http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/news/release.asp?Ne_ID=320
Though the idea about how residential areas should be built on less
productive areas first I've heard about before and agree with, those
bulletpoints in the article are noisy blanks.
The main point they raised was that there is no
legislation stopping productive land being put to residential use. If it was explicitly suggested: "Should the government be allowed to stop subdivision of
highly productive rural land for the sake of our future economy?", I wonder what the public reaction would be.
Given all the street protesting and trespassing being done this year concerning new legislation changes in New Zealand, would you think we will see a lot of public demonstrations?
I'd think the level of social etiquette and experience found in the type of people who are thinking about subdividing their land is pretty high. I'd think they're the type of people who would submit their points of view in writing. The street walking and human roadcone activities of poor students from welfare backgrounds in response to the proposed reduction in the New Zealand student allowance (a free lunch weekly payment to poorer students in addition to the student loan living costs already available) I don't think you'd see. The trespassing into the top floor of the OGG building to make some statement about inequality ("Occupy") I don't think you'd see. The cheerful singing and marching of a couple of Maori people I don't think you'd see. The noisy standing-around of port staff following a pay negiotiation result they were unhappy with I don't think you'd see. Subdivision of productive rural land only affects the national economy and living standards in the future, only indirectly affecting people's lives now, so is not such a hot topic.
A lot of 'raising public awareness' is given to environmental sustainability and the future of the environment and ethical issues and special indigenous rights and genetically modified organisms and nuclear free here in New Zealand. There has been some 'raising of public awareness' about economic issues such as raising the retirement age, selling and buying of public assets, tax rates, but the preservation of productive rural land for productive rural uses is unheard of - perhaps because it doesn't affect many people directly. I think the article has a fair point to raise and would actually be quite happy to see public demonstrations supporting the article's point. Maybe I'd even be happy to see a television ad about it. If there's none, maybe I could make one.
Going off on an artistic tangent ... ... ...
Voiceover, fade in to wheat field and a couple of cows on a pasture.
Narration: "New Zealand, 200 years ago, year A.D. 1800. Our ancestors came here from their lands of overcrowding, tyrannical autocracy and feuding neighbours, to this land of freedom, peace and plenty. Most of us were farmers who put the land to good productive use."
Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture again, and gradual replacement of photo with animation of same scene. Fast-forward animation of farm land
being cleared, concrete foundations being poured and the rest of
shopping mall construction process.
Narration: "A hundred years later, some of us had more money than others. Some of us could afford to put land to uses other than farming."
Quick cut to a guy putting on a golf course, quick cut to professional rugby players and pause. [Hit them right in the rugby! Ouch!] Fade out.
Fade in to field and pasture.
Narrator: "Now, 200 years later, New Zealand is about to be faced with something our ancestors never imagined. The productive land that they came here for is having houses with massive backyards plonked on it. So many that soon our remaining land can't produce enough food for our children. Soon we'll have to import food from other countries. They will want a lot of money in return because many of them are experiencing the same problem that we will soon face." Fade out.
Narrator: "This problem?"
White text appears on the black background ['Subdivision of productive rural land']. Narrator: "The problem is that our most productive land is being bought and subdivided into residential property." Pauses, and then continues narrating: "Currently, anyone rich enough to buy our land can do it. Anyone rich enough can subdivide and sell our nation's future food security. Anyone with enough money can do it to earn more money."
Fade out. Narrate: "Shall we make a new law so that they can't do that? Shall we make a law protecting our most productive land from being subdivided and sold? Shall we make a law so that there will always be enough land to grow the food to feed our children with?"
White text appears on black background. Narrator: "Support the new legistation protecting our most productive rural land."
Maybe someday I might make this video. Not until I've bought and subdivided my farmland though! TROLOLOLOLOL. Actually I don't plan to subdivide to zero. I plan to have land of an area larger than a lifestyle block, so that I can utilise the land quite efficiently and sustainably with a range of crops. There may be a small lawn, but running around on masses of grass can easily be done by future kids at a local park or sports field.
Hm, enough artistic ponder. Back to reviewing the article and making some final comments ... ... ...
