Hard News: That Buzzing Sound
757 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
I agree with giovanni. Great stuff Bart.
Excuse my ignorance here but what is the worst GE crop ever identified and what was the impact?
And what would we be missing if GE was banned worldwide, (hypothetical question).
-
Pete, I'm no fan of Rankin, but I found your last post odious and offensive. Suicide's no joke.
-
Is there a moderator in the house?
-
Apparently not...
-
Done. I took out the unfortunate attempt at humour, rather than the whole post. Everyone okay with that?
-
Nope -- come on Russell, WTF does that have to do with the position Rankin's been appointed to? And would this be open to discussion if, not to put too fine a point on it, you didn't loathe the person it was directed at?
-
Wow! More tolerant than me - personally I would have deleted the entire post as in poor taste, and not in the public interest.
-
Nope -- come on Russell, WTF does that have to do with the position Rankin's been appointed to? And would this be open to discussion if, not to put too fine a point on it, you didn't loathe the person it was directed at?
It addressed something that had been written in The Press, reproduced by Kiwiblog and referenced by me, so my initial inclination was not to delete the whole thing. But I did ask for your views and I've gone with that.
I did address it when I saw it, but I can't be on deck moderating all the time. My apologies if I got it wrong, but I don't think it was worse than your ghastly turn of phrase about Greg O'Connor and Len Snee this week.
But honestly? I did try and make clear in the original post that it's more that I'm staggered by the really explicit clash between the censurious moral message delivered by the For the Sake of Our Children Trust, and the actions of the person running it. Yes, that does make me judgemental.
-
And just to raise the mood a little, a nice column by Ann Chinn in (eh?) the ODT:
Families Commission appointee Christine Rankin this week told TV's Close Up: "I've come to understand that the very best place for little New Zealanders to be brought up, is with Mum and Dad.
"And you know, we never talk about that family unit any more, in case we offend someone who's not part of one. I think that's ridiculous."
I could not be sure, but she sounded as if she means to enforce the nuclear family as part of her role. "The Families Commission has got to get results."
So if, like many New Zealanders, you have a non-nuclear household and feel daunted by the prospect of change, here are some helpful hints for nuking your family...
... Do try to remember, when Christine Rankin pledges to stick up for people who are "different", she is talking about herself, not you. -
-
The messy business is front page of the Sunday News too.
-
The Sunday News stoops to a new low:
During the week of McAuley's funeral, Sunday News telephoned Rankin and MacIntyre to inquire whether they were in a relationship.
Dear God... I almost feel sorry for the pair now.
-
But is there ever any justification for this level of intrusion?
I think it was inevitable, not least because so many people who know those involved are willing, keen even, to talk to the press about it. McAuley's former boss still seems angry.
-
The Sunday News stoops to a new low:
Lord, that was a vile, vile article. The intrusion in McAuley's privacy alone is staggering - she was a fairly public person and why should I be told how she died, for crying out loud? Or that she lived in a 1.4 million dollar home in such and such street, for that matter. What's wrong with these fucking people?
I shall endeavour not to completely ruin what's left of my Sunday by avoiding Lhaws' opinion piece.
-
RB's link to Anna Chinn's good little read seems to be broke. I found it here.
-
is this the most obnoxious article yet from Laws?
Why would I read anything by Michael Laws? I really can't see how my life could possibly be improved by that.
-
is this the most obnoxious article yet from Laws?
By the end, I could actually feel my dignity shriveling and brain cells dying. Transcendentally awful and far beyond satire. Stephen is fortunate.
-
two people who should never have bred
Michael Lhaws mum & dad, really.
-
By the end, I could actually feel my dignity shriveling and brain cells dying. Transcendentally awful and far beyond satire. Stephen is fortunate.
And he did save the worst for the end, didn't he? How truly, truly vile.
-
But over the next 10 years you will see foods with altered nutritional content, anthocyanins, vitamins etc or reduced harmful compounds, reduced allergens or toxins. Foods that are higher quality at the supermarket because of improved shelf life or improved storage. And foods that are cheaper.
The risks that are posed by the introduction of species that have entirely new gene sequences - and the implications of that vertical transmission - are not yet understood by anyone Bart, certainly not by those who work in the sole field of biotechnology.
The nitrogen cycle that enables the rainforests to thrive depends on an intricate relationship between salmon, bears, ravens, flies and the sitka spruce was beyond the understanding of those working in forestry or fisheries. No single science was able to predict or intuit the crucial interdependence of those relationships. But interrupt just one element of that cycle and there goes your forest - and fisheries industries.
Likewise the introduction of cash crops as opposed to subsistence farming, and the clumsy attempt to eliminate malaria did not seem in any way likely to unleash a previously unknown haemorrhagic virus on the world, but that is exactly what happened in Machupo.
