by frog
As requested.
Published in THE GAME by frog on Thu, July 30th, 2009
Tags: general debate
General Debate, July 30, 2009
Published: July 30, 2009
Comment via Facebook
76 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
didya hear the ‘good news’ about whoar..?
(i’m sorry..!..but i can’t help/resist having a little boast..)
my site was evaluated yesterday..
..and up popped this little gem..
“..Technorati is a popular blog directory service. It measures the popularity of a given blog as compared to all other sites that have been submitted to its system.
This blog currently has a Technorati rank of 621,591, which puts it in the top 0.89% of blogs tracked by Technorati. .”
..and that’s globally..
whoar..!..eh..?
(bidders can form an orderly queue on the left..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bye bye nanny state. Hello bully state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s an editorial in the Chch Press Today unequivocally supporting Paula Bennet.
What we need now is revelations of what workers earn (albeit acutely embarrassing for many people). My friends partner is a seamstress and you can’t shut her up about the DPB as she knows someone recieving more than her and this woman gets pregnant at strategic points in time.
The other point about the DPB is that while we help people in trouble it appears that people see it as a lifestyle choice and so by their choices end up on the DPB; they then see themselves as performing a valuable community service. Perhaps those who are opposed to abortion should pay a special DPB tax?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Bye bye nanny state. Hello bully state.
Shoot the messenger, wh. How dare she let the public know the sordid truth about lifestyler socialism!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The case of the snatched body the “The judge has said that the collective will of Tuhoe could not be imposed on his executor and over his body unless he made it clear during his life that he lived in accordance with Tuhoe tikanga,”
This demonstrates one thing
The Treaty is like a giant squid with many tentacles. The Greens are very vocal regarding the Treaty “bring on the Giant Squid” What happens in fact is the tentacles advance and they are nipped in the bud.
I don’t think we’ll see the Green Party joining any occupation of Brighton Pier (Hikoi yes)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David Garrett, accused yesterday of bullying corrections staff, threatening their job security.
Toad is correct.
Simon Power’s bullying comments about Dame Sian Elias.
Toad is correct.
‘Crusher Collins’ bullies boys.
Toad is correct.
Bully State. State Bullying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Bully State. State Bullying.
Meet the new boss, same as the Helen boss.
Getting a taste of what the business community has been getting from government for the past nine years, eh?
What goes around comes around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This blog currently has a Technorati rank of 621,591, which puts it in the top 0.89% of blogs tracked by Technorati. .”
a fast current
of left-wing information
pursued
in reaction to the spit
and ringing in their ears
Phil delivers in kiwiblog.
…eh!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This Government (and the last one) have made no secret of the fact they want to Jail as many people as possible.
Want to bet on Slave labour being on the Agenda?
What’d someone say – ‘fire up the Gulags Mark’
No. I’d pin my hopes on rehabilitation – and not the bs kind.
Just cos Government signs it into Law – doesn’t mean its not a Hate Crime.
Maybe the Nats should have a look at Dick Cheney’s prospects as a maker of number plates (indefinitely) before they go too far with their tyrannical Scoundrel Act(s)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Labour also were happy to cultivate the bully state – I recall police guidelines being changed to make it OK to move on protestors who might embarras foreign visitors – the profound sensitivities of Chinese governemt officials being the main concern.
“The Treaty is like a giant squid with many tentacles.”
Uh, what has this example got to do with the Treaty? Nothing, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Uh, what has this example got to do with the Treaty? Nothing, right?
But I recall reading that tikanga should dominate our common law in Aotearoa.
I’ll look it up later> Professor Margaret Mutu quoted in Civil War by David Slack.
The Giant Squid and tentacle analogy is a very good one if I may say so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it true the green Party is considering a name change: “Bradford Know Best” or BKB Party of Aotearoa?
I read it here:
http://big-news.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I tangle with the Privacy Act on a fairly regular basis so have some history on this stuff. The long and short of it is that the Privacy Commissioner upon investigation should find that the Privacy Act (and in particular, Principle Eleven) was breeched, in other words the law was broken.
Sadly the relevant law is quite toothless so despite the law being broken the perpetrators are guaranteed to walk away unscathed.
Worse than that I cant see any way that Paula should even have been able to find out the information she released. Paula (who I quite like) does what she always does (though I lament that she’s become all ministery now she’s a minister); she shoots from the hip without too much thought. She has a fairly well calibrated moral compass, and thus usually ends up on the side of right, and in this case a lot of folks seem to agree with her.
