Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, September 11th, 2025 - 139 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
Duncan Garner – National is f&*ked
Psy-Op Alert: The Four Horsemen of the Linguistic Apocalypse
New Post up:
Psy-Op Alert: The Four Horsemen of the Linguistic Apocalypse
Mod note: reminder that we take a zero tolerance policy to posts advocating harm, including implications.
https://thestandard.org.nz/policy/
Myself, I include in that comments that justify the shooting of political opponents. It's fine to critique Kirk's politics, please be mindful of how you do that. If in doubt err on the side of caution.
Shits getting real, Charlie Kirk has just been shot and is in hospital
Would be a miracle to have survived that. One of the more unpleasant & obnoxious characters of the US right but he didn't deserve that.
Certainly hope it doesn't enflame the situation or encourage more people to act similarly
Good luck with
that
agreed. Both sides need to take a long hard look at their choices right now. Unfortunately there are people on both sides who want a civil war.
this is how it's done,
https://x.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1965855907977560460
This is true but I'd also add the msm need to take some blame for this
yep, and social media companies.
100%
Ya reckon?
"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-it-2nd-amendment-1793113
Yes and?
/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators
MAGA have got their Horst Wessel….
Well he's dead now
Yes & a lot of his own hateful quotes are coming back to haunt him. He thought empathy was a weakness for e.g.
Got any links for that or just your opinion?
From 2022,
https://link.motherjones.com/public/29381490
He's correct in that empathy can do a lot of damage.
Look at housing for example, really hard to kick scumbag people out of housing because where will they go which is all nice and good but what about the suffering of the neighbour?
They don't matter at all.
It does show how the msm (mostly on the left) demonizes and dehumanisies those on the right and when you think someone is less than human or is a threat to democracy or is literally Hitler etc etc
Well of course its your duty to take them out, hell you're a hero if you do
"Too much" of anything is, by definition, not good.
When you have "too much" of something, then it has ceased to be that thing and become something else.
People who say you can have too much empathy are mostly trying to justify having too little.
Much of the substance of politics is an argument about how much empathy we should have – there is no political agreement on where to draw the line.
Therefore – to say that people can have "too much empathy" makes no meaningful claim about reality or anything else
An unfortunate analogy, given the extent to which the liberal left's "It's good to punch a fascist, also everyone I don't like is a fascist" approach will have contributed to MAGA getting a martyr.
What's your point Joe? That someone shot a Dem so it's the Republican's turn?
That shit's been getting real for quite some time now but it's taken the murder of one of their own to wake dopey pricks like puck up.
Seems to be an awful lot of violent rhetoric coming from the left these days Joe
"Seems" being the operative word.
Would you be surprised to know that more Republican presidents have been assassinated than Democrat presidents
Also more attempts on Republican presidents ss well
now many assassinations were political and by which side?
In this instance probably most, if not all or are you talking about nut bars just wanting to kill anyone famous?
True (Lincoln 1865, Garfield 1881, McKinley 1901 vs Kennedy 1961). But it was a different Republican party back then.
I'm suggesting a bit more nuance to the claim you are making, in part because it's unclear to me that people killing politicians are necessarily of the opposite politics.
So? Kirk wasn't an elected official and we have no idea about the murderer's motives.
Well aware of that un-nuanced right wing talking point. There's nice little infographics pointing that out.
Bearing in mind in the early days the Republican Party was liberal and the Democrats the conservatives doesn't help the argument you are trying to make. It also disregards attempted ones (I'm not sure that success in itself is a good measuring bar of political violence) and assumes the political leanings were both opposite and the reason.
John Wilkes Booth as you likely well know, was a confederate sympathiser – hardly a bastion of left wing thinking. A previous planned confederate attempt had been foiled just a week earlier.
Garfield's killer was upset at being passed over for promotion – he was a Garfield supporter and thought Garfield's victory was due to himself writing in support of Garfield.
McKinleys was an anarchist (leftwing by definition), Hinckley just wanted to impress Jodie Foster.
Most attempts were just people who were insane / delusional.
Not everything is political and sometimes we need to be more sensible than just spouting memes.
We don’t even know who killed him so it is pretty pointless ass-scribing any motivation. This isn’t twitter.
