The course is split into chapters so you can watch it in bits but it’s worth spending a couple of hours to view the whole thing. Though biased towards the US, much of it is applicable to us all.
As I see it, there will be changes in ratios. A point in example would be sickle cell disease. It was incredibly useful because it raised the life span of the individual bearing it over that of the average because the average was susceptable to the realative disease but now it is all but useless and the average is well above that of sickle cell in terms of life span. So, assuming sickle cell is not predominantly among the lower classes (actually a bad assumption to make considering the racial basis of sickle cell and the trends for africans to be in the lower clades),the incidence of sickle cell will likely decrease both due to shorter life spans and individuals understanding the heriditary nature of the disease.
I do not beleive that a new species will emerge out of humans until we start to have isolated colonies as the human species at present is simply too populas and too mobile for the effects needed to create a new species. We could, however, see massive shifts in population dynamics with the introduction of, both coercive and non-coercive, methods to curve population growth. At the moment we see a shift toward the fool, with the correct method and cultural changes we will see a shift toward the inteligent. Whom knows, in a couple of decades we might all be strgn beans with 160 IQ’s.
Yeah, I am arguing that talking about the evolutiuonary success of a species is a categorical error. Individuals might be evolutionarily successful, so might lineages. But isn’t talking about the evolutionary success of a species a bit like arguing whether granite or sandstone is more geologically successful?
Species just evolve, some faster than others, some slower than others. Some radiate, some go extinct. Some get more complex, some get simpler. Some become generalists, some become specialists. None of this has anything to do with success. Talking about evolutionary success seems to require a concept of success like the 19th century mysticism that evolution is progressive.
This might seem trivial but there does seem to be a tendency in fringe politics to try and ascribe “evolutionary” justifications for political beliefs, apparently to make these political positions seem “scientific”. It happens on the Right and the Left too.
There does seem to be a sense in which we could say that our biological evolution – from natural selection anyway – has ended, as the random mutations still going on in our genes would no longer have as much effect as they used to and cannot be ‘selected for’ in terms of survival and reproduction. But I find it difficult to go whole hog and say therefore we’ll be the same in a 100 million years, artificial genetics aside.
and so too our demise, as nature declares ‘that’ experiment over.
So long and thanks for all the fish!
Ah, but cultural evolution is not entirely different from biological evolution.
The human has evolved a great plasticity of the brain to changes induced by cultural context. The only real difference between humans today and cro-magnon is culture: it is culture that allows us to communicate and thus to transmit knowledge and learn from others; it is written language which allows us externalise our thought processes and in doing so to learn vast amounts and process those amounts to a far higher degree; it is tools, culturally bound and transmitted creations, that make us a true apex preditor and allow us all that we are today.
Biologial evolution is important but the defining aspect of the human race is its cognition; a process created, defined, and refined by culture. Cultural evolution has superceeded biological evolution. An example would be the negative biological evolution we may now be perceived to be undergoing as those too weak to survive previously do so because of our knowledge (cultural). Infact, it is this diseugenic trend that is one of our greatist threats in my eyes. Not so much the medical side as the intellect side.
Yes, things get a bit messy when intelligence is added to the equation. But fundamentally, everything is biological. We wouldn’t have intelligence except for evolution, so if we ultimately decide intelligence has extended the longevity of our species (as bj’s off world scenario might lead us to conclude), we still couldn’t say that our survival wasn’t a product of biological evolution.
Sure, I could have said to survive and reproduce over time. Also if the individuals don’t survive to reproduce, the species cannot last. Excuse my shorthand way of saying it.
About the Federal Reserve Accounting Unit, the Dollar.
Actually – it has to pass an evolutionary intelligence test. Can it work out how to survive sustainably, without choking on its own wastes and depleting its resources in a closed environment, or open up its available environment and expand into it.
On current form, we’re failing.
Or does ‘intelligent’ life contain a self limitation clause, whereby science develops and burrows deeper and deeper into subatomic physics. They build a machine to test one theory too far……
Surely the point is that sentient life is capable of developing its own culture, rather than its survival being a matter of biological evolution? Cultural success might be measurable but it is not evolutionary success.
