Daily review 18/06/2020

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 35 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

35 comments on “Daily review 18/06/2020”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    1. 1.1

      Planting pine trees on good food producing land,destroying communities that have developed over 150 years ,in a flash, is complete bullshit.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Farmers are obviously selling their farms, because they are being offered ridiculous money by companies like Air New Zealand and rich European royalty .

            2. 1.1.1.1.1.2

              Because big companies are getting subsidized to pay way above standard land values. All for 25 years of kicking the can down the road.

      2. 1.1.2

        The industrialising/intensifying of farming did the same thing – small family farms and their supportive communities disappeared as the farming industry ramped it up.

        2. 1.1.2.2

          So where did all those small family farms disappear too ? The area I farm has a bigger and more diversified and vibrant community than it has ever had.Your lack of empathy with the communities that these policies are destroying is not good.

          1. 1.1.4.1.1

            Perhaps, but I was asking Ian how he imagined Maori felt when government and settlers planting pine trees on good cut down food producing land forests, destroying communities that have developed over 150 750 years, in a flash? Was that complete bullshit too?

    2. 1.2

      NZ farming are the biggest polluters and so any effective legislation that reduces that pollution is going to negatively affect them.

      That's economics – the real thing and not what you obviously want it to be.

      2. 1.2.2

        The pine planting isnt about reducing farm emmisions. It is so polluters like tourism can keep polluting. Sheep and beef emmisions have reduced 30% since 1990

        1. 1.2.2.1

          Farms covered in trees will reduce farm emissions simply because there will be fewer farms, emitting, surely?

              1. 1.2.2.1.1.1.1

                Have you visited the east coast and Hawkes bay hinterland and done a bit of community consultation? If not, you need to fire up the broomstick and see for yourself the devastation these ridiculous policies are doing to the people and the communities that are being destroyed.

              2. 1.2.2.1.1.1.2

                not when they barely get to grow for a few years before clear logging. You might want to drive next to strech of clearlogged road and it looks like an atomic bomb has gone off. It is literally just wasteful and obscene.

                Yes, forrests are great for reducing global heating, but not if they get cut down every few years. and judging by the logs on the trucks they get barely enough time to grow to a bit of height.

                The trees are not at fault, its the industrial planting and 'harvesting' that leaves nothing but bleached soil and homeless critters behind. Never mind the birds….

                1. 1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1

                  but the carbon is still trapped in the harvested wood. More trees can be planted.

                  Agree that harvesting practices need to improve.

            3. 1.2.2.1.1.3

              People's way way of life have been destroyed, one way or another, since forever. It happens as we learn more and progress. Trying to hold on to the past as new information becomes available is the same as King Canute trying to hold back the tide.

        2. 1.2.2.2

          Sheep and beef emmisions have reduced 30% since 1990

          Then it won't be a problem will it? Obviously, once they become carbon neutral, the legislation will no longer apply.

          Which probably indicates that such legislation is working.

  2. 2

    So, Cucker T can lie because his White Power Hour viewers don't expect him to tell the truth.

    Tucker Carlson doesn't have an obligation to investigate the truth of statements before making them on his show, and his audience doesn't expect him to report facts, a lawyer for Fox News told a New York federal judge on Wednesday.

    […]

    Fox News wants U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil to toss the complaint, arguing both that nothing Carlson said is defamatory because it can't be interpreted as stating actual facts and that McDougal can't prove he acted with actual malice, which she must to succeed on her claims because she's a public figure.

    Fox News' attorney Erin Murphy argued that Carlson repeatedly couched his statements as hypotheticals to promote conversation and that a reasonable viewer would know his show offers "provocative things that will help me think harder," as opposed to straight news.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fox-news-defends-tucker-carlson-karen-mcdougal-slander-suit-1298999?

    1. 2.1

      Cucker T can lie because his White Power Hour viewers don't expect him to tell the truth.

      Well obviously joe – it is after all Faux News.

      Nevertheless still eye rolling.

  3. 3

    The latest stage of gun reforms has passed in the House, including a long overdue gun register. Good.

    Such is the monomania currently gripping NZ/Salem, laws to save lives are barely even noticed now.

Comments are closed.