I don't get the bullshit about topsoil wastage in the bulletpoints the author makes. I'd think that intensive farming ruins topsoil, not some sustainable grower of home veges that the typical lifestyle block owner is. That article's design is just a little bit fucked up, what was the author trying to get at? THOSE BULLETPOINTS? WHAT THE HECK WITH THOSE BULLETPOINTS? (Replace with 'flawed' if reproducing publicly [don't read that wrong]. Essentially 'flawed' means the same thing as 'fucked up' without the association of gross disfigurement.) That article is flawed and grossly disfigured. It should never be published in a respectable journal. People pay to avoid seeing certain things. Like that documentary I saw on the plane about how pepper berries are harvested, which I would my friends and dear lovers of pepper rather not see.
July 22, 2012
Rambling recollections #1: A useful weed after all.
Back in Palmerston North I lived for a period of around 5 years in a house with a fence bordering a stream, which seems artifically straight along some stretches as if they were artifically extended, and has a name which starts with a K. The sides of the stream were reinforced with earth walls which had grass which was regularly mown. Quite a few crickets lived in the grass. On the opposite bank some willow trees were recently planted, and on this side of the bank there were some shrubs and trees planted by house owners on the other side of the fence (illegally?) such as feijoas.
In the stream itself were growing somewhat useful plants: watercress, a now illegal pondweed (Egeria densa?), some unidentified peace-lily-flower-taro-leaved plant which might be edible but is certainly not native are a few that I can remember. There were plenty of eels, which were fished for by local kids. There also appear to be a lot of bumblebees and wasps around the area, and at one stage I had discovered a wasp (though I didn't stop to confirm that) nest in a hole in the side of a steep area of the bank right by the water. After being chased and stung, I reported it to the city council and they sent some pest controller to deal with it. There may also have been rabbits around there, but I can't remember. There were certainly hedgehogs there. That hole might have been originally dug by a rabbit.
Between the fence and the earth wall were plants habiting shaded moist areas such as mint or peppermint, wandering jew, and quite a few woodlice. Those frequently grew under the fence and were a perennial garden weed. Wandering Jew, I am almost certain, is an illegal invasive weed which also grows around the Turitea Stream area. I was quite amused at seeing submerged Wandering Jew sold at the local pet shop Wetpets as aquatic plants for a little while.
To the topic of this post now. There is a tree which grew right on the other side of the fence. Often new shrubs of it would appear further along due to self-seeding (is this the right word?) by birds who had consumed the berries. It grew suckers which spread under the fence and to the edge of the backyard lawn. The berries looked unfamiliar and possibly poisonous to me, and I noticed the ease at which it spread, and so I cut down the suckers on the inner side of the fence and the main tree on the outer side of the fence. It resprouted from the trunk, but before I could apply any glyphosate, we moved house.
That tree, it turns out, I recognised in a picture today. It's elder(berry?) and the berries are edible and have a reputation for health properties. The rest of the plant contains cyanide.
http://blog.healthpost.co.nz/2012/elderberry/
http://www.blackmoresnz.co.nz/learning-centre/article/the-tradition-of-elderberry-for-cold-and-flu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auricularia_auricula-judae
In the stream itself were growing somewhat useful plants: watercress, a now illegal pondweed (Egeria densa?), some unidentified peace-lily-flower-taro-leaved plant which might be edible but is certainly not native are a few that I can remember. There were plenty of eels, which were fished for by local kids. There also appear to be a lot of bumblebees and wasps around the area, and at one stage I had discovered a wasp (though I didn't stop to confirm that) nest in a hole in the side of a steep area of the bank right by the water. After being chased and stung, I reported it to the city council and they sent some pest controller to deal with it. There may also have been rabbits around there, but I can't remember. There were certainly hedgehogs there. That hole might have been originally dug by a rabbit.
Between the fence and the earth wall were plants habiting shaded moist areas such as mint or peppermint, wandering jew, and quite a few woodlice. Those frequently grew under the fence and were a perennial garden weed. Wandering Jew, I am almost certain, is an illegal invasive weed which also grows around the Turitea Stream area. I was quite amused at seeing submerged Wandering Jew sold at the local pet shop Wetpets as aquatic plants for a little while.
