Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I do wonder where Lee got her inspiration from. A mate of mine joined the police in the mid-90s and he told me about the operational stereotypes that they used.
e.g. Maori are petty-crims, Tongans are liars.
I wonder if this has morphed into "South Aucklanders do burglaries on the isthmus", and Lee really was parroting a police officer.
-
Although it's worth noting that they're probably wearing GM cotton.
Yeah, and people also wear stuff made in sweatshops. All this shows is that keeping consumers in the dark about product provenance is good for business, and bad for informed decision-marking.
Which - with respect to food - is one of the things that Greens wanted Labour to implement, to no avail. I suppose this is the difference between National and Labour. Labour's real problems were the things they couldn't face, whereas National's problems are rooted in how they face things, especially those they should leave well enough alone.
Thanks, Bart, for your eloquent posts on GE from a scientists perspective. I can see a business model based around GE kept in the lab, with standard breeding techniques used to replicate those breeds that are deemed useful. If it can't be bred conventionally, then ditch it. No pigato's, no problem, and probably a braeburn or two in the mix.
However, Bart, your post about the awesomeness of GE being realised in the near future with respect to longer shelf times etc, is basically a pandering to the worst kind of Western consumerism.
Call me a luddite, but I think in-season foods are great, and processed foods are part of the problem, not the solution, to the issue of quality diets in Western cultures.
In the final analysis, I see many of the "problems" that GE purports to solve as fundamentally being socioeconomic/political, and the involvement of multinationals as an aggravating factor rather than a solution.
Keeping GE in the lab, at this stage, is, IMO, a prudent step.
-
The part of my that buys into ethnic stereotyping has been secretly hoping that, given the large number of Somalian families in our Mt Albert neighbourhood, we'll see a resurgence in piracy.
Does that mean we get to dump nuclear waste in their back yards ?
Oh, and to respond to the GE non-thread-jack: Saying that the Greens risk-averse position on GE is akin to saying that all GE is evil is exactly the point I have been making about reductionist positions that some people take with respect to the the Greens.
A big problem with GE is our current economic model. Capitalism seeks to externalise costs wherever possible (e.g. farmers flushing effluent into waterways that pollute my lake), and to hell with the poor sods who have to wear the cost. Does anyone here really believe that the track record of multinational corporations will result in a ethical, responsible approach to GE, or more of the same irresponsible cost externalisation ?
And if someone does screw up a GE experiment and we end up with genetic pollution, how would we ever clean it up ? We can't even deal with something the size of a possum...
-
"All transition costs will be borne by Auckland ratepayers, but controlled by the Lord Hide oligarchy," Dr Norman said.
it's pretty hard to take the Greens seriously when they release this sort of thing. It's a pity, because the issues they are trying to raise awareness of are serious ones.
I agree, we need more vision, and less pithy comments or hyperbole. There is no value in name-calling. Frankly, the NACT government are a gold mine of opportunities to illustrate concrete ways in which the Green approach is so much better .
(Green party members who might be lurking out there: this voter is one Kedgley away from joining your party.)
One of the issues the Greens face is that people seek excuses not to engage with the Greens e.g. If it wasn't for <insert Green MP or Green issue>, then I'd vote/join/whatever...
We can ill afford the luxury of media communications that distract from our core messages. I will be following this up.
That being said, I also agree James. There is enormous scope within the Greens to make gains in all sorts of areas, even if there are some policies that you disagree with. And, as I have said before, Green policy is developed, critiqued and ratified by the members, so you've got every chance of moderating any policy with which you have an issue.
-
I reckon this is the week that will be remembered as the time that the Key government jumped the shark.
"National shits on Auckland" is a meme that they can not live down, and one which any Aucklander can see the basis.
The Rankin debacle is simply an arrogant icing on National's shark-jumping cake.
-
<quote>So yet again, National walks away from an extensive consultative process and merrily shits on Aucklanders.
Bastards.<quote>
Exactly. These guys are a bunch of wreckers. The arrogance of this decision is simply breathtaking. Not listening to experts is once thing, but openly deriding the wishes of an entire community is a whole new level of hubris.
As a result, I predict high levels of direct action if/when development starts.
-
Labour also seem to be the only party aware that Pt Chev is in the electorate.
The Green billboards are going up this week, and you may be pleasantly surprised at the ones in your locale...
Actually, I quite like the new billboards, and I think they nicely develop the "Vote for Us" theme. But I would say that, my kids are in them...
-
Just curious, what do you think the police could've done to develop intelligence that Molenaar had firearms?
Firstly, I am not criticising the police for their handling of this situation. Nor am I saying that legalised cannabis would have magicked up some intelligence about Molenaar's weaponry. Of course it wouldn't.
But what I am pointing out is that the current cannabis laws result in a systemic diversion of resources away from crimes where there are real or potential victims. IOW, the police would have more resources available to actually develop intelligence systems that could result in the kind of intelligence that would have prevent this incident from occurring the way that it did.
Also, I would suspect that many current cannabis users who are currently wary of the police (because they fear prosecution), would be more inclined to assist police intelligence efforts if they in no danger of persecution for responsible cannabis use.
-
I'm all in favour of a more sensible look at drug laws, but I'm guessing his mental illness issues (possibly made worse by drug use?), coupled with military training, plus the large cache of arms might have a bit more to do with what happened than some cops turning up at his door to see if he had drugs inside. He could have gone postal at being pulled over for running a red light for all we know.
I agree that sensible recreational substance laws would not prevent someone with a grudge against the state from eventually losing the plot and attacking the police on the slightest pretext.
However, one of the issues that police face with respect to gaining intelligence on these "under the radar" weapons fetishists, is that they don't have the resources to conduct the necessary intelligence operations.
The latest statistics I could quickly google suggest there are over 20,000 arrests for cannabis offences each year. Surely a positive benefit of having sensible recreational substance laws would be that the police could divert their limited resources into investigating people who actually pose a risk of visiting real to others in their community ?
-
But whatever there is really no need to hunt for meat anymore in NZ with anything other than a zipzap card.
Yeah, and there's no need to do other outdoor activities such as skiing, tramping, or birdwatching either. People do these things because they are fun, not because they are the most efficient way. And people hunt because they enjoy it, and because they enjoy eating the meat.
Try watching Hunting Aotearoa on MTS sometime (which is produced by my brothers, so I suppose I'm going in to bat for the whanau on this), and you'll see that the hunters are simply people who enjoy hunting.
Given the number of firearms in this country - 1.5 to 2 million by some estimates - does anyone else suspect that we have a relatively low incident rate ? I tend to conccur with Emma's point that the vast majority of firearms users are very responsible.