But had the processes in place worked and the people involved done their jobs properly she would never have had the information to release in the first place. Personal data does not belong to the gubbermint, it belongs to the individual it relates to.
The guns are pointing in the wrong direction on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But I recall reading that tikanga should dominate our common law in Aotearoa.”
So what does this have to do with the Treaty?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s what a tipping point looks like –
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7255/abs/nature08216.html
I am not sure that we can avoid this even with 40%.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“There can be little doubt that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to enter into some kind of partnership and power sharing in the new system.”
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
That’s sounds pretty squiddy and far reaching right there. If you wanted to complain, you should have done so in 1840.
I call Waitangi Day “National Long Supply Line Day”.
If you look at the history of the world, especially Africa, the Brits made lots of treaties….and then ratted on them so comprehensively that nobody remembers them!
Except in NZ, where the Brits were at the end of the longest possible military supply line on the planet. Which is probably the only reason why anyone still remembers the Waitangi Treaty.
You do know why The British Empire was The Empire on Which The Sun would never Set?
Some claimed it was because it was always daylight on some part of the empire…but really it was because you could never trust a Brit in the dark.
)
Ah well, having looked at more than my fair share of ex-brit colonies, NZ has one of the nicest and fairest of societies. Personally I suspect the Maori are to thank for that.
I say this all as a British colonial myself… so the jokes and insults are all on me anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yeah..bj..i know..!
the bloody peat..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Sam Buchanan Says:
July 30th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“But I recall reading that tikanga should dominate our common law in Aotearoa.”
So what does this have to do with the Treaty?”
This From Kevin Hague MP might help:
“Let us be clear that the meaning of the Treaty must be determined from the Maori text. Those writers of angry letters to the editor who cite the plain cession of sovereignty of the English text and declare “game over” in fact ignore the law, which makes it the responsibility of the party offering a contract to ensure that the party accepting it fully understands it. If disputes arise, interpretations of the contract are to be made according to the understanding of the accepting party rather than the party that drew up the contract.
This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant. At the heart of this deal, the “tino Rangatiratanga” of Maori would be respected by the British Crown and Maori would have all the right of British subjects, in return for a cession of “kawanatanga”. Kawanatanga was a made up word, based on “kawana” (for Governor). Maori were familiar with this new word because it was the Maori word that had been coined to describe the role of Pontius Pilate in the translation of the Bible. Explanations given to Maori at the time of signing emphasised the role of this kawanatanga in curbing the excesses of Pakeha settlers and protecting Maori. In contrast the Biblical use of Rangatiratanga had been to describe the Kingdom of God.
It is plain that sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty, but rather Pakeha were given a basis for establishing government (of Pakeha). No wonder the historical record is of Maori disillusionment and anger since.
Obviously the case can be argued in much more detail than this, but this is the essence. A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.
As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi* Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.
Go Kev!
http://ja-jp.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=23401239322
* Foriegner
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Carter Says:
July 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“There can be little doubt that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to enter into some kind of partnership and power sharing in the new system.”
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/difference s-between-the-texts
That’s sounds pretty squiddy and far reaching right there. If you wanted to complain, you should have done so in 1840.
……….
I’m not complaining although I disagree with “some kind of power sharing”
I don’t think fighting Chiefs were pussy cats who gave up power so easily and while people like to interpret the treaty as having some benevolent (to all) and flexible meaning where Maori sit in and enjoy cakes after the meeting the treaty says that the power of the chiefs is largely unchanged but that when you try to apply it it is like digging around the roots of trees in a forest to give advantage to your favoured tree.
David Slack interviews a wide range of people in his book Bulls**t Backlash and Bleeding Hearts and this (I think) is as good an explanation as any:
”
Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. He grew up in Tahiti, learning to speak Tahitian fluently – an advantage, he says, when it came to understanding Maori later in his career. He trained in law, becoming a lecturer, and early in his academic career in the 1970s began introducing material into the courses that he was teaching. ‘I can remember when one used to get sort of whistled for it from the back rows of very large law classes.’ That continued through the 1970s, and when he came back to New Zealand, he found himself building more and more of the Treaty work. Then he began advising Maori groups on various matters and was involved in the first of the modern Tribunal hearings – Motunui – in 1983. In 1988 he was asked to head up the Treaty of Waitangi unit in the Ministry of Justice; so from being a commentator and a teacher on the Treaty he moved to
responsibilities of advising government.
