Posts by Steve Withers
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Kyle: Ok, I see how the carbon sink element would work as opposed to oil. Using that idea, trees that take a generation to grow before being used for fuel would make more sense than corn. Corn would reach its maximum level of carbon sequestration in only a few months and retain it for for merely days or weeks. On an annual basis the net effect would be close to nil as the fuel thus produced was released while the next crop grew. Unless plantings expanded on an exponential basis, ther would be little net benefit over time. Never mind the land management issues and consequencs for food supply.
-
Peter: If we don't curb the growth of human population, the future Lovelock foretells won't be crazy at all. It will be inevitable. There will be "Rwandas" happening all over the place as people take drastic , short term steps to free up resources....temporarily.
-
idiot savant: I agree with you about the risks of "empericising" the race debate. You make a very good point. Equally valid is that simply bashing people who say these things doesn't work. It fails to address the substance or the affect of what they say and further it risks making them look like martyrs at the hands of a PC 'mob'. Whether one gets into the evidence or not about the claims made, any effective response needs to be measured, constructive and positive and to engage undecided persons with a view to winning the argument and discrediting the position that supports racism.
-
Firstly, thank you for clearly expressing several of the impressions wafting around, ill-defined, in the back of my mind as I have observed NZ political developments over recent months. There also is now a growing gap between the "Myth of Key" and the reality. I look at National today and see many of the same faces that cheerfully backed Brash. How different are they really? Is Key the leader defining National? Or is he the bland mask over the same neo-liberal faith-laden old face? History and recent events where Key has had to later retract his words suggest the latter.
I tend to abhor unfounded faith and the belief among many that the policies of the 80s must be extended further smacks of the worst sort of religion. Your 'god' has not answered your prayers....so you pray HARDER. If it didn't work yesterday or any other day, maybe if you just believe MORE it will happen today. If the consequences of all this are contrary to expectations, the faith cannot be wrong, you must not be doing it right. ...and so on.
As for immigration, my eldest daughter finds herself facing employment contracts that are utterly one-sided. Any hours, any time, for as long as required, on any day....for the minimum wage 9if you can coax them to pay that much). You're paid under the table until the "probation" period is over. No wonder young Kiwis are fleeing the country. Where is the future in that? Sure, she could take on a mortgage-sized student loan and be penniless until she's 30. She doesn't see a future there, either.
Thank you for posting this. My own thoughts and experiences and questions to myself about "stuff" are now more integrated as a result.
-
I do recall people active in energy issues warning that a move to biofuels could impact on food prices and that any major move in that direction could be very dumb. Not much new there. Just the continuing amazement that some politicians and segments of the public were fooled yet again. With respect to climate change, I never could see how burning carbon-based bio-fuels could claim to be much better than burning carbon-based fossil fuels. Yes, you have an added degree of energy independence, but nothing to do with climate change in any significant way.
As for China and the FTA, I have no problems with a free trade agreement with another democratic country that operates under the rule of law and where we know the justice system is generally reliable. None of these attributes can be correctly attributed to China. Even an FTA with the United States would make some sense, despite that country's considerable history of ignoring the terms of the free trade agreements they sign when they are contrary to politically powerful domestic interests, as Canadians well know after nearly 20 years of NAFTA. The soft timber dispute was only resolved when the US attempted to coax Canada into joining the invasion of Iraq.
China is a whole other thing. They arrest and imprison or kill people who simply want to vote for who governs their country. I do have real concerns that binding New Zealand's future to an unaccountable and ruthless dictatorship disrespectful of human rights will leave a small country like ours little latitude for action when major human rights issues do arise. How large an outrage would be required to make us draw back? A thousand dead? A hundred thousand? A million? Or are we ready to do anything, pay any price, for the "baubles of office" associated with an FTA with China?
I'm not opposed to free trade conducted fairly and regulated by robust institutions that have integrity. With respect to China, we should have thought very carefully before risking selling our liberal democratic souls for a few pieces of silver. I still haven't seen the detailed agreement. But whatever is in the agreement signed, we should have been be prudent and also consider what else we may be be giving up in order to maintain this new and important (to us) relationship with a China that is not only not democratic, but a ruthless dictator. As an emerging superpower, unaccountable capricious power is theirs to exercise and ours to fear.