All species survive long enough to reproduce. Surviving long enough to reproduce (well, more accurately the numbber of viable offspring produced, which presumes survival to a reproductive age) is a measure of evolutionary success of an individual, not a species.
Being evolutionarily successful means only one thing – surviving long enough to reproduce. A species doesn’t need to exist forever to be considered successful, though longevity has to be the standard for judging success. Its all pretty subjective.
I think that there is a difference (a way of expressing it well does escape me) between the evolutionary success in terms of survival for the organisms, and the evolutionary success of sentient life.
I think that once sentience is achieved, the bar has to be raised.
Damned good question… I have to think about it some, but overall, if we do not survive/evolve into a sentient species that manages to leave this planet before the Sun expands and vaporizes it, we will have failed to properly differentiate ourselves from the bacterium whose fate we’d share. If we were just another species of dumb animals, there is no reason for disappointment. For a sentient species however, such a failure of anticipation and adaptation is a sin.
Evolution doesn’t answer ethical questions. It poses them.
Oh, but never mind the facts, just feel the ideology.
question: What makes a species evolutionarily successful – numbers, or quality of life or something?
I don’t think there are any measures of a species’ evolutionary success. Evolution is a process – it doesn’t have winners and losers. Ultimately all species go extinct. Some might survive longer, some in greater numbers, but is the Coelacanth more sucessful than the human? Or the human more sucessful than the Coelacanth?
Possibly you could argue that some lineages are more sucessful, although by any criteria bacteria are going to win. Are humans evolutionarily sucessful? Evolution is a long term process – in ten million years we might have some sort of answer but really I don’t think evolution can answer ethical questions.
Of course, wholesale adoption of veganism would (ultimately) mean a corresponding decrease in the number of farmed animals. Which raises the question: What makes a species evolutionarily successful – numbers, or quality of life or something else?
Perhaps the number (as opposed to percentage) of a species that suffer hardship can be considered a better indicator than species population or even the percentage of a population enjoying a quality life.
Humans, also, are not immune to this line of thought.
“..When a vegan is talking to a meat-eater about these issues, he or she is not “preaching”, “trying to convert”, or any such thing.
We’re not telling you what to eat.
We’re telling you what you’re eating.
Veganism is the practical response to a social injustice.
Instead of vegangelical, the word should be veganlogical.
Recently I’ve heard some perplexing criticisms of veganism.
They go something like this: vegans are extremists, vegans are so preachy, veganism is like some fanatical religion, veganism is a cult..
There obviously is some misunderstanding going on and I’d like to try and stamp out this issue once and for all.
I realize I can’t possibly speak for all vegans .. but this is how I see it:
First of all, veganism is clearly not some religion or cult.
There is no Church of Vegan.
Veganism is a philosophy. Donald Watson first coined the term “vegan” in 1944.
This was how he defined it:
The word “veganism” denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; ..
.. and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.
In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Sounds pretty simple right?
Well, nowadays people become vegan for all different reasons.
They might go vegan because of health reasons, or perhaps they’ve read that animal agriculture is the number one cause of global warming.
But, if someone is an ethical vegan, that means they’ve chosen to open their mind and heart to the suffering of animals.
They want to alleviate unnecessary suffering where they can.
(There are actually some people who feel that unless you go vegan for ethical reasons that you’re not really “vegan”, but that’s a whole other story.)
Here’s where things get interesting.
While many of us may feel a certain attachment to the food we eat (cheese, anyone?)..
.. there is actually no human dietary requirement for animal foods.
You don’t need to eat meat, dairy or eggs to live.
In fact, Dr. Colin Campbell, who conducted the foremost study on human nutrition for over 40 years..
.. detailed in his book The China Study .. how a vegan diet is actually better suited for optimal human health.
This means that people eat animals not because they have to, but because they want to.
Now, of course I’m not talking about people who live in countries where food is scarce and they’ll die unless they eat animal foods.
I’m talking about you and me.
People who shop at the supermarket where tofu, beans, rice, grains, fruits and vegetables are mere feet from meat, dairy and eggs.
We have a choice.
In case you’re not up to speed, over 98% of all meat, dairy, and eggs produced in the US comes from factory farms.
The conditions in these places are truly horrendous.
