Random Politics

[aR Que]

I don't think they're discriminating between what is on the land, just taking swathes of it <x>km of <insert waterway here>.

It's a typical knee jerk green movement, imo. No real sight of the problem, the cause or an understanding of how to mitigate. They say 'run-off' what does that even mean? Is the pollution caused by surface run off from cattle effluent? If that's the sole problem, solutions are simple.

I have given it a wee bit of thought and suspect it's leachate and the cycling of flood levels in rivers (water tables 'changing flow direction'), diagrams would probably help here :/. Anyway, it's a theory i could prove by 6-12 months observation of piezos and BOD(5)* tests. But science, who the hell has that even helped?

Once we've identified the mechanism of how the pollution actually reaches the waterway, we can begin to discuss how to mitigate the problem. This is obviously the difficult step, but there are aptly clever people available to tackle such tasks.
I believe enforcement should be to have the RC monitor the BOD* entering the farms and having an allowable tolerance of what increase there can be before leaving their site (realistically they'd only audit the submitted levels), at this point, after identifying the exact course, supplying the farmers with solutions (heaven forbid, even subsidising improvements) you can use punitive measures due to them failing to achieve the set levels and it doesn't punish them for upstream causes.

At the moment, we've skipped straight to step 3, punishment. I mean, fuck, after investigation if it's found that nothing else will work, then do it, but i haven't seen any information surrounding this other than news paper articles telling me you can't swim in rivers.
This is a science matter, let science solve it, not politics.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_oxygen_demand (i thought it was biological oxygen demand, tbh :/)

ymmv

[chubby]

Originally Posted by aR Que

I don't think they're discriminating between what is on the land, just taking swathes of it <x>km of <insert waterway here>.

It's a typical knee jerk green movement, imo. No real sight of the problem, the cause or an understanding of how to mitigate. They say 'run-off' what does that even mean? Is the pollution caused by surface run off from cattle effluent? If that's the sole problem, solutions are simple.

I have given it a wee bit of thought and suspect it's leachate and the cycling of flood levels in rivers (water tables 'changing flow direction'), diagrams would probably help here :/. Anyway, it's a theory i could prove by 6-12 months observation of piezos and BOD(5)* tests. But science, who the hell has that even helped?

Once we've identified the mechanism of how the pollution actually reaches the waterway, we can begin to discuss how to mitigate the problem. This is obviously the difficult step, but there are aptly clever people available to tackle such tasks.
I believe enforcement should be to have the RC monitor the BOD* entering the farms and having an allowable tolerance of what increase there can be before leaving their site (realistically they'd only audit the submitted levels), at this point, after identifying the exact course, supplying the farmers with solutions (heaven forbid, even subsidising improvements) you can use punitive measures due to them failing to achieve the set levels and it doesn't punish them for upstream causes.

At the moment, we've skipped straight to step 3, punishment. I mean, fuck, after investigation if it's found that nothing else will work, then do it, but i haven't seen any information surrounding this other than news paper articles telling me you can't swim in rivers.
This is a science matter, let science solve it, not politics.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemical_oxygen_demand (i thought it was biological oxygen demand, tbh :/)

ymmv

in all of that,you seem to think its the green's that are responsible for slap-dash responses..
its the sleight of hand of politicians and the dairying crowd desperately trying to deflect actual solutions(cause we both know whos to blame)that is to blame.is that not obvious to you yet?

[aR Que]

It's a knee jerk reaction, regardless of the author.
(call it a hunch that i don't think it's the capitalists tho)

Tell me, Chubby, who is to blame? Lets not play snarky comment, it benefits no one.

[Lightspeed]

Exponential population growth? Economy based on infinite growth?

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by aR Que

This is a science matter, let science solve it, not politics.

I don't disagree with the sentiment of this but the reality is that "science" as a cultural field is one of the most politicised on the planet. All scientific endeavours take place with some form of politics attached to them, often the politics are actually the biggest factor in the success or failure of a particular endeavour - it's inescapable in our current world.

As for capitalism not being part of the problem? Well it's the ideology which informs absolutely everything which is done, both within science and all other fields - every decision which is made (both by politicians and everyone else) is played out through capitalist logic. However it's pointless to try and lay blame, this is the environment we've got and the solutions need to be rationalised in terms of the dominant ideology.