People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’
I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede.
So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was
assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be – have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.
So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background.
We’ll be coming back to this later, but it’s also worth bearing in mind that as much as you need to find out what the words mean, and what the parties understood them to mean, it’s also important to keep the broad perspective that asks: who was signing this, why were they signing this, and what did they expect? As Alex Frame says, there was a bit of a gamble going
on here on both sides. “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All in the service of the wealth party.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141481/executives_receive_one-third_of_all_pay_in_the_u.s./
Who reap the rewards but do NOT pay into Social Security, or health, or for their share of the misbegotten wars they insist are so necessary.
This is the altar at which the NatLabs worship.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Looking at the history of elsewhen in the world, I say you’re right. The Brits were gambling. Gambling on the treaty keeping the Maori quiet until the bigger gunships could arrive. Much though I like my ancestors… they were amazingly arrogant rogues and adventurers. So deep fine legal readings as to who meant what is quite meaningless. In that day, in that age the meaning under the words was ‘We English are superior, suck it up.” The Blue trolls of this day and age are worthy children of their fathers.
I suspect you’re right too about rangatiratanga… it’s a far more powerful and potentially nasty thing than any modern liberal conscience would stomach.
The real question now is how to create an equitable society going forward, that screws the Maori a darn sight less than the tooth and nail legalistic fight over every word and clause of treaty and law.
As I keep saying to women…why fight for equality with men. Male society stinks, you deserve and can create something much better.
I say the same to the Maori, don’t fight for parity with the Pakeha. Pakeha society stinks. Don’t fight to recover ye old maori society, it wasn’t exactly a bed of roses for the blokes at the bottom of the pile either.
The treaty was a tool to get some small measure of Justice out of the cold legalistic hands of the Pakeha.
But even if you could wave a magic wand and get every letter of the Maori version of the treaty truly embedded in NZ society…you deserve and should be able to get better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Sam Buchanan Says:
July 30th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“But I recall reading that tikanga should dominate our common law in Aotearoa.”
So what does this have to do with the Treaty?”
————-
Consider what Ani Mikaere had to say in the 2004 Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture: for Pakeha to gain legitimacy here, she said, it is they who must place their trust in Maori, not the other way around. ‘lt is the wronged party who is being expected to submit to terms imposed by the wrongdoer.
l regard tikanga as the first law of Aotearoa. lt arrived here with our ancestors and it operated effectively to serve their needs for a thousand years before Pakeha came, lt was the only system of law in operation when the first Pakeha began living here amongst us. Had the reaffirmation of Maori authority in the second article of Te Tiriti o Waitangi been adhered to, the relationship between Pakeha and Maori would have been regulated by tikanga Maori throughout our shared history. l believe it would have resulted in a far healthier relationship than the one we currently have.
From Civil War By David Slack
Kevin Hague
Green MP ($131,000 p.a + extras)
“A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.
As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi* Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.”
*foreigner
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data, more than one-third of all pay in the U.S. now goes to executives and other highly-paid employees:
$131,000 +allowances?
roll: 
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Carter Says:
July 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Looking at the history of elsewhere in the world, I say you’re right. The Brits were gambling. Gambling on the treaty keeping the Maori quiet until the bigger gunships could arrive. Much though I like my ancestors… they were amazingly arrogant rogues and adventurers. So deep fine legal readings as to who meant what is quite meaningless. In that day, in that age the meaning under the words was ‘We English are superior, suck it up.” The Blue trolls of this day and age are worthy children of their fathers.
……
Remember there was not internet or satellite phones back then, it was a 6month round trip back to the UK. The missionaries and Hobson (who didn’t want the treaty assignment) had other lives and simply couldn’t get agreement without obscuring the issue of sovereignty (imagine travelling in those days).
At that time the New Zealand Company had mass colonisation under way and humanitarians from the church missionary Society and Society for the Protection of Aborigines were quite active in the Colonial Office. Slaves had recently be set free in the British Empire. It was when masses of people started to arrive wanting to farm the land that problems started and Maori learned that the treaty had to be [affirmed/ given the go ahead] by parliament.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So if executive pay were cut by a few million, they’d be in the ballpark of an MP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
$131,000 could support 3 people on the DPB!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cripes: I’m a Dad
$50M TO EMBARK ON MOTHERHOOD UNSUPPORTED
Thursday, 30 July, 2009
Thousands of young women are using the welfare system to embark on motherhood with no partner or financial support.