I remain hopeful that one day leftists will blunder their way to the realisation that "stochastic terrorism" isn't something that only the right is capable of and indulges in, but I was ever an optimist.
same. Already seeing some stupid shit in my twitter tl.
We already know both left and right and those in between are capable of violence and that violent rhetoric can lead to actual violence. What makes you think anyone has ever said that isn't true or that only the right are? What you say is non-sensical.
I'm also conscious however that invariably when someone is caught posing as the other side it is inevitably someone from the right who is pretending to be a left winger fanning the flames. I have a healthy degree of scepticism at times about the fake outrage posted which certainly has accelerated in recent times.
From the shooting at the ping pong pizza shop, to the supposed left wing outrage over Sydney Sweeny's jeans to examples in NZ of political candidates pretending to be the other side on talkback to generate a reaction…….
Shitposting is a thing as well as more sophisticated efforts and twitterbots.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/05/18/the-battle-against-bots-julie-wittes-schlack
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave" – grifters on the (political) right do seem to have a penchant for deceit, and (sometimes) over-estimate their own talents.
I agree that bots and shit posters are a problem.
Here are some examples I'm seeing on my social feeds today of left/liberal people justifying or celebrating the murder of Kirk (I'm also seeing a fair number of left/liberals saying don't do that, which is good).
https://x.com/SophieMolly_OFF/status/1965885085749752276
https://x.com/Ron__Patterson/status/1965889959115809007
If you are old enough, memories of the 1978 kidnap and murder of Aldo Moro by the Brigatte Rosse in Italy should keep that realisation alive. (Allen Curnow does a brilliant poetic meditation on it in his "An Incorrigble Music" collection.)
But I'd want to resist a completely equivalent "both-sides do it" understanding. There is, I think, a sort of glorification of violence on the fascist right that has been less apparent on the left. Maybe that's an old-fashioned view, or maybe the USA is a special case that is just so culturally suffused with violence that nobody, left or right, escapes contamination by it.
I agree they're not equivalent. In the US restricting gun ownership in response to the amount of gun violence, or not, falls broadly along L/R lines.
One of the differences is that the right doesn't deny its use of violence, but the left mostly denies its own use, or justifies it in a different way. And it's that denial that is the problem.
The point of pointing out the issues the left has isn't to say 'see we're just as bad too', or 'both sides do it'. It's because we have an actual problem on the left that needs to be discussed and sorted out.
Careful there Weka, you don't want to find yourself being excommunicated from the left
I believe there's just more hypocrisy on the left, ie rightists are quite honest about supporting violence as a tool for law enforcement, self-defence, the defeat of evil etc, while leftists often pretend a commitment to non-violence while also being quite enthusiastic about violence against alleged "fascists," ie anyone they have a problem with.
You believing that doesn't make it true.
Luigi Mangione ring a bell?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/16/unitedhealthcare-suspect-political-beliefs
He's a whacko but he was venerated by a lot on the left and even more were of the "what he did wad wrong BUT" brigade
So you believe
an example of the hypocrisy would be the Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence not speaking out against the very public MVAW assault against an elderly woman at a political rally, presumably because she didn't agree with the women's politics.
There was the attempt to shut down the same Minister for noting that most of the violence came from cis gender men (and white men as per the power dynamic in the modern western democratic world and earlier colonialism).
https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/131641753/marama-davidson-right-about-prevalence-of-white-male-violence-says-academic
She had no knowledge of that assault in the park when she made her comments and was managing the reaction to her her own comments afterwards.
The right wing attacks on her from Seymour and Peters coveting the votes and money and adoration of white race men grew in that vacuum.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/486817/marama-davidson-clarifies-violence-comments-from-posie-parker-protest-after-calls-to-resign
putting aside that whatabouttery, did she make a statement condemning the assault on the elderly woman, and if so, when did she make it?
Ministers and MP's rarely comment about matters before the court, or court cases.
She didn't have to say anything about the attacker.
