Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell -
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Or to put it more succinctly, we’re currently on a fool’s gold rush.
And no one seemed to notice that in the last week of the election campaign, John Key announced the future prospect of tax cuts.
Fool's gold indeed.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Ditto.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Russell Brown,
But all the comments being disappeared? That’s strange. The editors should not go along with this bullshit.
Another one to watch to see what the Eds do. Fran O'Sullivan's article from yesterday - comment stream open, but none posted through yet.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11332285
Wouldn't it be interesting if they just simply remove the comments field and post none.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to nzlemming,
Holy shit (can we say that here?). Why am I not surprised.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to nzlemming,
Why don’t they apply that to their columnists? Although it’s significant that the Herald notes that O’Sullivan is “A columnist for the NZ Herald” rather than a journalist.
I also find it ironic that The Herald's online community by a wide majority, don't see it Fran's way either. See the results of this online opinion poll on a the very straight-forward question:
Who do you believe - John Key or Kim Dotcom?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11325032And Fran's corresponding column on the same subject;
Fran O'Sullivan: Key wins - now let's focus on real issues
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/fran-osullivan/news/article.cfm?a_id=13&objectid=11325841She could not have been more wrong .. in accordance with Herald readers, that is.
I assume they keep her on for the newsprint buyers (i.e. her generation).
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Kumara Republic,
It won’t happen anytime soon. She’s too valuable to the Auckland country club set for it to happen.
Indeed. I do find it quite off-putting when I return to Kapiti (a place we used to live) as it is just so noticeable how folks with grey hair outnumber the rest of the population. When you live in a more balanced demographic (as we do now), a return to a more dominant aging population does focus your attention.
My experience of young people is that they all love their grandparents and have a lot of compassion for the elderly, but they don't see the elderly as those with the ideas (or even an understanding or a vision) for the future. Folks of Dotcom's age (i.e., non baby boomers) are the ones they seek out and pay more attention to. The IMP roadshows were chocker full of people who wanted to hear more from KDC than Laila and Hone. What KDCs "pull" gave to Laila and Hone was an opportunity to put forward their message/vision. What the Laila, Hone, Annette and John's need to do is bring the youth of their respective movements to the fore. That's the future.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Ianmac,
I do wish The Herald would retire the old girl. How could anyone think Fran O’Sullivan at her age had any idea about what the future will/should look like. She reminds me of a vindictive grandma – why, is anyone’s guess. A relic of times well and truly past.
PS I don’t normally do ‘ad hominem’ but given her love for it – I’m sure she’ll appreciate my being so un-polite. Sorry Fran, but it’s just the way it is – you do remind me of a vindictive grandma. Not that I know any other vindictive grandmas – all the grandmas I know (me being one) are loving, caring sorts.
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Thanks, interesting. I’d be keen on any comment on a particular issue I’ve been watching for years: State of the Environment reporting.
Only two have ever been completed nationally (1997 and 2007). The National Party campaigned across two elections to support SoE reporting in legislation and to give responsibility for it to the Parliamentary Commissioner of Environment. See here, for example;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5475347/Environment-commissioners-powers-growing
However, when it came to actual legislative proposals a decision was made to give responsibility to Secretary for the Environment (who reports to the Minister for the Environment) and the Chief Government Statistician. With the PCE having an advisory role. See here;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10910158
As a scientist in a CRI, do you see this as a concern?
-
Speaker: Science and Democracy, in reply to Bart Janssen,
.. we can pretty much say what we think… providing we are clear that it is our personal opinion (educated or not) and not the position of the company for which we work.
So if I interpret you right, the company opinion (I assume you mean the CRI as a company?) can and is at times at odds with personal opinions of some of its scientists? This would be expected as it sounds like you are talking about values-based opinions (i.e., whether a freshwater standard should be wade-able as opposed to swimmable), as opposed to scientifically based findings on the state of a particular freshwater resource.
But the author of this article suggests some CRI-based scientists are encouraged not to speak up on, say, whether the Government’s national policy on freshwater management is ‘good or bad’ in the lead up to an election. Are you saying such instruction (whether explicit or inferred) is not your experience?
Perhaps then, if you are from a particular CRI - there are different management approaches?