Animals are crammed in spaces so tight they can’t turn around.
They literally go insane, lying around all day and night in their own feces.
They never see sunlight, have their beaks, horns and genitals cut off (without anesthetic) ..
.. and are horribly abused by stressed and desensitized farm workers.
We kill 10 billion animals for “food” a year in this country, that’s over 27 million animals a day.
Most of those animals are birds, and all poultry (chickens, turkeys, ducks, and rabbits… yes, rabbits are considered poultry under the law) are excluded from the barely enforced Humane Slaughter Act.
Now, before you start at me with some “humane meat” “happy meat” bullshit please take note that all animals..
.. whether they are raised in the nastiest of factory farms or grass-fed, free-range, blah blah blah, are all sent to the same slaughterhouses.
That’s right, your organic steer is being sent to the same hell as a downer cow .. and will meet the same ghastly end.
If you are a “humane meat” consumer, please take a moment and meditate on the whole concept of humane killing…
It’s never pretty .. and it certainly isn’t “humane.”
Yes – the law leaves the “smack is an assault” as-was and the defense relating to parents slapping their kids is made dependent on the state-of-mind of the person doing the smacking (was it done for correction?).
The whole business of what the law actually says has been argued into a large electromagnetic-temporal black hole and I am unwilling to throw any more time or electrons into it. 🙂
The point is how the law was and is perceived and what the effect on the electorate as a whole has been.
You’re right. A scientific poll would work hard to get a representative sample of the electorate and use statistical inference to determine what the everybody thinks. Calling a fraction of a percentage of the voting population to ask a question and make a well-educated guess about the rest, with a margin of error of a few percent. Here you got 50% of the population actually answering, not a small fraction and you want to discount the overwhelming result as not being representative? Do you think a scientific poll would be any better? Want to estimate the validity of the statistic? There have been “scientific” polls with 80% or so disapproval. It isn’t even a laughable argument Phil. The people of New Zealand do not like the way this law was made … and the people of New Zealand associate Sue with this law and there is a large amount of antipathy for her out there, which you might have seen if you were out campaigning for the Greens.
I didn’t EVER say she’d be a bad leader. She just has a lot of baggage that would be very difficult to ignore… and the fact remains that she chose the path of greatest resistance to attempt to end “smacking” and failed to take a path that would have made inroads against real abuse. We could have had a law that got passed by acclamation AND would probably have worked better… and would have made us look a lot better to the average punter, but that wasn’t done.
That selection of HER path was her right by it being a private members bill. She had the choice, not the party, and the party followed her as it really had to do. It wasn’t all that popular in the party either.
Perhaps it is a result of her leadership style that she made those choices and didn’t listen to anyone else… or perhaps it was her absolute belief that it was the “right” thing to do at any cost.
I don’t know, but I do have a pretty keen idea of the cost, and I can’t accept someone with that sort of judgment as a co-leader of my political party. Had she been elected I would quite possibly no longer be a “Green”. There are conditions under which I might have accepted her, but I see no indication from her that she is inclined to create them.
and you campaigned against nandor too..didn’t you..
Now you’re just making sh!t up Phil. I really REALLY like Nandor. I certainly did not want him to go. Yeah, I noted that his public image is a problem for him. He overcomes it the instant people listen to what he actually says, and read what he actually writes… but that does NOT happen as often as they simply look at the image. Should he have become co-leader? I wasn’t given the opportunity to make up my mind on it or vote on it. He decided. His own way. A different style of leadership and one I prefer to what I have seen of Sue’s
You’ve seen fit to make this a crusade of some sort. I was happy to let it lie. I try very very hard to be fair about this for Sue, because she IS an asset in a lot of things, much as Nandor explained. You can’t accept that I don’t want her as co-leader… and worse, that I am not alone in the Greens in that judgment. You can’t accept that she did some things that a lot of us think were not in the best interests of the party and you can’t accept that there are a lot of people out there who regard her as someone who is unclear on the concept of people having SOME rights that supersede the state’s.
Well tough noogies… you’re working as hard as you can to p!ss me off right now. Too bad. You occasionally contribute useful insights. This just isn’t one of those times.
Good point Stuey. The referendum didn’t ask about the law directly.