The claim comes from welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell who says that figures show that during 2008 2,300 females aged 18-24 years-old transferred from a pregnancy-related sickness benefit to the domestic purposes benefit. “These are young women who had no partner or financial support before or after birth.”
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Political persuasions aside, some MPs and Ministers are not worth half their salaries, while others most certainly are worth more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
6:13 pm jh; yup, and the other half goes to pay them……simpler than you’d reckon really,,,
They should spend three days a week on street corners in their Electorate, pants down, no excuses, live off tips from their supporters – mobile democracies are so much more portable.
“More English Than the English” Nixon called us – ’bout right too.
the Grande Old Age of Government Limo’s is the biggest persuader in town
Who are you voting for jh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Come again?????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Referendum day today. I assume we get an enveolpe in the post?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And make sure you get one:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587760
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The return envelope with no doubt be ‘self stamped’ – a subtle ploy by the initiators of the referendum to desensitise the public to language that is subliminally carrying a violent message.
Fortunately, the ‘stamp’ will be on an envelope and the message most strongly carried by that word is one of love.
Complex, these issues, aren’t they!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A big “No” to Sue and her police state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH – I still fail to see what the Treaty has to do with common law and the example you started with. As I understand it, common law draws on tradtions, established ways of doing things, general practice etc. the existence or non-existence of a Treaty doesn’t enter in to it. Had there been no Treaty, the issue of different customs and traditions being followed by different branches of a family – hence the unfortunate dispute about the burial of James Takamore – would still have existed.
“The missionaries and Hobson (who didn’t want the treaty assignment) had other lives and simply couldn’t get agreement without obscuring the issue of sovereignty (imagine travelling in those days).”
I recall reading (in Claudia Orange I think) that one of the British dudes hawking the Treaty around the place was specifically asked “If we are attacked by another iwi, will you intervene” and said nope – we’d just mediate. That seems a fairly clear expression of kawanatanga. We won’t enforce our authority, just act in a sort of advisory role, at least when it comes to issues between Maori.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter said:
A big “No”..
Your ‘no’ will have to be the same size as anyone else’s, no matter how important you might think you are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well I’m really important so my NO will be even bigger than your yes Mc fly!!
Its still not too late greenfly.
Vote NO to state oppression of parents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(The setting: Shunda’s home, 2020)
Shunda’s son: “Father?”
Shunda: “Yes son?”
Shunda’s son: “Did you vote for bringing back smacking in 2009?”
Shunda: “Yes son, I did. It was for your own good, you know”
Shunda’s son: “Oh. Thank you ever so much father. Father?”
Shunda: “Yes son?”
Shunda’s son: ” I should smack my own children then? As I see fit?”
Shunda: ” Yes son”.
Shunda’s son: “Thank you father”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Theft fears as smacking ballot hits letterboxes
4:00AM Friday Jul 31, 2009
By Simon Collins
.
A record roll of just over 3 million New Zealanders will start receiving voting papers today for the country’s first citizens-initiated referendum to be conducted by postal vote.
The ballot, asking whether smacking should be a criminal offence, raised fears yesterday that enthusiasts on both sides may try to corrupt the vote by stealing voting papers from letterboxes over the next few days.
Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden urged voters to alert him to any possible interference by ringing his office’s tollfree number if they have not received voting papers by next week.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587760
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If your too dumb to understand the question your opinion isn’t so important anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The book came yesterday afternoon.
Most notably absent was any comparison of stable periods of similar CO2 in the paleoclimate, with the current situation. I have referred to this a few times. The evidence isn’t as reliable as recent data but it corroborates independently the results of the models he discusses at such length. A stable plus 3 degrees and 20+ meters of ocean at current levels of CO2.
This makes less likely some of the notions (Lindzen , Spencer, et.al. ) that the system is self-correcting through alteration of clouds or the “iris” effect.
It also makes it necessary for the cosmic-ray effect to have a real trend and be repeated at such intervals in order to really be explicative. Not impossible, but another hoop for the competing theory to jump through.
More use of the paleoclimate would have made the book complete – and significantly lengthened it – possibly beyond my ability to read it in 6 hours.
