Teenage girls try to mug a mother, so attack the woman's two year old daughter in London.
Images of the oxygen thieves are here. They are still at large.
I need say nothing more.
08 November 2009
06 November 2009
The sideshows
So politicians like to take advantage of their salary and perks that come with it, some within the rules, some outside the rules.
Like you should be surprised. Of course it isn't quite on the grand scale of rorts that the British House of Commons has been, but still it demonstrates self seeking that people bizarrely think shouldn't occur from people meant to represent you.
Are you surprised the MSM spends so much attention on it? You shouldn't be. You see it has two characteristics that work so well for the modern reporter:
1. It's a scandal that people are interested in. It is something people can relate to.
2. It's incredibly easy to get the concept across. MP, gets paid a lot (well, to the average punter), gets overseas holidays, flying business class. It is an outrage.
However, as much as it gives sound reason to be a little cynical about them all, it is chicken feed in the scheme of things. It doesn't require much analysis, as a binary deal, it fits in with television especially, where TV news in essence likes to boil things down to an All Black test. Good vs bad. Right vs wrong. Simple.
You wont get any real debate about whether education should continue to be a compulsorily funded state system, or not. You wont get any real debate about whether the war on drugs is really the right response to the problems with P. You wont get any real debate about whether it makes sense for the state to own three power companies and a coal company. You wont get any real debate about whether spending half a billion dollars on electrifying Auckland's train system is good value for money. You wont get any real debate about climate change, whether New Zealand should sign up to something that far richer and larger CO2 emitters per capita are having little to do with.
In other words, debate about policy.
Too many in the MSM pander to a tabloid sensationalist view of politicians. However, do any ever ask "why should you trust these people to buy your health care" or "retirement income" or "accident insurance" or "kids' education" or "transport system" etc? Is it because you don't actually care, but just care about personalities? You're that vapid?
For you see, both Mr Hide and Mr Harawira are in part responsible for the current government and passing supply bills to do all of those things. If you get annoyed at these antics, and antics of past politicians of all colours, why do you keep thinking putting your trust in them is going to get better?
Like you should be surprised. Of course it isn't quite on the grand scale of rorts that the British House of Commons has been, but still it demonstrates self seeking that people bizarrely think shouldn't occur from people meant to represent you.
Are you surprised the MSM spends so much attention on it? You shouldn't be. You see it has two characteristics that work so well for the modern reporter:
1. It's a scandal that people are interested in. It is something people can relate to.
2. It's incredibly easy to get the concept across. MP, gets paid a lot (well, to the average punter), gets overseas holidays, flying business class. It is an outrage.
However, as much as it gives sound reason to be a little cynical about them all, it is chicken feed in the scheme of things. It doesn't require much analysis, as a binary deal, it fits in with television especially, where TV news in essence likes to boil things down to an All Black test. Good vs bad. Right vs wrong. Simple.
You wont get any real debate about whether education should continue to be a compulsorily funded state system, or not. You wont get any real debate about whether the war on drugs is really the right response to the problems with P. You wont get any real debate about whether it makes sense for the state to own three power companies and a coal company. You wont get any real debate about whether spending half a billion dollars on electrifying Auckland's train system is good value for money. You wont get any real debate about climate change, whether New Zealand should sign up to something that far richer and larger CO2 emitters per capita are having little to do with.
In other words, debate about policy.
Too many in the MSM pander to a tabloid sensationalist view of politicians. However, do any ever ask "why should you trust these people to buy your health care" or "retirement income" or "accident insurance" or "kids' education" or "transport system" etc? Is it because you don't actually care, but just care about personalities? You're that vapid?
For you see, both Mr Hide and Mr Harawira are in part responsible for the current government and passing supply bills to do all of those things. If you get annoyed at these antics, and antics of past politicians of all colours, why do you keep thinking putting your trust in them is going to get better?
05 November 2009
A walk on the 5th of November in London
Some gentlemen and ladies are taking a stroll today in London.
It starts at 11.30am from Chandos Pub at 29, St. Martins Lane, London, WC2N 4ER. Where it is expected they will proceeds down Whitehall to Downing Street and then to Westminster Arms 9 Storey's Gate, SW1P 3AT at Noon.
Why?
Details here.
This is not a protest. It is Old Holborn's day out.
For more context, look here. It's an annual occasion.
UPDATE: I manage to scoot down to catch them at Whitehall and DID witness the attempted handing of a Carson Rose to a policeman at Downing Street, which was finally accepted. Images here
It starts at 11.30am from Chandos Pub at 29, St. Martins Lane, London, WC2N 4ER. Where it is expected they will proceeds down Whitehall to Downing Street and then to Westminster Arms 9 Storey's Gate, SW1P 3AT at Noon.
Why?
Details here.
This is not a protest. It is Old Holborn's day out.
For more context, look here. It's an annual occasion.
UPDATE: I manage to scoot down to catch them at Whitehall and DID witness the attempted handing of a Carson Rose to a policeman at Downing Street, which was finally accepted. Images here
Highest CO2 emitters largely ignored
Further to my earlier post about how climate change negotiations arbitrarily categorise some rather wealthy countries as "developing" and vice versa, it might be better to think of this issue in terms of per capita CO2 emissions. After all, if reducing CO2 emissions matters, then why shouldn't the highest ones be considered the highest priority?
So what countries emit the most per capita? According to Wikipedia they are:
1. Qatar
2. United Arab Emirates
3. Kuwait
4. Bahrain
5. Aruba (a colony of the Netherlands)
So the top five are developing countries.
6. Luxembourg
7. Netherlands Antilles (colony of the Netherlands)
8. Trinidad & Tobago
9. United States
10. Canada
So only now do we get some countries that are considered to be industrialised.
So where does NZ fit in? NZ is 50th.
What developing countries (not territories) (by Kyoto Annex definition) are ahead of NZ in per capita emissions (besides the ones listed above)?
Brunei
Saudi Arabia
Nauru
Oman
Singapore
Israel
Kazakhstan
South Korea
Equatorial Guinea
Turkmenistan
Libya
South Africa
So again, why should New Zealand sign up to do more than any of this lot, when the residents of all of these countries contribute more, per capita, than New Zealanders do?
So what countries emit the most per capita? According to Wikipedia they are:
1. Qatar
2. United Arab Emirates
3. Kuwait
4. Bahrain
5. Aruba (a colony of the Netherlands)
So the top five are developing countries.
6. Luxembourg
7. Netherlands Antilles (colony of the Netherlands)
8. Trinidad & Tobago
9. United States
10. Canada
So only now do we get some countries that are considered to be industrialised.
So where does NZ fit in? NZ is 50th.
What developing countries (not territories) (by Kyoto Annex definition) are ahead of NZ in per capita emissions (besides the ones listed above)?
Brunei
Saudi Arabia
Nauru
Oman
Singapore
Israel
Kazakhstan
South Korea
Equatorial Guinea
Turkmenistan
Libya
South Africa
So again, why should New Zealand sign up to do more than any of this lot, when the residents of all of these countries contribute more, per capita, than New Zealanders do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)