Were you reading the same referendum as me? I don’t agree the referendum was about the law.
Not about the law, Stuey? Did you read that bit about “criminal offence”?
Precisely the point I made. For Phil and Sue to assume that those who didn’t vote would have voted a particular way, and then use this engineered result as a kind of justification for ignoring the democratic process is just ludicrous.
I notice that Phil hasn’t responded to that point. It’s sad how people ignore inconvenient truths and prefer Sue’s truth.
Were you reading the same referendum as me? I don’t agree the referendum was about the law. If it had been, it would have been worded completely differently.
I agree that the majority of NZers don’t support people being made criminals for smacking – that’s what the question asked – but that is NOT what the law does.
Unlike Phil, I don’t believe that the election of Metiria rather than Sue is a sign that we’re moving away from our social justice concerns. Three years ago, people were predicting that the election of Russel rather than Nandor was a move to the left and against our environmental concerns.
“..Phil, a lot of people simply did not care..”
precisely the point i am making..
bj is interpreting/arguing that ‘don’t care’ as implacably opposed to sue as green party leader..
and that don’t make sense..
(and who mentioned ‘rightwing conspiracy’..?..before you did..?)
A 53% turn out and 87% of that turn out voted against the law. So somehow, by adding the invalid votes, the pro-law votes, and those whom didint vote we get an even split? The implications!
The turn out at the 2008 election was 79.5% of which only about 80% voted for the Lab/Nats. By god! The remaining 20.5% of that didint vote must have wanted to vote Greens. How unfair that the Greens ae so underrepresented!
Phil, a lot of people simply did not care, its not a massive right wing conspiracy nor did a massive block of anti-smackers not vote, the vast majority of anti-smackers would have invalidated there forms or voted for the law if they had even a couple of neurons. It is for you to prove otherwise, not BJ.
Hell, despite being enrolled I never received my forms, nor did a number of people I know, and we simply didint care enough to hunt them down.
i can’t believe you are still pushing this..
you are talking apples and oranges..
and designating the results from the referendum..
in the same way you wd view random polling..
they are entirely different beasts..bj..
i mean..f.f.s..!..can’t you see that..?
folding an 87% result on a 53% turnout referendum..
..into ‘proof’ that 90% of the population is opposed to sue…
thereby making the case she wd be a bad leader..
..is just so much horseshit…
it’s a referendum..
not the results of scientific polling…
(how can you think i am that dumb..?..)
(btw..have you noticed the outpouring of respect for sue..from all ideologies..?
does that not register for you..?
(must be just that 10% fronting up..?..eh..?..)
and you campaigned against nandor too..didn’t you..
(i’m getting more and more gorse-bushy by the moment..)
Phil 87% is 90 in any sane rounding regime. I noticed that you don’t like rounding so I stopped doing it, even though it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. $29.98 isn’t $30 to the marks, but it is to the retailer. Don’t give yourself a hard time ith this.
Phil: “Im telling on you!”
false modesty may prevent fly from repeating his ‘one-liner-of-the-issue’..
on the english rort..
farrar is running a poll on native birds..and is supporting the kaka..
here is what fly said..
“.. David – I can see why you favour the kaka.
It has a bent bill..”
i repeat..87% of a 50% turnout does not equate 90% of the overall population..
especially when so many refused to take part..’cos of the stupidity/inanity of the question..
This is all purely your hypothesis, except the 87% bit. You don’t know that people “refused” to take part and you don’t know the reason behind the 50% not voting. The question was pretty clear to me, so it’s not obvious that the question itself stopped people voting.
What we do know is that the overwhelming majority of people voting supported a law change. If there was a parliamentary or local election with that kind of voting result, the victor would declare a landslide and not be argued against.
The turnout at the last general election was about 80%. Why didn’t the incumbent Labour government declare victory, do you think? After all, if you add the 20% who didn’t vote to the Labour vote (as they must have wanted the status quo, by your argument), then Labour won handsomely.
BTW why do you write in such a disjointed way? It must be harder to write and it’s certainly harder to read.
auckland has a ‘free-space’..
and they are doing a vegan fundraising dinner..
to set up a free bicycle workshop..