I'm not saying it's inevitable. But history indicates it's a matter of when, not if. Are we ready to face this future? Here it comes, ready or not.
-
For any party hack, missing the point is the whole point. Spin relies on not touching, or touching as little as possible, that part of any argument or topic that damages your own case. Being accountable for what you say is something you insist on for the OTHER guys. It's the very essence of hackery.
-
Using "acknowledge" like a swear word misses the point. Ever heard of "feel, felt, found"? First you tell the person you hear what they are saying. You can plac what they said in a wider context by saying that you know of many others who felt that way, too. Then you move on to say that hen you looked at the facts, you found that the feeling wasn't valid. They may refuse to accept that. But if they do choose to deny what is verifiably true (assuming it is) then their integrity is on the line. They may be cynical and not care. But people looking on usually see that cynicism for what it is.
-
I was unhappy to hear the people bashing Peter Brown for saying what he said. Instead, they should have asked why he felt the need to say it. The comment that caught my ear from Brown was the speculation that most of the Asians coming into New Zealand won't speak English. The reality is that as of 2 years ago, the English language requirements for immigration to New Zealand are of a sufficiently high standard that many if not most native born Kiwis would be seriously challenged trying to achieve it. The real concern under all this may well be related to some adherents of Islam who do refus to integrate. The "Caliphate" in Germany is one example. The followers of that group treat their enclosure as though it were a separate jurisdiction. But that is the exception and not the rule. There is no comparable group in New Zealand and no real prospect of any, either. The argument that immigration should be thought out isn't without merit. Where Mr. Brown goes off the rails is in assuming that immigration to NZ has not been thought out. It has. As you say, we shouldn't kick him for being ignorant. We should instead dadress the ignorance, point by point, fact by fact. Patiently. Until he and others who just don't know catch on. Rinse and repeat for any other issue where beliefs and attitudes are at odds with the verifiable facts.The truth will set them free.
-
Cecelia: Paul Henry is a repulsive TV presence. I used to watch a bit of the morning show with my elderly mother-in-law when I popped in before work to make sure she was OK for the day. He is patronising, condescending, ego-centric, rude and too often belittles the people he is covering for being passionate about the thing they are doing. I find noone of that informative or entertaining. Henry is the very best reason to turn the TV off. There will be nothing to see there worth seeing if he is on. of course, that's just MY opinion. :-) .
-
Just watched the whole show. You're off to a good start. I learned some things I didn't know before about the medal / media interaction. Glenda's comments on the media were worth hearing. Particularly interesting to me was the use of her by the media to take the pressure off. I know she meant with respect to the person at the centre of the story, but one could also see her being used to remove pressure from above on the journalist if Glenda was involved. "Win / win". All the stories were interesting, if not compelling (Sunday Star Times "Sunday" segment was probably a bit too long for me, but then that's just me.) The issue was clear, the action taken clear and - from the reaction - appropriate. So it boils down to curiosity about something we didn't know had happened anyway. I'm a curious guy, so it was interesting to hear about it situation and the action taken. The zinger at the end about the paul Thompson and the offensive danish cartoons being printed was a bit gratuitous. Profanity in the usual sense doesn't line up necessarily with the cartoon images of Mohammed in a *Kiwi* context. Not sure the Herald / APEC angle needed to be included. Appropriate for context, but it padded it out and wasn't directly relevant in terms of four-letter words and descriptions of oral sex. As for you, Russell, your body language was just a bit on the stiff side. I would be too, in the first show. I can just imagine the overhead involved in being the host and this being the first show. :-) You will relax into it and we'll see more smiles / frowns / expression. Might be easier to see what's happening no your face of you shaved. JUST A SUGGESTION!!!! :-) Overall, more than good enough to see me watching regularly. I've love to see a segment on foreign ownership of NZ media. I don't agree with Winston Peters on many things, but the foreign ownership of NZ's media struck a chord with me. In recent years, the print media outlets who regularly editorialise the US right wing loving political line (DomPost, NZ Herald) are almost without exception foreign owned. Why was/IS that? The NZ Herald is currently besotted with John McCain; the man who STILL thinks invading Iraq was a clever thing to do.