To the topic of this post now. There is a tree which grew right on the other side of the fence. Often new shrubs of it would appear further along due to self-seeding (is this the right word?) by birds who had consumed the berries. It grew suckers which spread under the fence and to the edge of the backyard lawn. The berries looked unfamiliar and possibly poisonous to me, and I noticed the ease at which it spread, and so I cut down the suckers on the inner side of the fence and the main tree on the outer side of the fence. It resprouted from the trunk, but before I could apply any glyphosate, we moved house.
That tree, it turns out, I recognised in a picture today. It's elder(berry?) and the berries are edible and have a reputation for health properties. The rest of the plant contains cyanide.
http://blog.healthpost.co.nz/2012/elderberry/
http://www.blackmoresnz.co.nz/learning-centre/article/the-tradition-of-elderberry-for-cold-and-flu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auricularia_auricula-judae
July 14, 2012
Amusing puns #1: Botryotinia fuckeliana
There's a plant pathogen called Botryotinia fuckeliana. Sounds like a quick rejection you can use to an unreasonable demand: "go fuckeliana".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botryotinia_fuckeliana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botryotinia_fuckeliana
July 09, 2012
Metaphors #2: No one knows until the River dries.
In Poker for each round each player is dealt two cards. With the exception of the initial forced bet by the Small Blind and the Big Blind, after seeing those two cards a player may place a bet equivalent to the previous bet (check), raise a bet higher than the previous bet (raise), or retire from the round without placing any additional money into the pool (fold).
What does a participant do? A player chooses whether to check, to raise, or to fold, based firstly on their likelihood of winning taking into account the true value of this player's two cards (Hand) at the start, and the five cards which are successively turned over (the River), secondly on their likelihood of scaring other players into thinking this player's Hand is high value, thirdly on their likelihood of sucking other players into placing higher bets thinking that the value of this player's Hand is low value but pretending to be high, and n-thly on pretending to be pretending to be. A player's round participation will end either with a Fold, a Check, or an All In (raising to the maximum amount that player has chips for, or to the maximum amount that another player who can bet has the chips for if that amount is less).
Lots of things are like Poker in that one has a limited amount of resources (time, money, other, cf. poker chips) and must choose at certain key moments whether to invest a little more (raise), match (check) (but not really), give up and lose everything invested so far in order to be able to invest some other time (fold), reap harvest with with the added options of investing a little less (but in poker you can't reduce bets, only fold).
Lots of things are like Poker. Do I stay and continue investing my life into this job, this dream, this woman? Or does my hand now look so incompatible with the River now that the water level has dropped and the stones are showing [水落石出], that I should consider folding and looking for another round? In life, there's a limited amount of rounds you can fit into the limited time you have. Folding will often allow you additional rounds to try. That's what you can say when consoling someone who you feel is wasting their resources trying to harvest from an unproductive River. They dream though that the River could show something near the end worth waiting for, and maybe everyone elses' hands are shitter. No one knows until the River dries.
May the River dry early, dry often for you.
What does a participant do? A player chooses whether to check, to raise, or to fold, based firstly on their likelihood of winning taking into account the true value of this player's two cards (Hand) at the start, and the five cards which are successively turned over (the River), secondly on their likelihood of scaring other players into thinking this player's Hand is high value, thirdly on their likelihood of sucking other players into placing higher bets thinking that the value of this player's Hand is low value but pretending to be high, and n-thly on pretending to be pretending to be. A player's round participation will end either with a Fold, a Check, or an All In (raising to the maximum amount that player has chips for, or to the maximum amount that another player who can bet has the chips for if that amount is less).
Lots of things are like Poker in that one has a limited amount of resources (time, money, other, cf. poker chips) and must choose at certain key moments whether to invest a little more (raise), match (check) (but not really), give up and lose everything invested so far in order to be able to invest some other time (fold), reap harvest with with the added options of investing a little less (but in poker you can't reduce bets, only fold).