Here's a bunch of MPs making statements after James Shaw got punched in the face.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/384689/green-party-co-leader-james-shaw-attacked-while-walking-to-work
Well, duh. That's why I wrote "I believe there is" rather than "There is." There's plenty of evidence, though. For example, we have a prize example of allegedly peace-loving leftists working themselves up to violence against harmless people by declaring them "fascists" right here in New Zealand: Let Women Speak, Albert Park, 2023.
It was an adult biological female women's space advocacy (albeit someone who was a self declared anti-feminist/non feminist and on a mission that would defeat left wing women in their way – she did of course divide left wing women feminists against each other on that issue).
Brian Tamaki et al.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull
Let Women Speak is an event where women, of any political persuasion, get to speak. KJK is not a feminist and is a right wing populist, but of the women who speak at the events, there have been many feminists. Including at Albert Park, had the event been allowed.
I'm not sure if you missed Milt's point. Whatever the problems of KJK (and there are significant ones), the left decided that week that violence against women was ok. It was also ok to call women with a wide range of politics fascists and tell them to suck dick.
I'm curious if you intended to use the issues with KJK and Tamaki to excuse what the left did? Is it ok to act in that way if one disagrees politically?
No one on the left said violence against women was ok. Or defended it.
And they only said it was ok to protest.
Anything Kellie-Jay Keen declares or doesn't declare about herself, and anything Byron Clark might have to say about it, are irrelevant to my point.
You claimed that they were called fascists, more like they had the support of fascists as per an earlier event in Oz.
I've been called a 'literal fascist' and 'literal nazi' (lower case because the people doing it are imbeciles) on social media for not finding anything reprehensible about Kellie-Jay Keen. I can't believe people were more cautious when describing the woman herself.
Leftist here – I don't condone violence towards fascists, or "fascists", alleged or otherwise, unless it’s in defence of life and limb.
Imho, it's OK to critique fascist and other deplorable patterns of behaviour, provided supporting evidence is offered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Contemporary_fascism_(2008%E2%80%93present)
Yep, same. I don't believe we're in the majority, though.
Churchill and FDR were prepared to use force.
Putin calls Ukraine fascist. Xi and Putin celebrate victory in war against fascists, as do NATO.
And also to protest against fascists like Smotrich and Ben Gver and their patrons Benjamin Netanyahu and Donaldo.
I have never read a comment from a "left winger" so infused with total compliance with the right wings narrative on the use of force and power.
The right support use of force as
why not add for the love of American apple pie and the flag and cross, for the saints come to bring their order of peace and justice over all?
As if the left just make up stuff and persecute those who disagree with them.
Are you trying the shame and guilt the left on all matters related to the use of force. Even opposition to it, by those who claim the right to exercise it?
Thanks SPC, well said.
Some people of a higher tolerance of the intolerant than others and are more judicious and selective deciding when violence is justified. Does that make them hypocrites?
Restraint as a virtue.
Restraint as acquiescence, Martin Niemöller.
USA 2050.
Grandfather, did you do no more than critique what was happening, for a time in public, then only privately. Did you not protest, organise to defend democracy … .
Grandaughter, people had lives before democracy, they can still have that without it. Their God rules over all, they stomp on the head of all who resist. China left us here to suffer alone in isolation from their world.
This is another problem the left has. If I say x is a problem and a right winger agrees with me, does that mean I automatically am wrong? Of course not. Milt isn't making a RW argument, and the fact that liberals can't see that is exactly the problem.
Worse, there are liberals who will use 'that's a RW argument' to undermine leftist discourse.
Again, Albert Park.
His wording was pejorative. Simple as.
Your own reference to Albert Park is what it is.
would you mind explaining what the pejorative is?
It's funny you say that, there have been more than a few tines, over the years, where I haven't said anything to a post I agree with simply because if I (as a conservative) say I agree it might end up being used to discredit the post
it's so weird. And particularly irksome on TS, where the debate is supposed to be robust.
I didn't claim to agree with them on what "evil" supposedly needs defeating, any more than I agree with leftists who see a "fascist" every time someone expresses a right-wing opinion.
I'm trying to get people to recognise that the right isn't the only source of hate-filled rhetoric that can lead to violence, and that we should discourage our own side from doing it.