“..AK free space exists to promote and foster a supportive and vibrant community ..
.. that actively challenges individualism and inequality..”
Interesting that Nandor thinks Jeanette’s departure will be a much bigger deal than Sue’s.
“..The most you can say about the other 50% is that you don’t have a clue..”
so..how do you assume an even higher total reading than the 87%..
and no matter how you spin it..the ‘f*ck-off!-non-vote’ in that poll was huge..
and you can also assume..that virtually all those who want to hit again..voted…
the 4.3% poll is the most recent..(sun-nite..)
and i think sue leaving will drop you further..
(one of us will be correct..)
“..National is riding high at the moment. We haven’t yet laid into them..”
um..!..w.t.f is holding you back..?..
(4.3% should..if nothing else..impart an air of urgency..eh..?..
“..Laugh all you like Phil. I know what she COULD have done and I have no doubt that instead of paying a price the party could have gotten a big boost, just by doing it right. Any number of people in and out of the party have come to the same conclusion..”
what are you talking about..?
her reluctance to cohabit with the hollow-men..?
and the ‘gorse’ thing..again..eh..?
if you want to take a political disagreement personally..
that is down to you..
should i just ‘agree’ with everything you say..?
to qualify as non-gorse..?
(you don’t think you are being a bit of what you get from gorse-bushes..?..)
The most you can say about the other 50% is that you don’t have a clue. The only clue you have is that 87% of those who did answer thought it was wrong. The experience of pollsters everywhere is that you are not going to get a result so VERY different from the 87% out of the rest if you press them for answers. Banging on about it isn’t going to change the numbers or make them more palatable.
You found a single poll from somewhere taken at cusp. Unlikely that the people involved even all knew she was leaving unless it was part of the poll questions, and I doubt seriously that it is going to hold much significance in 6 months time.
National is riding high at the moment. We haven’t yet laid into them on their evident hypocrisy. The banking debacle hasn’t had its second dip. We’re out of phase with the rest of the world, but that doesn’t mean that the right-wing swing isn’t real here.
Laugh all you like Phil. I know what she COULD have done and I have no doubt that instead of paying a price the party could have gotten a big boost, just by doing it right. Any number of people in and out of the party have come to the same conclusion. She didn’t. The cost to her personally was immense. The cost to the party even larger.
You don’t have a logical leg to stand on… laughter is the best you can muster.
As to ‘effective’, well that depends on your stated goal. If your goal is to greatly detriment the environment then yes, she was more succesful than any National party MP ever has been, or even a certain Labour/Act ideolouge.
The name ‘Bradford’, it has become a derogitary word; even among beneficiaries; should say enough.
Very good move getting rid of that weight that is not so much dead as activly swimming against the environment; maybe not intentionally so but by refusing to remove those absolutly massive ideological blinders of hers it might as well be. Perhaps the membership has more intelligence than I had given them credit for.
You were better off with me ignoring you mate. I was going to let that pass.
87% of the people who answer a poll is 87%. The people who did NOT answer the poll are unlikely to deviate from that particular percentage by a large margin – and a 50% polling sample gives a great deal of confidence in the result. Your childish insistence that the people who didn’t vote are somehow not holding any opinion is similar to the denialist attitudes towards science. Any straw is worth clutching, isn’t it.
and want all social legislation stripped from the party..
You’re SIMPLY wrong about that. Brutally and entirely wrong. My point has been and always has been, that there is a missing principle in the Green charter and the Greens need to consider that “survival” is the roof that is supported by those 4 pillars and that what is happening to that roof determines which pillar gets emphasized at any given time.
My posts on the internal forums make it QUITE clear where I am coming from. I came down pretty hard on the side of keeping the decriminalization plank IN, because the likely support for it is (IIRC) closer to 50-60% (or higher) and the penalty we’d pay for having it is therefore quite small. Your abrasive nature costs you Phil, I don’t hold it against you, but as a “friend” you make a good gorse patch.
“the only effective operator..as far as media coverage is concerned..is sue kedgely.”
That is perhaps, one of the more reasonable assessments you’ve made. I don’t do “media”, my judgment about it is that image is substance and real substance is irrelevant. So I defer to your vast knowledge. … and your point is?
once again..there is a vacuum of ideas..
everything is up for grabs again/re-evaluation..