Minor quibble, a graph with a trend is presented with the heading “no trend here”, drawn directly from Spencer’s website but notably not from his science. This is in a bit that was (I suspect) contributed by the loyal opposition relating to “The Hockey Stick”.
I have few real quibbles other than that.
The representation of the “Hockey Stick” seemed pretty reasonable though some of the verbiage around that bit of news seems extreme. It made me think some more about the problems with the proxies there, more than I have done since about 2004 when I decided that Mann was pushing on a string. Significant to me is the question, why do the proxies only go up “just so high” compared to the instrument record, and then quit?
Since the proxies are almost entirely related to living organisms the question of what growth limiting mechanisms other than temperature are relevant. and I immediately thought of soil moisture. If the current conditions are any measure of how this goes, there are significant deficits of rainfall in places where we used to see plenty. Which implies that the proxies do NOT tell the temperature story past a certain point. A low-pass filter perhaps? It looks like a definite cut-off. This in turn implies that we haven’t sufficient evidence to say what the actual temperature was in the MWP, or indeed any time these proxies bump against that upper limit.
The “arrogance” of the IPCC is repeatedly described. I don’t know if that is a fair characterization. It seems like editorializing about a process that isn’t particularly geared towards the understanding of Joe-Six-Pack. On the basis of the Hockey-Stick business, this is a bit unnerving throughout the book. The “sceptics” get a greater amount of leeway IMHO, in the text only to be scuppered at the very end. Maybe a literary ploy (it helps to keep their attention focused?).
GOOD book. More accessible to more people than the IPCC (I generally want to see the source paper, not the analysis of the source by someone else). I read and understand the IPCC “latin”… but his complaint that there needs to be some media competent to translate it, or that the IPCC needs to put together a PUBLIC facing synopsis, is very well taken.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What Book bj?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gareth-Morgan’s “Poles Apart”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>If your (sic) too dumb to understand……
Ahem…. ‘If you’re ..’ or ‘If you are …’. Or is correct language use nothing to do with ‘intelligence’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Am leaving this referendum to those with children – with hopes they can work it oput without abuse…..
“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong,
which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a
man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable
traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they
may”: Mark Twain
ps Women too m?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj
Do you think Morgan’s book is of sufficient value to move an intelligent fence sitter to a reasonable view of the climate change issue? Do you think it would move an intelligent denialist to that position? Does it impress upon the reader, in any way, to adopt a target of any kind, to try to forestall the effects described? Will it do anything other than preach to the converted? Do you think Morgan will be moved again by unfolding circumstances and where will that leave his loyal follower, BluePeter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hog farmer living on the pig’s back
Despite his neck-vein popping protestations over perks and his apparently ardent desire to bust them all…Roger Douglas sees no need to curb his own unbridled perking through ‘tax payer assisted’ flights to the UK.
How two-faced can an Actoid be!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda (and other smackers)
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/07/yes-vote.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ha Fly – Roger Douglas should fly to Afghanistan – interview the Taliban re our troop committments there – he’s a brave feller sho’ nuff.
Lets face it – angry parents will never give up their right to bounce their chattels off the wall as they see fit – and rewrite the story so they drip with righteousness – it’s a sickness right enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the book can move a fence-sitter, and it might move an intelligent denialist …. it is a VERY good effort. It certainly does not preach to the converted.
I don’t think Gareth will move easily. The entire field would have to be pushed into doubt to a much greater degree by some scientific discovery that folks who DO the science simply can’t see at all. Could Arrhenius be shown to be basically wrong about the Greenhouse Effect, he’d move…. as would most of the scientists.
He doesn’t prescribe, but he wants people to take action, and it is (with the exception I noted) quite thorough. If someone reads it through they will have the basic grounding that is needed to understand much of the debate, even if they haven’t got all of the science.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the balanced review, BJ.
Strange how people have written it off, when it is exactly the sort of thing needed in this debate. It was certainly the book I was waiting for – enough science to make me think, and well balanced.
We can’t possibly know the what-to-do. That’s a leap of faith at this point, and why I dislike the activists bluster on the action required. They haven’t a clue, and won’t admit it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Do you think Morgan will be moved again by unfolding circumstances and where will that leave his loyal follower, BluePeter?
I’ll move when the science moves.
