whoar.co.nz

News, Opinion, Humour

News / Opinion / Humour

king is out – ardern is in.. (ed:..grant robertson will be cullen to arderns’ clark..)

By Leave a Comment

(ed:.this makes sense on so many levels..and of course if labour don’t win the election this year – little will be rolled – and ardern will lead the party..

i see the other contendor for that role – grant robertson – as cullen to arderns’ clark..)

(excerpt..)

Annette King is to stand down as deputy Labour leader and Andrew Little is backing Jacinda Ardern as her replacement.

Mrs King will also retire from Parliament at the September election – after more than 30 years in Parliament.

She said she had been considering her position for some time and after discussing the matter with her colleagues felt it was the right time to ‘pass on the baton’.

‘This is totally my decision.

” have always acted in the best interests of the party and at the forefront of my mind is ensuring Labour is in the best possible position to change the Government in September’.

Ms King was giving Jacinda Ardern her full support.

‘I have watched her political career blossom since she became an MP in 2008 and mentored her when she needed help.

After her emphatic victory in Mt Albert she’s well and truly ready to step up’.

She denied she had come under any pressure to step aside.

(cont..)

Source: Annette King stands down as Labour deputy | Radio New Zealand News

‘will the trumpian nightmare lead to a real ‘political revolution’..? (+ op-ed.. andrew little is our hillary clinton – promising/delivering not much..) 

By Leave a Comment

Slavoj Žižek argued Trump would be better for the left than Clinton — and if we survive this he might be right.

(ed: i have sympathies for/am in agreement with this ‘it has to get worse before it gets better’ argument/thesis..

while i dreaded trump winning – my sense of dread was only slightly less at the the prospect of clinton winning..

and here in new zealand i can’t see the election of little/the neoliberal-incrementalist labour party as making any real/significant changes for the better..

..just more of that same neoliberal-bullshit – andrew little is our clinton..

tell me how he isn’t..?..)

(excerpt..)

Last November, the Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek turned a lot of heads when he announced shortly before the 2016 presidential election that if he were American he would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton — not because he thought Trump was the lesser evil but precisely because he was the greater evil.

The Slovenian intellectual’s hope was that the election of a vulgar right-wing extremist like Trump would ‘be a kind of big awakening’ that would trigger ‘new political processes’ in America.
In other words – with a reactionary demagogue as transparently abhorrent and dangerous as Trump in the White House a popular movement on the left would emerge to challenge not only Trump’s reactionary populism but the neoliberal status quo that had long prevailed in Washington.
Clinton – argued Žižek – stood for an ‘absolute inertia’ that would stifle a populist movement on the left and while there was great danger in a Trump presidency there was also great danger in electing Clinton — especially in the long run.
(cont..)

Source: Out of darkness, light: Will the Trumpian nightmare lead to a real “political revolution” after all? – Salon.com

‘jeremy corbyn could trigger the next populist political earthquake’.. (+ op-ed: andrew little: the anti-populist..)

By Leave a Comment

Image result for free to use image of jeremy corbyn

Labour’s top strategists plan to begin 2017 by rebranding Jeremy Corbyn as a ‘populist’.

(ed:..of course here in new zealand the leader of the labour party – andrew little – is a neoliberal-incrementalist/anti-populist – who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time soothing the ruffled brows of the elites/business-leaders – reassuring them that a government led by him will make fuck all difference to them..and their exploiting ways..)

(excerpt..)

The last year delivered a series of major defeats to the liberal mainstream and Corbyn’s team now aims to capitalise on this rising tide of anti-establishment politics.

But what might this shift in strategy actually involve?

And how might a populist turn boost the electoral chances of Corbyn and the Labour Party?

Populism has been used as a term to describe and explain movements as divergent as Donald Trump’s victory in the US and the rise of the left-wing Podemos in Spain.

In its loosest sense ‘populism’ could include any mobilisation of popular grievances against the status quo.Populist leaders present themselves as distinct from a political and corporate establishment – claiming to represent ‘the people’ more directly than those currently holding and executing power.

Populist movements differ only by who is included within the category of ‘the people’ and who – or what – is defined as its enemy.

cont..)

Source: Jeremy Corbyn could trigger the next populist political earthquake – unless he is failed by his own complacency | The Independent

op-ed: why is andrew little a pot-prohibitionist/alcohol-pimp? – in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.. 