Meh.

Pixie

[Lightspeed]

^^

[chubby]

Originally Posted by aR Que

It's a knee jerk reaction, regardless of the author.
(call it a hunch that i don't think it's the capitalists tho)

Tell me, Chubby, who is to blame? Lets not play snarky comment, it benefits no one.

im absolutely not being snarkey.
the problem is our way of managing primary industry..or as malks says,the 'dominant idiology that informs'.
or the capitalists-who,as you proudly tell us, are out of the terms of reference.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

So you agree with me? Cool.

You're not just "skeptical". You made some asinine comment about a policy you obviously don't understand and used it as a reason to dismiss a politicians viewpoint completely.

[Vrtigo]

sorry mrq, i have to disagree here. because there is continuous damage being done due to various forms of runoff, politics is needed to step in and stop the damage first, and then allow on a one by one basis the methods that are profitable for the farmers and yet acceptable environmentally.

ideally we would have a list of ok methods to begin with so that people can switch right over.

disclaimer: IANAF

[CCS]

Originally Posted by adonis

You're not just "skeptical". You made some asinine comment about a policy you obviously don't understand and used it as a reason to dismiss a politicians viewpoint completely.

Pretty every economist in the country has derided Norman's "print more money" policy. I may not understand the issue to the degree that an economist does but I'm pretty comfortable that if all these economists are saying Norman's policy is bullshit, then it must be bullshit.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Vrtigo

sorry mrq, i have to disagree here. because there is continuous damage being done due to various forms of runoff, politics is needed to step in and stop the damage first, and then allow on a one by one basis the methods that are profitable for the farmers and yet acceptable environmentally.

ideally we would have a list of ok methods to begin with so that people can switch right over.

disclaimer: IANAF

Ah, kneejerk reactions. Brilliant. Don't like it? Ban it!

[chubby]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10851514

The oil and gas industry tends to be risk-rich and jobs-poor. Coal, oil, gas and metal mining employs only 3000 people, according to Statistics NZ. That compares with around 200,000 employed in manufacturing. Any future job growth in the mining sector won't compensate for the 40,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the past four years.

[Ab]

Aussie Russ is the strongest politician in Opposition at the moment.

[Lightspeed]

http://rt.com/news/assange-internet-...alitarian-943/

Anyone want to offer comments or critique on Assange's interview from Friday?

I was impressed by his ability to be as coherent as he was given his circumstances (although he did seem upset when he mentioned Wikileaks.) I like how he offers quite real examples of the threats he's talking about and some of the shit he says is scary. But... there's always more to the picture.

No comments on RT. :p

[cyc]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10851778

This kind of behaviour is what I'd expect only out of Labour or the Greens. Look, you got a fucking Canadian Supreme Court Judge in and he's clearly declared Bain innocent and that he should be compensated. Live with the umpire's ruling and don't go rushing off to get someone else to change the game for you.

Judith Collins = moron.

[Saladin]

Shopping around for the expert that supports your case is pretty standard lawyer behaviour isn't it?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Shopping around for the expert that supports your case is pretty standard lawyer behaviour isn't it?

Truth be told, it is (in the sense that people try). Especially amongst members of the criminal defence fraternity. OTOH most experts are very, very good at pushing back because they know that their credibility depends on the courts' acceptance that they see their duty as being to the court first, i.e. to remain impartial and stick to what the evidence supports.

One would expect the so called Minister of Justice to have slightly higher standards. Then again, National recently had the even more abysmal Simon "Public Outcry - Change the Law" Power in that post.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by cyc

This kind of behaviour is what I'd expect only out of Labour or the Greens. Look, you got a fucking Canadian Supreme Court Judge in and he's clearly declared Bain innocent and that he should be compensated. Live with the umpire's ruling and don't go rushing off to get someone else to change the game for you.

The problem for me here is that I can very clearly and unmistakably hear the "I killed the prick" words in the 111 phone call said at normal tempo and in one breath. This wasn't in the recording at the timestamp the NZ Herald claimed when it linked to the recording - it was about 8 seconds later.