Sure stochastic terrorism is a thing.
https://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.com/
But resistance to tyranny is a calling for those of democracy and if the right should abandon it in the pursuit of power, greed, or more general self-interest of their class order – then one either kneels before the one who would stomp their heel on the head of all, or bite the apple and claim the people shall reign and have their human dominion.
The deists who wrote their constitution and French philosophers knew this. Once it is claimed a nation is a Christian nation or a Moslem nation then the loss of freedom begins.
I'm trying to get people to recognise that the right isn't the only source of hate-filled rhetoric that can lead to violence, and that we should discourage our own side from doing it.
You are just the shiny white knight coming in to tell us something known and obvious aren't you. I suppose at least you acknowledge that the right does spout hate-filled rhetoric. I would never have known the left is capable of the same if you had not told me.
Tis very rare though for the left to have media outlets pushing such hate like the right have with Fox News or as Musk does on Twitter.
‘Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us. And what are we going to do about it?’ Jesse Watters declared on Wednesday. ‘This can never happen again. It ends now!’
Following Kirk's death, Elon Musk posted inflammatory comments on X, including the statement "The Left is the party of murder."
Fortunately most politicians on both sides are simply saying it isn't OK or acceptable to have political violence. Their voices however are not the ones being amplified.
You are simply the same really – rather than saying it isn't OK you're posting a dishonest post (before the killer or motive is even known) to push a right leaning view. That is your right but don't pretend you are coming to give us some valuable insight – it just a passive aggressive way of saying what Musk and Watters are saying.
But you couch it oh so virtuously and pleasantly.
It is always about the cost, ACT, as ever, focusing on the the cost to profit…..not the victims.
Pregnant and drinking. Changing to a less visible label is not going to protect the innocent victim….of FASD. And IMO the legal drug pushers… dont really care.
The Victims. and the actual cost.
Vaping….and the vulnerable. More victims.
Seymour on what is Most Important.
Harm to profit is the crux of it.
The following link is not about FASD or vaping….but IMO very sad. Where were the ID checks? And this is still happening after all the supposed stops. Again IMO its all about profit for the powerful alcohol industry. And the lobbying. Sickening.
Seymour said he visited a craft beer business struggling with the requirement to use red in pregnancy warning labels.
Oh the poor dears.
They could of course- in the true spirit of capitalism- simply pass on their 'extra costs' to the consumer?
Dame Anne Salmond at the Climate Change and Business conference in Auckland on Monday… https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/11/anne-salmond-climate-sabotage/
I agree. Labour and the Greens have had 30 years or more to do this, so why haven't they done it? Naturally the dame doesn't ask that question, but she does move on to political analysis:
Yet politicians are constrained by democracy, so who can blame them for reverting to the toddler mental state. The toxic effect of the blend with mainstreamer culture and political party conventions has that inexorable effect. Neolib failure is just the icing on that cake. Posturing comes naturally though, when the arena requires performance art, so the inevitable result of the system is coded signalling that modifies ecosystemic relations in subtle ways to no real consequence. Ineffectual politicians are normal outcomes.
As you know very well the Greens have repeatedly presented climate action plans including the economy to parliament and the electorate. If you want to run the argument that they haven't, please provide evidence of this with reference to their long body of work which is still available online and via MSM.
My point was that she hasn't seen it, so she wrote this:
You could be right to imply that she is simply uninformed – but, if so, is there any point the Greens having a solution if such public intellectuals as her can't see it?
At the very least her opinion implies democracy isn't fit for purpose. People can't vote for a solution that they don't know exists! It also implies the Greens are failing to market their policies sufficiently to inform people of them. You seem to believe any Green climate action plan presented by the Greens in the past contains those smart strategies she hopes the Greens will advocate. Even if you are right about that, the fact that she hasn't seen them may mean more than that she hasn't gone to look yet. It may mean that any plans the public can't see are ineffectual because the public can only ever see what it encounters…
I'm not asking about what she said, I'm asking about what you said,
You have just said that in 30 years the GP have failed to offer smart, practical strategies that improve people's lives, while modernising the New Zealand economy and making it more competitive.
If you are going to make that argument, you will need to be providing evidence. Atm it looks like you are using Salmond's post to support your antipathy for the GP, again. That's fine, you just have to support your statement about the GP with evidence, so we know you're not making shit up and so we know what you a actually mean. Did they literally not offer any strategies, or they did but you don't like them, or you find them wanting or what?