Hope you do, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does anyone find it odd that BP puts such stock in bj’s opinions re Morgan’s book, but then talks like he’s referring to other people who “haven’t a clue, and won’t admit it”, re taking action, when possibly the biggest proponent of strong action around here is also bj? Seems rather schizoid to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually BP, I personally know EXACTLY what to do.
Build CATS.
If there is no warming, no problem, we use it to go get asteroids and become a spacefaring species. We aren’t limited to “lifeboat earth” but can build our own. The advantages to the economics of whoever gets it are massive and not related to warming or cooling or raining.
If there is warming, it lets us build mirrors, push down the insolation and stop the warming while we get the rest of the system (acid oceans) under control. If there is cooling it lets us turn those mirrors and push up the insolation and stop the cooling.
It would be a tenth or less the price of the 40% solution and a hundredth of what the financiers have gouged out of our collective wallets.
****
All it needs is a bit of engineering….
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Does anyone find it odd that BP puts such stock in bj’s opinions
I said “we”, meaning me, bj, and pretty much every scientists talking on this issue. Nobody knows what to do. There isn’t enough information yet.
What they’re doing is having a jolly good guess. Fair enough. Once again, there is too much certainty about the uncertain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I like the sounds of the CATs thing. Will read up on it….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam Buchanan Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 10:22 am
JH – I still fail to see what the Treaty has to do with common law and the example you started with. As I understand it, common law draws on tradtions, established ways of doing things, general practice etc. the existence or non-existence of a Treaty doesn’t enter in to it. Had there been no Treaty, the issue of different customs and traditions being followed by different branches of a family – hence the unfortunate dispute about the burial of James Takamore – would still have existed.
What I was getting at was that the Greens support tino rangitiratanga . If you support tino rangitiratanga which takes precedence tikanga or common law?
I made the assumption that Tuhoe tikanga covered James Takamore although it appears he “left” that tribe and joined another (in a sense) so I’m not sure how tikanga would regard that.
I think the judge has decided that people are free to follow their own custom and James Takamore choose not to follow Tuhoe custom (common law).
But the question remains if the greens are true to the treaty, would they not agree with Ana Mikaere
Had the reaffirmation of Maori authority in the second article of Te Tiriti o Waitangi been adhered to, the relationship between Pakeha and Maori would have been regulated by tikanga Maori throughout our shared history.
As Kevin $131,000 + xtras Hague MP says:
“Let us be clear that the meaning of the Treaty must be determined from the Maori text. Those writers of angry letters to the editor who cite the plain cession of sovereignty of the English text and declare “game over” in fact ignore the law, which makes it the responsibility of the party offering a contract to ensure that the party accepting it fully understands it. If disputes arise, interpretations of the contract are to be made according to the understanding of the accepting party rather than the party that drew up the contract. This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP said:
I said “we”, meaning me, bj, and pretty much every scientists talking on this issue. Nobody knows what to do.
and
They haven’t a clue, and won’t admit it.
Hmmmm.
What they’re doing is having a jolly good guess. Fair enough. Once again, there is too much certainty about the uncertain.
Yes, well far be it for me to complain that you’ve softened your stance, even if in a matter of minutes. I do hope it continues past today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# jh Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
> If your too dumb to understand the question your opinion isn’t so important anyway.
If you’re too dumb to recognise that the question is ambiguous and that what you think it means is not the only plausible interpretation, then your opinion isn’t so important anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheap Access To Space.
I LIKE Andrew Lloyd Webber but …
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis asks:
Does anyone find it odd that BP..?
Oh yes! I do! Quite queer. Mr BP ‘trounces’ all with his,
Nobody knows what to do. There isn’t enough information yet.
(I see one of those 1930′s cartoon figures in panic mode with those exclamation marks flashing over his head !!!!!!!
He’s a great entertainment!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If you’re too dumb to recognise that the question is ambiguous ”
kahikatea, everyone knows what this is about, the question is not ambiguous.
You and others that argue along this line are indistinguishable from legalistic Christians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s simple, eh Shunda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Make sure you stop your kids play fighting greenfly, it might make them violent adults.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheap Access To Space would be great and could solve a number of problems. It might take a while before people get used to the idea of satellite power stations with microwave beams or infra-red lasers, but in the mean time there are opportunities in production of rare medicines and other materials and of course communications.
However there are other things we could and should be doing as well as CATS. We should be developing renewable energy resources for electricity generation, heating and drying, other industrial applications etc.