At the time I had trained myself to listen to audiobooks read at 4 to 6 times normal speed on recordings created with the gaps between the words mostly removed and other tricks applied to speed up the talking without changing the pitch. Perhaps this funny sort of training had an impact on my perception.

Anyway - it's a very funny thing to hear so plainly in a recording of a person who is supposed to be innocent.

[chubby]

....yeah,but you're a pompous wanker..
anywayhttp://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/20...bout-the-tppa/

Remember how the Key government has justified being so very, very secretive about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) because goodness me, you don’t negotiate these things in public? Well, guess who has just been negotiating the TPP in public? Trade Minister Tim Groser, that’s who. In an interview published yesterday in the influential Inside US Trade publication, Groser “signalled” to the Americans that he is “willing to be flexible on two key issues in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations: new disciplines for New Zealand’s pharmaceutical pricing agency and protections for geographical indications (or GIs).” (GIs are a system of quality assurance in dairy products.)
Groser seemed pretty confident in his Inside US Trade interview that he can both please the Americans, and manage any outcry that might break out here at home: “I am confident we can find ways that advance U.S. interests [on these two issues] without causing projectile political vomiting in New Zealand, and many of the other countries of the TPP,” Groser said. Plainly, by being seen to be seeking to “advance US interests” and by casting himself as a deal broker within the TPP, Groser would also be doing no harm at all to his bid to become the next head of the World Trade Organisation. Let’s just hope and pray that Groser’s personal ambition and New Zealand’s best interests manage to intersect at some point.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

At the time I had trained myself to listen to audiobooks read at 4 to 6 times normal speed on recordings created with the gaps between the words mostly removed and other tricks applied to speed up the talking without changing the pitch.

Interested to know why you would do this?

[Vrtigo]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Interested to know why you would do this?

some vain attempt to levitate himself from what he percieves as mediocrity of the common folk

"herp, i now read fast with questionable comprehension!"

[Yoda]

new disciplines for New Zealand’s pharmaceutical pricing agency

I just can't see letting US input into PHARMAC giving New Zealand any benefit.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Vrtigo

some vain attempt to levitate himself from what he percieves as mediocrity of the common folk

"herp, i now read fast with questionable comprehension!"

Elevate. Not levitate. Fucking dummy.

[madmaxii]

No, in GT's case levitate is the correct terminology.

[Lightspeed]

Pretty much.

[Lightspeed]

Nothing surprising here really:
Ministry vows to fix flaws (Winz kiosks)

Pretty much business as usual. No leadership, no oversight, no coordination, no fucks given. I suppose it's still fair to blame the National government given they are the ones in the position of leadership, but this is NZ all over really...

[crocos]

From someone in the know: Apparently the Kiosks were set up so the ID they were running under had domain admin. Uh...

[Vrtigo]

fuck its confusing seeing posts like yours madmaxii, then i realize youre probably replying to a ccs post and it all makes sense again

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by crocos

From someone in the know: Apparently the Kiosks were set up so the ID they were running under had domain admin. Uh...

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Nothing surprising here really:
Ministry vows to fix flaws (Winz kiosks)

Pretty much business as usual. No leadership, no oversight, no coordination, no fucks given. I suppose it's still fair to blame the National government given they are the ones in the position of leadership, but this is NZ all over really...

Fuck man, what more do you want? They've acknowledged that MSD "needs to lift its game to ensure confidence in the public sector is not harmed."

That's some fucking brutal hard-hitting sanctions and key milestones right there.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Ab

Fuck man, what more do you want? They've acknowledged that MSD "needs to lift its game to ensure confidence in the public sector is not harmed."

That's some fucking brutal hard-hitting sanctions and key milestones right there.

Have any heads rolled as a result? I would expect the CTO and CEO to be rolled at least.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Look, you got a fucking Canadian Supreme Court Judge in and he's clearly declared Bain innocent and that he should be compensated. Live with the umpire's ruling and don't go rushing off to get someone else to change the game for you.

“My concerns are broadly that the report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law. It lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.

“This was not a decision I made lightly, but one that was absolutely necessary. Put simply, it would not be acceptable to make a recommendation to Cabinet based on a report that would not withstand the considerable scrutiny it would attract.

