Saturday, November 26, 2011

whose owns the Violence
reid (9,138) Says: 

Arguing about what gender, race, age and eye colour is most responsible is avoiding the simple fact that too many kids are killed, too many partners are killed (mostly women killed by men) and there is a widespread acceptance of violence in our society that needs to be challenged.
No there isn’t Pete. No-one who thinks “accepts” violence. It’s simply that those who commit it, aren’t being dealt with appropriately. The fact those who commit it commit it, is not the fault of those who don’t, in any way. This is because everyone is responsible and only they are responsible for their own actions. No matter what their experiences in the past, they themselves and only they are responsible for those. You name me anyone who commits violence because of their experience and I will show you a hundred others who have had exactly similar experiences and who don’t commit violence.
The reason it just gets worse is because most of the people working in the field who are responsible for preventing it, think for some reason, that it IS that person’s circumstances which IS to blame and the only thing therefore to do, is ask the politicians to give them more money so their circumstances WILL change and they will then and only then, stop being violent.
Now this is fucking nuts on a gigantic scale. It’s mega-massive moroninity such as the world has never before experienced. It’s mind-bogglingly mental and yet here we are, this attitude really is a fact.
This is why violence only gets worse. I call it the Don Quixote strategy.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

work or not work

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Is that so true?
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

China's Black mail and thievry

“China Threatens Massive Venting of Super Greenhouse Gases in Attempt to Extort Billions as UNFCCC Meeting Approaches”
In the run-up to the international climate negotiations in Durban later this month, China has responded to efforts to ban the trading of widely discredited HFC-23 offsets by threatening to release huge amounts of the potent industrial chemical into the atmosphere unless other nations pay what amounts to a climate ransom.
China’s threat comes after the European Union and other nations moved to ban HFC-23 credits from internal carbon markets in recognition of the perverse incentives created by these credits under the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The vast amounts paid for HFC-23 offsets have led factories in China and elsewhere to manufacture far more HCFC-22 and its HFC-23 by-product than necessary, just to maximize the amounts paid to destroy HFC-23 through the UN-backed carbon trading scheme.
In a shocking attempt to blackmail the international community, Xie Fei, revenue management director at the China Clean Development Mechanism Fund, threatened: “If there’s no trading of [HFC-23] credits, they’ll stop incinerating the gases” and vent them directly into the atmosphere. Speaking at the Carbon Forum Asia in Singapore last week, Xie Fei claimed he spoke for “almost all the big Chinese producers of HFCs who “can’t bear the cost” and maintain that “they’ll lose competitiveness”.
China’s claim belies the fact that HFC-23 can be destroyed for just 0.20 cents per CO2e tonne. The destruction of one CO2e tonne generates one Certified Emission Reduction (CER) under the CDM, which historically has been sold on carbon markets at an average price of $18 — 70 times the actual cost of destroying HFC-23.
Because of these vast profits, China has repeatedly rejected attempts to destroy HFC-23 emissions through the Montreal Protocol. At the 2009 and 2010 Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, China blocked progress of a North American proposal to pay the actual costs of destroying HFC-23 emissions at plants not currently covered by the CDM, which account for over half of developing country HFC-23 production.
HFC-23 is produced as an unintentional by-product of the refrigerant HCFC-22, itself a powerful greenhouse gas and ozone depleting substance. This means that the quantity of HFC-23 produced is directly related to the production of HCFC-22. HFC-23 is an important contributor to climate change because of its incredibly high 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 14,800.
“Attempting to force countries into squandering billions on fake offsets that actually increase production of greenhouse gases is extortion,” said Samuel LaBudde, Senior Atmospheric Campaigner with the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). “China is not the victim here, and a world order responsive to climate change cannot be predicated on unrepentant greed.”
With a 65 per cent tax on CDM projects, the Chinese Government has already received $1.3 billion — enough to destroy all the HFC-23 it produces for decades to come. Despite this, China still vents at least as much HFC-23 as it destroys, since about half of its HCFC-22 production is ineligible for CDM funding. Xie Fei’s statement makes it clear that preventing emissions is not nearly as important for China as continuing the enormous CDM revenues that benefit its government and industry alike.
“Carbon offsets derived from HFC-23 crediting only serve to subsidize the production of greenhouse gases and have no place in the future of carbon markets,” said Mark Roberts, International Policy Advisor for EIA. “If China is genuinely concerned about climate change rather than profiting from a fatally flawed system, it will stop blocking efforts to control HFC-23 emissions and stop threatening to hold global climate hostage to its unrealistic demands.”
In the week before the Durban climate talks, the Montreal Protocol will again consider the proposal to control non-CDM HFC-23 emissions. Similarly, the CDM Executive Board will also convene to discuss revisions to the HFC-23 methodology, based on recommendations from its Methodologies Panel that recognize at least two-thirds of the HFC-23 credits issued to be fraudulent. To date, China has blocked moves in both forums. The CDM Executive Board must also decide whether to renew existing contracts for HFC-23 destruction and allow crediting for facilities not covered by the CDM, considerations that are strongly opposed by the international NGO community.
“The minimal cost of capture and destruction of HFC-23 should be borne by the HCFC-22 producers as the price of responsible business practice,” said Clare Perry, Senior Campaigner at EIA. “HFC-23 CDM projects have cost European taxpayers untold millions, and allowed European industries to increase their emissions while subsidizing chemical producers in China to produce yet more greenhouse gases. These dirty credits should be discontinued immediately.”
China has failed to use any of the windfall revenues from the sale of HFC-23 credits to address emissions of HFC-23 at Chinese plants not covered by the CDM. Virtually every manufacturer of HCFC-22 in the world outside of China or not covered by the CDM voluntarily captures and destroys HFC-23 by-product as standard business practice, including manufacturers in the EU and the US. 

