangi, seeing the great expanse of ocean at cape reinga.
[sighs in expectation]
oh, and getting blisteringly pissed in the mount for new years, as is the fashion.
i/s, as i say, i listened to and got what you're saying. and, fortunately, emissions policy is nothing i have to touch in my working life.
that said, i don't think that any likely combination of contemporary persons in thorndon will deliver anything like a sustainable emissions outcome. no will on the part of the electorate.
i personally know people who saw the al gore film, freaked, went home and started recycling. two months later, back to driving the 4x4. why? "it was too hard to be green".
i think don's comment is the kernel of my long-standing scepticism towards kyoto.
after a conversation with i/s i've come round and think it is an acceptable approach (considering i only understand it in 'educated layman's' terms), but remain dubious that any real effort to cut carbon emissions will present itself in the future.
and, regarding the story about temperate forests contributing to global warming? hardly surprised it if were true. the basis of my scepticism is the relative simplicity of kyoto, i.e. tree pretty, car bad.
someone do me a favour and post this link http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
on DPF's latest foray into economics.
webmarshall is blocking it. which i think is possible basis for a very real conspiracy against the truth reaching kiwiblog...
i have been known to dance.
i had to stop when there was a threat to call a constable.
re: The Gathering, and that whole 90s dance-party scene.
was i the only person who thought, "wasn't disco the 70s?"
Once Brits and French and Spaniards and Portuguese with guns met cultures still using stone-tipped spears they, of course, prevailed.
i think you mean, "usually" prevailed.
in parts of australia the main factor in europeans favour was the horse, not the gun. they could gallop into populated areas very quickly, butcher half a dozen or so (muskets aren't all that accurate), and gallop out. fcking cowards...
on the other hand, in south america it was the good old fashioned plate amour that spared them. the aztecs and inca had obsidian weapons that shattered too easily.
but back on track. i agree with tze ming that pakeha is the most appropriate label for white new zealanders. but also need to reiterate that it is an ethnic label. 'new zealanders' is supposed to be the nationality. the fact that the national characteristics are dominated by pakeha characteristics is just a product of colonialism, and the natural inclination of nationalism.
a national identity is always dominated by the majority ethnicity.
tomorrow!!! make sure you add me to the list to get digital copies of those bands.
man, the calamari bushmen.... my first thought was "Wedding Present", but if someone had taken acid to watch them in a cheesy pub in tauranga in '90, then many weird thoughts would wander through their head.
not that i ever did that.
and the boogadagas. i think they were the first band to make me think, "you don't have to do bad pop to be great". it was almost as big a shock as the time someone said, "listen to this. no... stop listening to lloyd cole and commotions and just f...ing listen to this tape".
the sex pistols.
fletcher, i agree completely. there's documentary evidence from france that a person can have great education, speak perfect french with no foriegn accent, be wealthy, blah blah blah, and still not be regarded as 'french'. why? black. a lot of countries are like that.
dc_red. dunno. it's like i'm stereotyping stereotypers. which is fun in itself. that said, a lot of those 'new zealanders' were probably just passionate about their identity, and not necessary reactionary bigots. not that you named any.
and finally debs. you've clearly demonstrated the problem with introducing rationality to identity politics. the externalities you indicate need to exist separate from the two participants, but also be shared by them. two people don't make an identity group, but a large number of persons sharing a 'imagined community' do. enter mr. benedict anderson.
the kicker is that you have to identify with that imagined community, and have your identification verified by other members, plural. or else your identity will be 'fraught'. it just defies rationality because the process is so highly reflexive, subjective, and downright 'ornery.
witness the loonies claiming to be waitaha maori.
PS. yamis, ran out of time.