By Leave a Comment

Image result for free to use image of cannabis

Cutting-edge breakthroughs are still vital in medicine but we have many ways to prevent and cure cancer that aren’t globally accessible – but should be.

(ed:..gee..!..i wonder if craft-beer enthusiast/pot-prohibitionist andrew little knows these (following) facts about his favourite drug..?..eh..?..

..and if he knows that cannabis doesn’t cause that raft of cancers..?

..maybe someone should tell him..eh..?.. –

‘cos if he knew the true picture – i’m sure he would change his pot-prohibitionist views..eh..?..

..he seems to be an intelligent man – able to take on new information – and amend his/any wrong attitudes accordingly..eh..?

one would hope..?..)

(excerpt..)

Hepatitis C causes about a quarter of liver cancer deaths worldwide.

Curative therapies like the new drug Sovaldi may be another tool to prevent liver cancer.

Researchers think that curing patients of their hepatitis C infection will prevent them from going on to develop liver cancer.

But the current cost of these drugs is a substantial barrier to their use in both lower-income countries and in the US.

However in Egypt public-private partnerships have made the drugs available at less than 1/100th of their price in the United States.

A vigorous international effort to use these new drugs to lower the number of infections would have a substantial impact on liver cancers caused by hepatitis C.

Heavier alcohol drinking also increases the risk of liver cancer (as well as cancers of the breast – esophagus – pancreas – colon and rectum).

According to the World Health Organization consumption has been increasing in the two most populous countries, India and China.

(cont..)

(‘cos..y’see andrew – pot doesn’t cause that raft/suite of cancers – eh..?..

i’m sure if it did the alcohol-pushers/prohibitionists would be screaming those facts from the roof-tops – wouldn’t they..?

..but we do know that alcohol does cause those cancers – don’t we..?…we know those facts are irrefutable..don’t we..?

so why would you – an intelligent man – you have a law degree don’t you? – why are you – as one trained in dealing with assessing ‘facts’ – why are you on the side of the devil/alcohol-pushers in/on this one..eh..?..)

Source: We could prevent millions of cancer deaths with knowledge we already have | David Hunter | Opinion | The Guardian

clinton – bush and reagan have to share/shoulder the blame for nafta..(+ op-ed..)

By Leave a Comment

If the Democrats want to reclaim a progressive identity – they must own up to the dreadful mistakes of the past.

(ed:..once again – the new zealand labour party has to stop being in denial of how they screwed up in the past – with their poverty/inequality causing embrace of neoliberalism..

if/for the new zealand labour party to have any credible chances of a progressive-rebirth – there needs to be a mea culpa for those past mistakes – and promises not to do it again – and of course – policies that put ‘walk’ to that ‘talk’..

..hands up those who see andrew ‘free trade rules!’ little as the person to do this..?..wot..!..nobody..?..)

(excerpt..)

Trump is certainly wrong to assign Clinton sole or even primary responsibility for that much-villainized trade agreement.

But Clinton not only willingly signed it – he fought hard to get it passed.

During the 1992 campaign Clinton had pledged to get side agreements in the implementation process to provide job and environmental protections – which critics warned would be doomed to fail.

The day Bush initially signed it – Clinton said ‘I will pursue those other things that I think need to be done in the public interest – then I will prepare implementing legislation and try to pass it in Congress’.

Clinton struggled to get NAFTA through Congress – arm-twisting a lot of reluctant Democrats in the process.  

At the time it was widely conceded that the Democratic House would never have passed NAFTA if Bush had been re-elected and submitted it himself.

The signing ceremony was attended by three former presidents — Ford, Carter and Bush — and Vice President Al Gore cited their attendance as ‘evidence of our country’s ability to support what is in our nation’s best interest over the long term without respect to partisanship’.

Clinton himself promised that ‘NAFTA means jobs. 

American jobs and good-paying American jobs.

If I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t support this agreement …. I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact.

And I believe that that is many more jobs than will be lost’.

‘He was dead wrong in thinking that way of course.

But he was hardly the first.

NAFTA did not begin with Bush or any of the other ex-presidents on hand that day.

Its origins date back to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign – when he ran on creating a North American common market.

(cont..)

Source: Own up to NAFTA, Democrats: Trump is right that the terrible trade pact was Bill Clinton’s baby – Salon.com