Well reasoned. I agree that I didn't provide the evidence for my assertion. I merely assumed that her assumption was correct since it is in accord with the impressions I get from the Greens public stances.
ok, so you're ignorant of what the Green Party have done their policy development and presentation to the public in the past three decades. Good to know.
What Salmond said,
She's not saying the Greens don't have policy and plans. She's saying it's inappropriate for Swarbrick to be acting out emotionally, but instead needs to present as the competent adult in the room.
However, you took Salmond's works and ran your own ongoing anti-Green lines, about how the Greens have never done no good,
It's absolute bullshit, it's dishonest, and it's not the first time you've done this. Pretty sure you've been warned about this from Incognito.
Just so you know, we generally tighten up on moderation during election year to stop this kind of misleading comment, because it skews debate and winds people up. My thinking lately has been to start that now rather than waiting until next year.
you took Salmond's works and ran your own ongoing anti-Green lines, about how the Greens have never done no good,
Yet I didn't write that, because I don't believe that. I prefer assertions that are evidence-based, just like you. I believe the dame would have given the Greens credit if they had made her aware of a basis for doing so.
What works in politics nowadays is driven more by perception than reality, so I was commenting on her perception, and my accord with it. If the Greens were doing what she wants them to, she wouldn't have felt the need to point to the lack, right? Voters vote in reaction to such impressions…
For the record, Anne Salmond said this in a comment under the article (https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/11/anne-salmond-climate-sabotage/#comment-420772):
Since DF has been banned (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-09-25/#comment-2044050) there’s little point in pointing out the many problems and inconsistencies with his comments in this thread.
thank-you.
The trouble is, the MSM would far rather dig over the reasons for the latest Green MP's falling by the wayside (and review, yet again, all the previous ones), than take a serious look at their policies.
There's that, but my point was the relation of political stances to impressions formed in the public mind, the dame in the situation representing the public.
The Greens may have delineated "smart, practical strategies that improve people's lives, while modernising the New Zealand economy and making it more competitive." If so, who knew that? Nobody, apparently. If someone were to provide evidence that they did, we could revise our opinion…
These articles analyse how Kirk has been targeting college campuses in order to spread the MAGA brand of conservative white nationalism among young people.
https://diversity.berkeley.edu/news/right-wing-group-funneling-thousands-dollars-student-governement-campaigns
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/06/trump-young-conservatives-college-charlie-kirk-turning-point-usa-217829/
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/04/18/how-the-maga-movement-targets-us-college-campuses_6740366_4.html
It also highlights another feature of the American condition. That of celebrity populism and associated money tightly interwoven into their politics.
I’m glad to see you edited from your original comment and removed the bit that would have gotten moderator attention.
You still have my comments in moderation. Why is that?
because of this,
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-10-09-2025/#comment-2043651
Ok, but the banner is no longer up?
yes, but as a moderator I don’t yet know what the parameters are on the injunction. You have a history of ignoring moderation (including yesterday which you can barely acknowledge, and nearly today). It’s just easier to use premod sometimes, especially for commenters who think the rules don’t apply to them.
I'll be able to expand on my point yesterday in due course, hopefully.
Will you be announcing when it is allowed to talk about that case, or will it be left up to commenters to guess?
afaik the injunction is still in place, and it’s not known publicly what can and can’t be published. Lprent seems to know something more, I don’t yet. I expect we will all know more later today after the hearing about the injunction, but it’s possible we will be in the same position.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/09/10/urgent-injunction-around-tom-phillips-case-details-to-be-heard-in-court/
Will you be announcing when it is allowed to talk about that case, or will it be left up to commenters to guess?
It looks like the suppression order is about the children only.
you now have a one month ban for spamming multiple copies of your comments despite knowing you are in premod. I was going to make it a few days, but looked up your moderation history and see that last time you got a ban for wasting mod time, it got doubled because you continued to disrespect TS. I don’t know what the problem is for you, but I’ve got a lot on today and there are several serious political issues unfolding and I don’t have time for this shit. I’ve told you before that you bring good debate to the comments, but your continual insistence that the rules don’t apply to you is both tiresome and likely to land you a longer ban. You’ve been warned before.
