Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks for the good work, Keith. Genuinely grateful you are shining some light into these dark corners- :)
-
The famous Dunedin longitudinal study did find a link between teen use of marijuana (generally before 18 and mostly younger) and bipolar disorder for a substantial proportion of the population (about 15% I think) who have a particular gene.
The correlation seemed to die away when marijuana use started later, and to be limited to those with the gene.
There was a great BBC (I think- British anyway) doco on this a few years ago.
There's a lot more work to be done, but it is very interesting- especially to those of us with the gene.
Oddly, when I tried googling marijuana and bipolar after watching the doco (and reading something of the Dunedin findings), all I could find were stories of users whose bipolar was, they (and sometimes family, friends and physicians) claimed, made managable by the drug.
I wouldn't completely discount this, either. But it's fairly clear: using marijuana- especially heavy use- poses some danger to anyone with a tendency to mental illness; and it's risky- if you have this gene, VERY risky- during puberty. -
Stephen- calm down :) Not remarkable as in CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY- remarkable as in: there was a lot of chatter/rumour/intel beforehand, all pointing to Bin Laden- so much it even made it to Chch :)
-
There was a lot of intelligence and rumour before the attacks. A few years back, while polishing my shoes on a bit of old newspaper, a headline caught my eye: Bin Laden 'mobilising for attack'
This was in the 'World´section of the Chch Press on June 25, 2001. It cited a correspondent from Quetta, who said he'd met Bin Laden a few days earlier in Afghanistan, and that "a major attack on United States and Israeli interests in the next two weeks" was planned.
The reporter was from an Arabic channel, MBC, who "had also talked with bin Laden's followers. 'All of them affirm that the next two weeks will witness a big surprise', the reporter said.
'A severe blow is expected against US and Israeli interests worldwide'."
Ok, 9/11 was about 10 weeks later, and maybe such rumours were semi-routine. But in hindsight, it seemed remarkable- that a smallish paper in NZ was reporting this in June 2001.
I can't understand why the simple and obvious explanation for 9/11- it was a(nother- they'd tried before) terrorist attack on the WTC by Al Queda- seems so hard for some to accept.
Bin Laden et al themselves claimed they were behind it.
Are there people who are somehow (by aliens:-) hard-wired to look past every obvious explanation for a conspiracy theory? -
Thanks Philip- that's a great Salinger story.
-
What the hell are they doing in Togo?
-
Congrats Graham- blimin' good!
And... jeebus- Whitcoulls owns Borders? Where have I been- and how did that slip past the commerce commission?
Strange they have shops so close. And even stranger that Whitcoulls (I still don't get this) sells most of the same books on-line (actually a bigger stock) for approx 2/3rds the price of getting it from a shop (or from Borders, in the two I've rung about recently) - and that includes postage to your door.
The downside is it seems to take 2 weeks or more to get 'em. Perhaps they've been rowed over from Oz? -
It's not light reading (unless you compare it to reading the original sources:) but this is a summary of (reasonably) current debate around Definitions of Art.
The conclusion? There are problems with all attempts so far to define art, and there is certainly no academic consensus.
ps- from wikipedia:Philosopher David Novitz has argued that disagreements about the definition of art are rarely the heart of the problem, rather that “the passionate concerns and interests that humans vest in their social life” are “so much a part of all classificatory disputes about art” (Novitz, 1996). According to Novitz, classificatory disputes are more often disputes about our values and where we are trying to go with our society than they are about theory proper.
More about heat than light- hm?
-
No sales of state assets in the first term, they said.
And Key and English will run in '11 on having kept this promise- and promising moderate, sensible sales...
And yet: 70% of Auckland's council business will be run by unaccountable boards- and if even 10% of that ends up moving to private providers- it's a lot of money.
Canterbury's water- a 'public asset' - is to be allocated by government appointed commisioners. How much of that will they allocate to private interests?
Mineral wealth mostly belongs to the crown- the sort of minerals they're considering, under conservation land, that's unquestionable. Those minerals are to be sold to private interests (very cheaply, it would seem, if the Govt only gets 1-2% of their value).
What it looks like is National/Act ruthlessly, systematically, almost ambitiously moving wealth from local bodies/crown/public domain into private hands whereever they can get away with it- and still say "See! No asset sales!"
Even if it's business as usual, the last few months look kind've audacious. As if they can't believe the polls are still so good... can't quite stop various ministers jumping ahead, pushing things a little too fast, maybe even over-reaching a little.
Wait up guys. The asset sales are sposed to kick in the second term, after we've won that pesky world-cup thing and got the polls open while the punters are still too drunk or too hung-over to think straight! -
How about a holographic weta then?
With a tourist in its jaws. If it can be climbing the sky-tower, too, please. Symbolism isn't always cheap :)