Friday, November 11, 2011

journalism morals

The which MP would you go to bed with poll Add this story to Scoopit!.

The Herald reports:
Nikki Kaye and Jacinda Ardern are leading a “sexiest politician” poll – but poor old Bill English has no admirers.
But the popularity of the online survey by a Whitireia New Zealand journalism class has some asking if anyone has been stuffing the ballot box.
At 9pm yesterday the “babes” of Parliament led the survey titled “Which politician would you go to bed with?”, with Paula Bennett and Melissa Lee following close behind. …
Sigh, I’m to blame for this story. The poll at Newswire had a total of five responses until I tweeted and facebooked the question “Hmmn, should a journalism school be running a poll on which MP you would like to fuck?”
I do think the poll is inappropriate for two reasons.
The first is there is a difference between a poll asking someone to rate hotness, and explicitly asking “Which politician would you go to bed with”. A fine line maybe, but one that got crossed.
The second is that the annual hotness survey of MPs is done by Durex. I can totally understand why they run such a survey, as it fits their products and brand.
But this poll is run by the Whitireia School of Journalism. I think that is a bad look.
Jim Tucker, who runs the journalism course, wrote on Facebook: “Some people are actually taking it seriously – especially a lot of politicians who appear to have ordered their staff and friends to vote for them.”
He then told the Herald the poll started as a “p*ss take”.
“We had a long discussion in class about putting up some sort of poll, our first of the election.
“The usual discussions were – will you vote, who are you going to vote for and so on. But the class decided to do something different, and see what people would actually vote about.
“It actually grew from ‘which politician would you spend time on a desert island with’.”
Interesting there is a different version of how the poll came about on Facebook, from one of the students:
Haha. I would like to go on the record as opposing, vehemently, this idea when it was pitched to the class by Jim. He wants us to be ‘different’. …
Yeah. I have no idea what he was … thinking. Trying to sex it up perhaps? I don’t find it funny or compelling at all. Yes. Jim’s idea entirely. Most of the class told him it was lame.
I tried to redirect it but failed. There is little point fighting these things
Again, I think it is a bad look. Is this going to raise confidence in the values being taught to aspiring journalists?

East Wellington Superhero (521) Says: 

I find it odd that people who turn their nose up at ‘morals’, then ask for people to have ‘values’. C.S. Lewis wrote a good essay called The Abolition of Man about this.

Journalism Schools are set to Not to write the truth objectively but to be an agent of change

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Wealth and Grade Redistribution

A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very Labour minded, and she was very much in favour of higher taxes to support more government programs – in other words, the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon National supporter, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, and certainly that would be fair and equal.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the National side of the fence.”