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-08-02-2025/#comment-2024185
In the light of the Phillips saga, RNZ around 3.45 pm have a law expert talking about injunctions and super injunctions.
Too soon to link sorry.
thanks! I will have a listen soon.
are you sure it was around 3.45? That was the shift over from Afternoons to Checkpoint.
or to the Panel.
Argh, sausage fingers.
Yep, 2.45pm.
cheers
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/572791/high-court-injunction-over-tom-phillips-case-extended
hmm, 2.45pm is the middle of a 30 min discussion about Edmund Hilary
He was instrumental in getting younger people out to vote for Trump
So of course the msm demonised him
Matthew 26:52 seems a fine epithet for an as upstanding a Christian as Charlie Kirk.
[take the day off (see my general mod note on TS policy) – weka]
mod note.
If you're going to the Bible, then a more apt citation would be Hosea 8:7, and applying it to the USA in general rather than any particular individual.
ODT of 11 Sept reports on the fast-track decision to dam the West Coast's Waitaha river, which is on conservation land.
Federated Mountain Clubs society has pointed out the decision may have been made on the basis of incorrect and misleading information about the ecological effects of the dam: https://www-pressreader-com.aucklandlibraries.idm.oclc.org/new-zealand/otago-daily-times/20250911/page/12
FMC says the integrity of the fast-track process is at stake. Wrong – the process has no integrity; it is deliberately skewed in favour of National's policy of growth at all costs.
So enjoy the great outdoors while you can, cos it won't be there for much longer.
Hunter-see my guest post last week-the fast-track process has no integrity, in fact it is designed not to have integrity but to simply slam developments through.
Hipkins should commit to dumping fast-track on Day 1.
It is not a dam.
It is a run of the river hydro system (water into a tunnel).
It is a natural condition environment though.
Some coasters want their own local power (and coal mining) more than conservation land and protections of the environment.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/572363/false-information-on-west-coast-hydro-scheme-submitted-to-fast-track-panel-claims-mountain-club
We're neck-deep in irony.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2025/09/10/charlie-kirk-shot/
At least two students are in critical condition after a shooting at Evergreen High School in Evergreen, Colorado, where more than 100 law enforcement officers cleared the school “room by room” as it was on lockdown, officials said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/10/us/at-least-2-students-shot-denver-area-high-school
Interesting how they slid effortlessly from "Protect the Dolls" – to "Arm the Dolls"
https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/75445727-arm-the-dolls
The "Dolls" of course are trans identified persons.
A government review of earthquake standards has led to a delay to the destruction of a city to sea bridge in Wellington.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360820303/wellingtons-city-sea-bridge-gets-lifeline-after-demolition-paused
The Paremata boat house dog and also many important people want the shipwreck to remain. It reminds them of their youth in their old age, for of course they now know what old age is, a shipwreck.
For once I'm actually grateful to this government, I think reviewing the earthquake standards is the only thing it's done that I feel good about. I'm sick of beautiful Wellington buildings and now bridges getting written off for the sake of risk-aversion. It's making the central city feel shabby, ugly and neglected for what will quite possibly turn out to be for no reason.
There are also some areas to the north of Wellington with "town centres" facing this issue (modernise or expensive work or demolish).
Here's another instance of our risk-averse culture preventing things which were routine enjoyment for us growing up
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360818061/dangerous-course-flying-fox-falls-victim-health-and-safety
AFAICS, there has never been an accident. There has never been anyone in the local community who thought there was an issue. There was a minor repair required (replace a worn-out cable) – but the risk-averse requirements of the H&S legislation mean that it is just going to be removed, instead.
My kids used to play on one in the Palmerston North Esplanade playground. As with Kaitawa Reserve, more recent children are deprived of the experience, due to risk-aversion.
On a day with so many grim news stories thought I'd share some light from yesterday evening.
Made the trek to Wellys last night to see Paul Kelly at the Michael Fowler centre.
What a fantastic venue – easy access,centrally located and fantastic acoustics.
Reb Fountain and her band were the support and did a great job of warming the crowd up.
