As long as it’s a “successful election strategy” any minority is fair game right?
And this :-
" we have been systematically making the entire country more stupid for decades.
We learned long ago in this [media] business that dumber and more alarmist always beats complex and nuanced. Big headlines, cartoonish morality, scary criminals at home and foreign menaces abroad, they all sell. We decimated attention spans, rewarded hot-takers over thinkers, and created in audiences powerful addictions to conflict, vitriol, fear, self-righteousness, and race and gender resentment.
There isn't a news executive alive low enough to deny that we use xenophobia and racism to sell ads. Black people on TV for decades were almost always shirtless and chased by cops, and the "rock-throwing Arab" photo was a staple of international news sections even before 9/11. And when all else fails in the media world, just show more cleavage somewhere, and ratings go up, every time.
Donald Trump didn't just take advantage of these conditions. He was created in part by them. What's left of Trump's mind is like a parody of the average American media consumer: credulous, self-centered, manic, sex-obsessed, unfocused, and glued to stories that appeal to his sense of outrage and victimhood.
We've created a generation of people like this: anger addicts who can't read past the first page of a book. This is why the howls of outrage from within the ranks of the news media about Trump's election ring a little bit false. What the hell did we expect would happen? Who did we think would rise to prominence in our rage-filled, hyper-stimulated media environment? Sensitive geniuses?
We spent years selling the lowest common denominator. Now the lowest common denominator is president. How can it be anything but self-deception to pretend this is an innocent coincidence? "
I hear you. :-)
I'm not sure that you hear me. But just as well that I was here, eh?
"Thanks for adequately illustrating how entrenched the racism and apoligism is FG."
What would you have done without me? :-)
But you weren't saying that an anti-immigration bias is necessarily racist, I thought.
t you’ve not been paying close enough attention.
It’s true that farming communities can be inward looking, but I live in a Chinese market-gardening community, and I experience none of what you are describing.
And my four part-Maori children , and Maori/Asian grandchildren have a similar experience. Caucasians are the odd ones out in this little part of Australasia.
The historical example is just history . Nothing unusual at the time .
And extrapolating from the antics of the political class? As you say , they’ll do anything for a vote, which is what I was saying in reply to Neil"s musing about Labour cutting immigration. Here:-
I suggested some ways that they could “justify” curbing immigration while appearing to care for the environment and be non-racist at the same time. No more than vague plausibility is necessary.
We must move in very different circles. :-)
You can own "our entrenched racism" ; I don't think I want to be a part of that.
any future development of our land use
What do you have in mind there?
What we have done in Godzone to date is to produce fertile topsoils using introduced grasses and ruminants and soil amendments, and the management of those things.
our entrenched racism.
Xenophobia might be closer to the mark ; perhaps .
Race doesn't seem to come into it ; no target racial group . . . no particular racial group is the perpetrator.
I guess we will have to wait and see whether promises to cut immigration , for whatever reason, is a successful election strategy.
If it is a good strategy, would promises to see every NZer given the opportunity to develop to their full potential, via some serious attention to education , be an even better electoral strategy?
NZ ecosystems have not evolved with any ruminants.
And humans neither. Should we all go home?
If the thesis is that we should not grow these ruminant-ready Mediterranean grasses in our Mediterranean climate , then what should we grow?
The grasslands that we now have , co-evolved with ruminants.
We have the grasses . . . .now what?
we have a relatively minute population dwarfed by our current environmental issues.
The point might be that NZ produces protein to feed 20 million people. Should we plan to cease exporting food when our population reaches that number?
We could produce just enough for 5 million and enough extra to be able to bring in a few million more tourists.
We've got to sell something as long as we are in debt.
. Scapegoating immigrants for our incapacity to engage in sound environmental management
I don't see anyone doing that at present. But who knows what inanity is "beyond the pale" during an election campaign?
Here's what I was actually trying to get at:-
"Although all plants photosynthesize, no vegetation type beats grasses, which cover a greater area of the earth’s landmass than any other. And if that wasn’t enough, unlike forests, grasslands store most of the carbon they sequester from the atmosphere deep under the soil surface as organic matter, which actually increases fertility and enhances soil life in countless ways. That is why the great grain growing regions of the world are former grasslands, not forests.
"Grasslands are the most important ecosystem for human civilization.
When healthy, they purify the air, absorb and filter water and allow it to infiltrate back into underground reservoirs, they support immeasurable wildlife and biodiversity, and they build the deepest most fertile soils on the planet.
Grasslands are also home to more than 1 billion people who depend on them for their food and livelihoods."
Alan Savory is saying that if you want to save agriculture , then you must save the grasslands.
The question is :- "why would you want to save agriculture" , right?