New Zealand cannot readily compete in all renewable energy sectors, but there are niches that suit us such as wave and tidal flow generation, and geothermal. We don’t need to know everything about global climate change to act now in areas which also address our other big problems of ocean acidification and peak oil/gas/coal/uranium, particularly if those actions will also improve our long-term balance of payments.
We can also take simple measures such as planting out margin land in forestry, which might end up serving as a source of biomass for bio-fuel production, or just as a carbon sink.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda said:
Make sure you stop your kids play fighting greenfly, it might make them violent adults.
I don’t understand your point Shunda. What do you mean and how does this relate to smacking?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I don’t understand your point Shunda. What do you mean and how does this relate to smacking?”
As the argument of the anti smackers goes, physical violence is always harmful to people.
Which means in order to be consistent with the ideology, play fighting and contact sports must be banned to ensure we have a chance at world peace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda
Sporting events and play fights generally have willing participants, all parties agreeing with the rules of engagement.
If you are thinking that parents and their children are in the same position then I suggets you revisit the whole question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Mr BP ‘trounces’ all with his, Nobody knows what to do. There isn’t enough information yet.
Because it’s the truth. I know your religion won’t let you acknowledge that truth, but as I’m not a member of your church, I am unhindered by your philosophy.
>>Cheap Access To Space
Actually, STRATFOR covered this a while back. It’s being built now and there are contracts for this energy supply in the next few years.
The USA will remain powerful, whilst those without a space program will get poorer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter
In your typical fashion, you describe my understanding of this issue as ‘a religion’ and that I am a member of a ‘church’.
Why is that?
How is your view of the issue not ‘religious’.
How is it that you are not a member of a ‘church’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor
WE should be doing the renewables thing, we don’t have a space program and are not likely to be able to afford one any time soon.
We cannot count on anyone else to do what I suggest either. I have made this point in countless letters and forums, but at no time do I have the slightest reason to believe that I have been taken seriously.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because its obvious that reducing emissions is what needs to be done at this point in time, BP needs to make us look extreme so that his do-nothing position looks reasonable. Hence we’re dogmatic and he’s the voice of calm and reason.
Yes, well far be it for me to complain that you’ve softened your stance, even if in a matter of minutes. I do hope it continues past today.
Oh well, not to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
I have not seen the STRATFOR discussion. When is it dated? I am unaware of any real successor to the Venturestar. Anywhere. Lots of lip service, no realistic plan.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This isn’t CATS. It is useful for power if they manage it.
http://www.next100.com/2009/04/space-solar-power-the-next-fro.php
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# kahikatea Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 4:09 pm
If you’re too dumb to recognise that the question is ambiguous and that what you think it means is not the only plausible interpretation, then your opinion isn’t so important anyway.
Does this mean that the question is a nonsense or able to be ambiguously interpreted?
I take the question to mean “Should it be legal for a parent to smack a child?” and the “as part of good parental correction” is a qualifier telling us that the smacking we are referring to is a. for correction b. not harming the child and c.appropriate under the particular circumstances
Many parents draw on personal experience saying they don’t smack much but they want it to be legal or the state (a group of politicians) have no business making it illegal (whether the police will act on it or not).
The Dunedin study has “hit at claims of harm.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Shunda barunda Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
> kahikatea, everyone knows what this is about, the question is not ambiguous.
When I first saw the question, I thought I knew what it meant. I thought the term ‘a smack’ referred to a slap on the buttocks, I thought the term ‘correction’ meant punishmet, because that’s what it means in law, and I thought the use of the word ‘good’ in ‘good parental correction’ didn’t mean anything, and was just there to sound good.
Since then, I’ve heard Family First using examples of people being prosecuted for shoving their children to the ground as examples of why people should vote ‘no’, so clearly they have a much broader idea of what ‘a smack’ means than I do.
People are interpreting ‘correction’ as preventing a child from doing something dangerous, and hitting for that purpose is legal under the current law, so if you take that meaning a vote of ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’, would be an endorsement of the current law.
And I’ve also heard people say that the phrase ‘good parental correction’ is a protection against legalising a smack for the purpose of bad parental correction, which presumably means they see the referendum as calling for parliament to devise a legal distinction between ‘good parental correction’ and ‘bad parental correction’, and it goes wiothout saying that different people will have different ideas of what constitutes good or bad parental correction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)