Given that this is a topic that will be an ongoing political issue in NZ for some considerable time – this is the first in a series of posts about this issue and related matters
So Andrew Little has released the approach being taken regarding the cannabis referendum
There are several immediate concerns which come to mind and no doubt as things are clarified over the coming months some will prove to be unfounded. Though I will be pleasantly surprised if that proves to be the case.
First though let us address the rather peculiar interpretation placed on the concept of binding used by Mr. Little (from Jane Patterson at RNZ)
Cabinet ministers have agreed the referendum will be binding, based on agreement by all three governing parties.
“The voters’ choice will be binding because all of the parties that make up the current government…
View original post 616 more words
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
Back in 1999, the Moonbat was warning us that the world was already collapsing around us thanks to climate change:
Global warming means that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 29th July 1999.
The global meltdown has begun. Long predicted and long denied, the effects of climate change are arriving faster than even the gloomiest prophets expected.
This week we learnt that the Arctic ecosystem is collapsing. The ice is melting, wiping out the feeding grounds of whales and walruses. Polar bear and seal populations appear to have halved. Three weeks ago, marine biologists reported that almost all the world’s coral reefs could be dead by the end of the coming century. Last year scientists found that between 70 and 90 per cent of the reefs they surveyed in the Indian Ocean…
View original post 259 more words
I’d like to call your attention to a fairly new feature of The Atlantic that began last fall: a series of columns and short pieces gathered under the rubric (and webpage) called “The Speech Wars”. Click on the screenshot to go there:
The topics and viewpoints are diverse, but all have something to do with the rights of people to say what they want, and the counterspeech against it. There are pro- and con-columns about Ilhan Omar’s statements, columns about hate speech, about the demonization of Harvard’s Ronald Sullivan, a house master and lawyer who is defending Harvey Weinstein as a client, and so on. Here’s a small screenshot:
You won’t agree with everything—how could you when the pieces sometimes take diametrically opposed stands?—but you’ll probably benefit most by reading things you don’t agree with. After all, isn’t that one of the great boons of free speech?