That is an assertion without any particular evidence. The ideas and ideals of the party have not changed, the emphasis seems to be changing.
and i see you still playing that nanny-state meme.
Phil – reality check for you.
WHICH party got elected to parliament?
WHICH party got kicked out of government so resoundingly?
WHICH direction did the nation “lurch”?
The “nanny state” thing worked for them. It worked damned well, and while I don’t particularly agree with it I can’t deny its effectiveness in kicking butt where Labour was concerned. Sue at the head of the Green Party would have a huge handicap to overcome in getting anything past her association with S59 and that particular meme. Which are one damnably unpopular law and way of perceiving government.
“and you campaigned against perhaps the most effective political leader/operator in parliament..”
Who failed to effectively further ANY of the things that are important to the planet as a whole and thus to me, instead doing “her own thing”… and I remember corresponding with her early in the process about it – so I know that better approaches to this were suggested.
She is effective. She represents HER ideas quite well. The cost to the party and the environment was immense and I would rather be in double digits – and part of a government.
“doh!” indeed Phil.
no answers there yet bj..?
not even for the ‘90%’ question..?
gee..!..i thought you had a bigger hat than that..
Agreed; implying that race is a beneficial aspect, in this case, is wrong and serves only to highlight race as a differentiator.
for a person who prides themselves on ‘accuracy’..
can i ask you where your ‘90%’ figure comes from..?
surely not that poll..?
87% of 53% is not 90%..(but you knew that..)
i repeat..where did you get that 90%..?
and i most certainly am ‘asking questions’..
and you obviously do not see that gulf/vacuum to the left of labour..?
you don’t realise how many disenfranchised there are out here..do you..?
and don’t give me that bullsh*t about..’the media dosen’t listen to us..
(the only effective operator..as far as media coverage is concerned..is sue kedgely..)
and i know you are/were strongly in the anti-bradford camp..
and want all social legislation stripped from the party..
the rightwing revolution failed..miserably..
(did you not get the memo..?..)
once again..there is a vacuum of ideas..
everything is up for grabs again/re-evaluation..
and i see you still playing that nanny-state meme..
(that has to be one of the most successful rightwing agit-props of all time..
the ‘nanny-state’ meme..
and you obviously have it writ large/bow before it..eh..?
face it..b.j..you swallowed the rightwing bullsh*t..
and you campaigned against perhaps the most effective political leader/operator in parliament..
(lightbulb starting to dimly glow..?..yet..?..)
I do take your point BJ.
But sometimes it is just so much fun.
Answering Phil is educational. Most of us have already learned our lessons. 🙂
Not everything he is saying is a question. In particular, he isn’t asking the question about whether us stepping towards “the center” is a good idea or not, he is TELLING us what he thinks is a good idea. Which is to head for the border and stay on the borderline. Aim for 20%? Where would we get them Phil? …the ALCP and who else is going to jump in with us, and how many people like me are you going to p!ss off in the process?
We have made our choices Phil. You may not like them but they are OURS, and how DO we get Media to cover “OUR” answers. We published them. We gave press conferences. We get stuff-all attention – Key is on Letterman. Sue resigned. What the hell is AGW compared to that?
Maybe our leadership is NOT dynamic enough. It is a point worth considering.
However, that is NOT a sufficient reason to put the very face of the “Nanny State” at the head of the party when almost 90% of the population is going to START with an extremely negative opinion of her. One has to consider that people advising us that we should have done so may not have the best interests of the Greens at heart.
Obviously no one has the answers to your valid comments.
Probably in the same bin as your “what is the green party formula to solve climatechange..?” question.
Sue v Nikki is rather silly though.
nobody is saying ‘doomed’..
it’s more ‘shallow/facile/and unutterably stupid’..
..and the green party membership being manipulated/lied to..
..by a few..
but if you want to talk ‘doomed’..?
well..if they don’t get cracking..quick smart..
they may well be ‘doomed’..
(why at 4.3%..you have to ask yrselves..
whatever the current strategy is..