Canadian geneticist David Suzuki sums it up best:
"Perhaps the most frequently cited rationale to get on with genetic engineering as rapidly as possible goes like this: In order to avoid clearing more forests and draining wetlands to meet this need, proponents argue, the only option to protect nature and feed the masses is to increase yields per hectare through biotechnology.
"However, biotechnology is being driven by vast sums of speculative money. In order to justify those investments and to attract even more money, a product is needed. That's why so many companies have already foundered - they've failed to live up to the hype. The very survival of biotech companies depends on the expectation of profits from the company's products. Those products are made at enormous cost. But the people who are most desperately in need of food are also the
poorest. James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, claims that 1.3 billion people
exist on a dollar or less a day while three billion struggle on $2 or less daily. It would be a breathtaking reversal if free enterprise capitalists were suddenly overwhelmed with generosity and concern for those less well off and make GE products available at prices the needy can afford. Feeding the starving masses through biotech in the near future is a cruel hoax that cannot be taken seriously."To think that you can predict the outcome of the use of GE anywhere outside the lab is naive in the extreme. Again, Suzuki says it best:
" I have no doubt there will be important products that come out of genetic
engineering, but in the more distant future. It is the profit-driven rush to grow GE
organisms in the open where they may contaminate other species and to introduce new products into the market that is most disturbing. My major concerns are based on simple principles. Every scientist should understand that in any young, revolutionary discipline, most of the current ideas in the area are tentative and will fail to stand up to scrutiny over time. In other words, the bulk of the latest notions are wrong. This is by no means a knock on science, it is simply an acknowledgement that science progresses by demonstrating that current ideas are wrong or off the mark. The rush to exploit new products will be based on inaccurate hypotheses and questionable benefits could be downright dangerous. Reductionism, the focusing on parts with the goal of understanding the whole of a mechanistic universe, has been a productive methodological approach. Thus, scientists focus on a subatomic particle, an atom, a gene, cell or tissue, separate it from everything else, control everything impinging on that fragment, measure everything within it and thereby acquire profound insights - into that fragment. But physicists learned early in the last century that parts interact synergistically so that new properties emerge from their combination that could not be anticipated from their individual properties. After defining all of the physical properties of atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen, physicists would be at a total loss to anticipate the properties when two atoms of hydrogen are combined with one oxygen to make a molecule of water. Biologists and doctors have yet to internalize that understanding."And quite apart from the arguments that GE is beneficial or profitable, as philosopher John Ralston Saul has pointed out, why should companies have the right to foist their products on customers who do not which to purchase them?
-
I did address it when I saw it, but I can't be on deck moderating all the time. My apologies if I got it wrong, but I don't think it was worse than your ghastly turn of phrase about Greg O'Connor and Len Snee this week.
Oh wait a mo' there, darling... A ghastly turn of phrase which you (rightly) deleted without any discussion, and which I apologised for. And to be quite frank, don't use my most egregious lapses of taste as an excuse. I wouldn't. :)
And since when do you feel the need to reference the more sewerish outgassings of Kiwiblog?
I think it was inevitable, not least because so many people who know those involved are willing, keen even, to talk to the press about it.
An yet again: Does any editor actually exercise editorial judgment any more? "Everyone is doing it" is tiresome from children, unacceptable from teenagers and is plain obnoxious from alleged professionals who claim to be adults. I'm tempted to lay a formal complaint with the Press Council, but why bother? Even if successful, it doesn't seem to have enough teeth to even slow down the race to the bottom.
-
The story about Rankin's latest marriage is now big news. I know people will argue this is justified, as it evidences her hypocrisy.
Well, Scotty, I've heard some very tasty gossip about the circumstances of Trevor Mallard's divorce -- you know, the guy who (somewhat hypocritically) thought Don Brash's alleged sex-capades were a matter of public interest. I might keep it to myself, because no matter how big a colostomy bag the man is his private life deserves to be kept private.
One might also note that the media is well known for people who like taking a very high moral tone, despite their somewhat squalid domestic attangements. Wonder if they'd like a taste of their own poison?
-
An yet again: Does any editor actually exercise editorial judgment any more? "Everyone is doing it" is tiresome from children, unacceptable from teenagers and is plain obnoxious from alleged professionals who claim to be adults. I'm tempted to lay a formal complaint with the Press Council, but why bother? Even if successful, it doesn't seem to have enough teeth to even slow down the race to the bottom.
Quite. How they have the stomach to still hold the Qantas Media Awards is frankly beyond me.
(The DomPost the other day boasted having been a finalist for best newspaper. Which begs the question: how do you not at least make the finals for best newspaper in a country with three major newspapers?)
-
And, as it is all related, is this the most obnoxious article yet from Laws?
Man, is there some kind of sinister Dancing with the Stars conspiracy afoot in this country, or what?
-
Craig, Rankin has made a career in recent years of telling others how they should live their lives. So a public inspection of her own personal life was always inevitable.
However, there's a line the media shouldn't cross. The Sunday News and HOS crossed that line and then kept on running.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.