Lots of things are like Poker. Do I stay and continue investing my life into this job, this dream, this woman? Or does my hand now look so incompatible with the River now that the water level has dropped and the stones are showing [水落石出], that I should consider folding and looking for another round? In life, there's a limited amount of rounds you can fit into the limited time you have. Folding will often allow you additional rounds to try. That's what you can say when consoling someone who you feel is wasting their resources trying to harvest from an unproductive River. They dream though that the River could show something near the end worth waiting for, and maybe everyone elses' hands are shitter. No one knows until the River dries.
May the River dry early, dry often for you.
Metaphors #1: Shit metaphors.
This one's rather newer. It happens to concern another old bat but this time she's in a party, talking to foreign dignitaries and seeking attention, while the real star of the show, whose mother happens to be Irish, is worrying his hair white. Some details may not be the same as the original one.
The old bat brings up a situation just across the sea. There's terrorists trying to take over a country which just happens to have oil. It turns out the people currently running the country are pretty harsh on treasonous people, massacring anyone related to the terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them. Old bat claims massacring terrorist relatives is worse than treason. So much worse that she wants to send some weapons to the terrorists so that they can stand some chance in their dispute. So, so much worse that she wants the folks at the party to send their soldiers to make the terrorists win their dispute.
Her home country has a lot of money, a lot of contacts, a lot of mercenaries and followers, and losing business with her country, losing her friendship, getting her negative attention would mean a drop in living standards, maybe poverty for smaller countries, and maybe if you have domestic issues she'll be more likely to gossip badly about it. So a lot of the smaller countries are obliged to support her motion. Particularly those smaller countries bordering on some nasty neighbours for whatever reason. A lot of those small countries would have long since been annexed if it wasn't for the armed support provided by the old bat's home country.
Only two countries can afford to veto the motion. They say that they'd rather be neutral and not do anything.
The old bat then goes around saying that being neutral's the same as supplying weapons and sending troops to support the people currently fighting the terrorists. She's saying there's no such thing as a neutral bystander to a conflict, and that she is offended by those two countries.
Well let us wish the old bat all the best when she has domestic issues and has to take sides. Let us wish her all the best in deciding whether her raped daughters can abort her bastard grandchildren, for starters. The situation looks pretty shit whichever side she says is black and which as white. Wish her all the best, sincerely. Anyone caught between Scylla and Charybdis must be feeling the pinch. Maybe she's just given up trying to find the safe middle path between the two. Maybe there is none: you can hardly half-abort a child. Maybe the choice has to be arbitrary if the two options are equally shit. Maybe she should just stay out of it and let her daughters decide, which is a possible middle ground - but then she'd be a neutral bystander and she'd rather stand her ground for something. She's the type of old bat from a country that had a history of getting stuck deep into the mud after sitting on the fence for decades trying to stay clean, and then having shit thrown right into her clean Pearl Harbour. Sooner or later, a fence-sitter tends to occasionally get hit by shit-throwers on both sides of the paddock. To take it, or to jump right deep into the mud hunting for potential future shit-throwers to stop them from developing and multiplying? Any way it goes, it's pretty crap to have to deal with.
Let's set up our fence to rest on on high middle ground, well above those shitty paddocks full of shit, to minimise the chances of having to drop our sons and daughters into shit.
The old bat brings up a situation just across the sea. There's terrorists trying to take over a country which just happens to have oil. It turns out the people currently running the country are pretty harsh on treasonous people, massacring anyone related to the terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them. Old bat claims massacring terrorist relatives is worse than treason. So much worse that she wants to send some weapons to the terrorists so that they can stand some chance in their dispute. So, so much worse that she wants the folks at the party to send their soldiers to make the terrorists win their dispute.
Her home country has a lot of money, a lot of contacts, a lot of mercenaries and followers, and losing business with her country, losing her friendship, getting her negative attention would mean a drop in living standards, maybe poverty for smaller countries, and maybe if you have domestic issues she'll be more likely to gossip badly about it. So a lot of the smaller countries are obliged to support her motion. Particularly those smaller countries bordering on some nasty neighbours for whatever reason. A lot of those small countries would have long since been annexed if it wasn't for the armed support provided by the old bat's home country.