..it clearly isn’t working..eh.?..)
a question for you..
what is the green party formula to solve climatechange..?
i’ll bet you can’t answer that..off the top of yr head..
and the public sure as hell dosen’t know either..
now..whose ‘bad’ is that..?
why..in this building towards copenhagen time..
why are we not having to fend off norman/turei..
repeating/emphasising the key ingredients of the greens formula/answers..?
they have been silent..off the radar..
and that none of us know even what the green plan is..
..on what must be a key plank/raison d etre for them..
couldn’t be more of an indictment of the current leadership (team)..
and the abject failure of any current plans/strategy..
(yeah..you could well sleepwalk to ‘doom’..)
but from the ashes..another/different/stronger would arise..
maybe that just has to play out..
Well that or the 82nd airborne would be in control of Wellington to “restore order”.
If we, tiny NZ, were to alter the basis of our currency to redeemable in electrical work, and ditched fractional reserve, the “financial elite” would be powerless within a fortnight.
Just stirring, phil. I happen to like all four of those people quite a lot, but I don’t agree we’re doomed because of the choices we’ve made.
really valis..well..i am neither national nor labour..
but have watched gape-mouthed as the green party first burnt off nandor..
..and now sue…
two of the most widely-respected/charismatic/able-political-operators ..
‘leaders’ in anyones’ terms/definitions..
and the meme against both was a very well organised whispering campaign..
..along the lines of how they ‘scare the horses/punters/’middle’ new zealanders’..
(and yes i am aware of the irony of bradford being hoisted on her own petard..a little further down the track..given her uber-efficient campainging for norman..against nandor..
.more fool her..for that..)
and that the alternate candidate-package ..first norman..them turei..
..would be more ‘appealing’ to that amorphous middle ground the green party seems (puzzlingly) to strive for ‘approval’ from….
and for the most shallow/facile/cosmetic of other reasons…
..you swapped proven/able political co-leaders..
(who now..would be kicking arse..)
so valis..your shallow/defensive sneer to one side..eh..?
‘cos really..the green party leadership look to be well on the way to setting new benchmarks..
in winning battles..but losing wars..
(and what’s with that ‘young’ thing..
do you really think young thinking people wouldn’t have voted for nandor/sue..’cos of their ages..?
if you do..?..whoar..!..eh..?
(i’ll never forget the telly-moment when scribe..told newsreader peter williams..that as far as street-cred-news-dude status in sth auckland..is concerned..
that he..straight/old/cardiganed/golf-playing peter williams..
is ‘the man’..
it’s not what theuy look like..how old they are..
it is what they say/do..
(do i really have to tell you that..?
are you all really that far ‘off course’..?
Key spoke about the need to stabilize Afghanistan where NZ’s SAS is being deployed supposedly to help our allies in the “War on Terror” and to protect NZ’s interests; this is pure spin and disinformation. The adventure is also unlawful in international law.
The real reason for the deployment is to protect the financial interests of the New Zealand Rich List from retaliatory attacks by the Australian and US financial elites. Since the SAS are being used on behalf of the Rich List, the Rich List should bear the entire cost of the Afghan adventure from their own after tax income; this should include compensation for any retaliatory terrorism by Islamists in NZ.
And the SAS troops should be paid at mercenary rates.
So a National supporter and a Labour supporter both think we did the wrong thing. Time will tell, but it doesn’t sound like a crisis to me.
here is the link to the rnz page with the campbell/hooten audio..
I listened to Meyt on Morning Report this morning. She was quoted in the Maori news section at 6.30am and referred to David Clendon’s Maori whakapapa in relation to having someone to work with on Maori issues. She was also careful to mention Catherin Delahunty was also working with her on Maori issues. Let’s put her comments into context.
Where exactly were the insightful questions that might have informed ‘merkans about NZ?
My countrymen don’t understand reality well enough to cope with actual information presented by the spoonful.. much less insightful questions.
Goldman-Sachs-the-Planet is running the country… obvious to almost everyone with 3 working brain cells, and there has not yet been a revolution.
One has to believe that for most of them their council of working brain cells is no longer capable of raising a quorum.