Paul Kelly was supported by six other musicians and a rhythm section he has played with on and off since the 80s.
His set which was composed mainly of greatest hits with a few songs from his latest releases sprinkled through.
My favourite from the evening was Deeper Water a song that never fails to put a tear in my eye. Other highlights was Rita Wrote a Letter, the sequel to How to make gravy and Careless.
With an artist like Kelly it was more going to be what he didn't play that would cause conversation.
The night was finished by an alcapella version of In the Middle of the Air, a beautiful, uplifting way to cap off a stunning evening.
“Nashy gets the Slashy”…again. Labour got shot of him when his duplicitous behaviour became too obvious, NZ First is welcome to him.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/572769/former-labour-mp-stuart-nash-resigns-after-comment-about-women
The notion that folks identify a woman via their possession of the correct genitalia clearly freaks out some people. Seems like his colleagues deemed his expression of common sense unprofessional behaviour. Cleverly, they didn't say why.
In business it often seems necessary to shift goal-posts. Saying why would be a tacit admission that the goal-posts are in a particular place. When goal-posts hover shimmering in the ambience, business has optimal strategy looking forward…
It seems as though it's his unprofessional language which is the issue, rather than his conception of what is a woman. Peters used "adult human female" which is a very similar concept – just in different language.
The topic can become quite arcane in various directions. Someone whose photo makes her appear female wrote this yesterday:
I'm not up with the medical play, but this all may be true. Society is trending toward trendy hypotheticals. Real world's too boring, I suppose.
It is not true. The vast majority of the men who say they are women still have their "meat and 2 veg". Those that have have had their male genitalia removed and cut up to make a simulation of female genitalia have a pocket made of penile offcuts sometimes augmented with bits of intestine. It requires cleaning, lubricating and to kept open by the insertion of a "former" for hours each day to stop this open wound from healing up as all open wounds seek to do.
A "pussy" it is not.
Such clarification is extremely helpful, to inform the general public about what's going on. My life-long reading of history suggests that deviant people have always been vulnerable to victimisation. Many societies with routine methods for eliminating them is the general impression I get. Current tolerance emanates from the concept of human rights, still trending globally.
Technically, you are correct that simulation is the thing. Again, this behaviour began way back in prehistory, deriving from the many instances of deceit in nature that Lyall Watson reported in his excellent books. Seems to be a natural outlet in the psyche; idiosyncrasy emerges from variance.
Peters is a lawyer and would understand the context.
Maybe use of language, see as unfit for the office, is not seen as an attribute in employment agency management?
Not a good job fit?
His wife issued a reprimand, apparently. Then there's Audio Sue, the mystery player in this game according to Winston:
So Winston seems to be using a pc stance on the issue, cleverly positioning himself alongside both Mrs Nash and Nash's colleagues in the business world. Anytime now someone will give Nashy spiritual advice: "Take a hike up the nearest mountain and adopt the lotus position. Enlightenment will come eventually."
Karl Du Fresne runs a sanctuary for older men in the Wairarapa. It's called Curmudgeonville, where disdain for all things progressive is the honey from the mouths of the sophisticated.
He’s right- he’s a clone of the Christian Socialist inspired Wally Nash!!
Yessir! I- dennnical!
The attempt to brand the left wing of the Democratic Party and their voters anti-Semitic, so an old "moderate" party leadership retain control of the alternative to the GOP, is a replay of the purge of Corbyn from the UK Labour Party.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5495127-political-extremism-threat-america/
This is of the Democratic Leadership Council (the Bill Clinton vehicle).
Ooohh, the stridency!
Yet the third way became a weird kind of limbo that seems merely neolib in retrospect. Being moderate is pragmatism, not ideology. Postures seem real to some people, not others, so seeing them as role model influencers isn't that sensible. Authenticity works better (an area of perpetual struggle for both left & far left).
Charlie's greatest hits- insults, hate and vitriol.
/
heidilifeldman.bsky.social
Here’s who Charlie Kirk was. Continuing his work is a reprehensible idea; as reprehensible as murdering him was. 1/
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:r4z62ks2lpinmwvpn23xzzuz/post/3lyjgpv7xg22d?
.