“I am very disappointed this peer review is needed – I think we would all agree that a timely conclusion to this matter would be best for everyone. But justice must be done – a robust and proper process is the only way to ensure a certain and final conclusion to Mr Bain’s claim.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/c...ort-led-review

Ay Caramba!

[Lightspeed]

I'm certainly a bit WTF about all that. Collins publicly slagging off some Canadian judge we've brought in on this, before the results of the peer review.

Perhaps someone's making it clear to a certain QC what the expected outcome of the review should be...

[SickBo@Work]

She wouldn't be sticking her neck out in this fashion unless she had sought far more qualified opinions on the merits of Binnies report. And I also very much doubt that a QC like Fisher would sacrifice his reputation impugning someone of Binnies standing as some sort of political lackey boy kowtowing to his masters.

[Lightspeed]

Why stick her neck out at all? Is there some pressure from somewhere that necessitated these statements? There has to be some motivation for making them.

[chubby]

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/53...our-harley-dav

Leave Pharmac alone America, just buy our butter and wool and we’ll buy your Harley Davidsons.

Or get lost and we’ll deal with China instead.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by SickBo@Work

She wouldn't be sticking her neck out in this fashion unless she had sought far more qualified opinions on the merits of Binnies report. And I also very much doubt that a QC like Fisher would sacrifice his reputation impugning someone of Binnies standing as some sort of political lackey boy kowtowing to his masters.

That's a pretty naive view if you look at the extremely disturbing conduct of Collins throughout this whole deal. This is a woman who has steadfastly refused to show the Binnie report (And Fisher's so called peer review) to Bain and his lawyers but was absolutely happy to show this to the police and Crown Law for comments and so forth. It's no use showing Fisher's report to Bain etc now - they don't have a fair shot at having input into it now given the police and Crown got a go first without Bain and his team knowing what was said.

She has also fundamentally breached the basic principle that a Minister of the Crown should not on the one hand rely on legal professional privilege to deny information from a third party yet rely on the material to take pot shots using the same material.

And what's more, some of the concerns and criticisms raised by Collins and Fisher were the very things rejected by the Privy Council, i.e. the claims to do with Binnie and Bain's legal team relying on misapprehensions of facts. The Crown at the re-trial also conceded that if it wasn't Bain who left the luminol stained prints, it would have been Robin Bain (and by extension the true killer). Binnie has argued that it was not Bain who left the prints and now the Crown suddenly wishes to change tack. Why is that?

I've always taken the "Don't give a shit. Compensate him if someone independent says so" view. If Colllins' behaviour wasn't so disturbing throughout and the NZ justice system (of which Fisher was a long time member) wasn't so keen on pretending every step of the way that it had not misapplied the law (until corrected by the Privy Council), one might be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Not now.

[Lightspeed]

Agreeing with cyc.... maybe the world is ending regardless of Mayan non-prophecies?

[SickBo@Work]

Originally Posted by cyc

The Crown at the re-trial also conceded that if it wasn't Bain who left the luminol stained prints, it would have been Robin Bain (and by extension the true killer)

The same could be argued for any key piece of evidence such as the gloves, fingerprints, injuries, blood stains, disposal of evidence etc, all of which interrelate when assessing probability.

And regardless of her conduct or the process followed, Binnies report gave them more than enough to hang him with. He's adopted a reactionary approach to perceived police misconduct which has clearly colored his findings and resulted in a report that resembles a SC judgement aimed at remedying the former as opposed to maintaining the objectivity that his mandate required.

This is exemplified in his interview with Bain which contains elements of coaching and suggestions that would itself attract judicial criticism and render it unsafe. It becomes almost farcical when you have the interviewer accepting without question and finding credible a subject who dismisses key pieces of evidence against him as the fabrications of witnesses plotting revenge because he had found them raping the family goat 20 years ago.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by SickBo@Work

And regardless of her conduct or the process followed, Binnies report gave them more than enough to hang him with.

I think Collins' conduct is highly relevant. I'm in no position to critique a confidential report, and I have no way of knowing what's salient and what's faff. I find it difficult to believe Collins would need to reject the report in such a politicised way if her points were genuine. Unless she's just trying to strut about and let the world know how the National cabinet knows better than some Canadian judge.