Securities Council (I think he thinks it is another trading floor)
Climate Change (Either he’s in the northern hemisphere, he’s confused OR his position ‘follow Australia’ was advice from Letterman given Australia is bottom of the carbon solution heap)
[When they find out he’s PM of a country that legally regulated psychoactive recreational ‘soft’ drug use… he’s screwed anyway; in the USA that worse than lawful prostitution, abortion on request, consenting sex at 16, or nuclear free! Where exactly were the insightful questions that might have informed ‘merkans about NZ? ]
Letterman is about his grade of preferred interview, and appeals to about the same audience. [Laugh Now] sign flashes so Key can ‘get the jokes’.
And as for an audience of millions, so did Lee Harvey O. It what you do, not how many saw you do it.
As for ringing the bell at the NYSE – one only needs a pulse to do that.
Keys visit to the USA was the logical equivalent of streaking the wicket at Eden Park. A flashy dullard, out for a bit of a laugh, soon forgotten.
Invite him to appear on Letterman.
If he accepts, he’s a dick.
How would you test for dickyness greenfly?
Shouldn’t make YOU Prime Minister either.
Shouldn’t make you Prime Minister either.
Being a bit of a dick doesn’t make you a pretender.
Going back to the original question posed – JK’s visit to New York. Contrary to a lot of media comment, it seemed to me that he was like a little boy in a toy shop. He seemed in awe of Barack Obama and Letterman had eminently more ‘presence’ than our pm.
It seems quite clear that he is a pretender – not only on the world stage but in his capacity as PM.
(this is what i just said at kiwiblog..it bears repeating here..)
# philu (5940) 0 0 Says:
September 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
hooten and campbell on nine to noon today are worth a listen..
they sorta agree that english is up shit creek without a paddle..(diptonless..as it were..)
and that the greens have fucked up..big time..by not electing bradford co-leader..
they make a compelling case..for both the strengths of bradford..
..and the stupidity of those greens who want to be ‘centreist’..
(i’ve never heard such equanimity from these two before.
especially in their urging of the greens not to move to the centre..
but to step into the large vacuum that is the left of goff/labour..)
this was one of the things i used to bang on at then about..
..fucken years and years ago..
about their paranoia about ‘offending’ anyone..
and a clawing/cloying desire..
to be all things to all people..
y’know..my advice along the lines of..
hey..!..piss off 80%..get 20% vote..!
the commentators also noted how strange it is..that at this time of climate-change focus at a peak..
..the greens are nowhere to be seen/heard..
i mean..who the f*ck does their media..?
is it the usual exercise in nepotism..?
and i can only recommend you go to the radio new zealand website..
and listen to campbell/hooten talking politics ..on the nine to noon show..
funnily enough..both of those (usually) polarised commentators..agree on one thing..
and that is their diagnoses of how the green party has really f*cked up..
really..!..every green party member/polly should listen to this..
i am hoping that in the spirit of open debate/self-examination..
frog will give the piece its’ own thread..
Ko ‘para-one’ Ko te kupu Maori mo ‘brown’ me ‘topsoil’ hoki.
He mea tino nui ki te Pati Kakariki – te ‘para-one’!
It’s starting to sound like abad case of food poisoning!
here is an idea for sue…
she should stand in auckland central next election..
as an independant..
(directing her party votes to the green party..
..and the green party not standing a candidate in that seat..)
i reckon many in auckland central would clasp her to their bosom..
having a strong/capable/party-independant mp standing up for both auckland and all else sue represents..
is a potent message/vote-catcher..
and she would have a fair chance of cracking it..
More like a good thing to be brown and green.
She infers that brown is an advantage to being green.
I find that deeply disturbing.
samiam – Meyt should: not mention the race of the new Green? (What if he had been Innuit – not worthy of a mention?)
The race of any Green might well be irrelevant, but there is no requirement not to mention it – is it a secret? Shhhh !
Not likely. The Greens have always aimed at having a diverse Caucus, specifically including Maori. Our first ever Maori MP welcoming only our second ever Maori MP is not so radical a thing in any case.
Met is reported as saying that it’s great that the new Greenz member is Maori.
It should be utterly IRRELEVANT the race of a member. Imagine coming out and saying it’s great that (s)he is not a Maori.
This race based politics must surely have no place in the Green party, she should be reprimanded for any such statement!