Only two countries can afford to veto the motion. They say that they'd rather be neutral and not do anything.
The old bat then goes around saying that being neutral's the same as supplying weapons and sending troops to support the people currently fighting the terrorists. She's saying there's no such thing as a neutral bystander to a conflict, and that she is offended by those two countries.
Well let us wish the old bat all the best when she has domestic issues and has to take sides. Let us wish her all the best in deciding whether her raped daughters can abort her bastard grandchildren, for starters. The situation looks pretty shit whichever side she says is black and which as white. Wish her all the best, sincerely. Anyone caught between Scylla and Charybdis must be feeling the pinch. Maybe she's just given up trying to find the safe middle path between the two. Maybe there is none: you can hardly half-abort a child. Maybe the choice has to be arbitrary if the two options are equally shit. Maybe she should just stay out of it and let her daughters decide, which is a possible middle ground - but then she'd be a neutral bystander and she'd rather stand her ground for something. She's the type of old bat from a country that had a history of getting stuck deep into the mud after sitting on the fence for decades trying to stay clean, and then having shit thrown right into her clean Pearl Harbour. Sooner or later, a fence-sitter tends to occasionally get hit by shit-throwers on both sides of the paddock. To take it, or to jump right deep into the mud hunting for potential future shit-throwers to stop them from developing and multiplying? Any way it goes, it's pretty crap to have to deal with.
Let's set up our fence to rest on on high middle ground, well above those shitty paddocks full of shit, to minimise the chances of having to drop our sons and daughters into shit.
Guessing game #1:
This story's a classic. Some facts here might not be in line with the most popular version circulating.
A leader of the ruling class had a kid and invited over all the local ruling class - bar one. That uninvited one was a nasty old lady who always ruined parties and stirred up resentment by opening old wounds and perhaps new ones.
She turned up anyway. Nice of her to bring a gift. It was pretty cheap though, just some golden apple with the words: "This is for the prettiest lady here." Then she left.
Generally, ladies without egos wouldn't contest such a thing. Three ladies, however, must have had not enough things to do. They brang the apple with them to the nearest cattleherder (of all men to choose!) and and asked him who the apple should belong to. He didn't give them a straight answer. (Does it have anything to do with the fact that cattleherders don't typically see many women over the course of their life to pick and choose from? )
The most senior of the three ladies was dressed pretty formally. She was married to the governor. She bribed him, saying he could have Europe and Asia if he picked her.
Another of the ladies was dressed in a military suit. She bribed him, saying she'd help him out with his military tactics and wisdom if he picked her.
The third lady UNDRESSED RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. She bribed him, saying she'd marry him the prettiest woman on Earth who wasn't a member of the ruling class if he picked her.
In the end he chose the third lady. (Which would you choose?) However, it turned out that the prettiest woman on Earth happened to be married already. That didn't stop them eloping, causing quite a diplomatic incident. The situation deteriorated into armed conflict, and many sons of the ruling class were dragged into it. They fought heroically for both sides of the conflict and many ended up dead. v[The nasty old hag was probably laughing at all of this. Bitch.]
If you haven't guessed which story this is by now, I don't suppose you've read it. Read it - it's a good story. So good that blind musicians were paid to recite the tale in rhyming verse in ancient Greece. [A good way of providing welfare to the disadvantaged, I'd say.]
[The full title of this post is: Guessing game #1: Epic epic.]
A leader of the ruling class had a kid and invited over all the local ruling class - bar one. That uninvited one was a nasty old lady who always ruined parties and stirred up resentment by opening old wounds and perhaps new ones.
She turned up anyway. Nice of her to bring a gift. It was pretty cheap though, just some golden apple with the words: "This is for the prettiest lady here." Then she left.
Generally, ladies without egos wouldn't contest such a thing. Three ladies, however, must have had not enough things to do. They brang the apple with them to the nearest cattleherder (of all men to choose!) and and asked him who the apple should belong to. He didn't give them a straight answer. (Does it have anything to do with the fact that cattleherders don't typically see many women over the course of their life to pick and choose from? )
The most senior of the three ladies was dressed pretty formally. She was married to the governor. She bribed him, saying he could have Europe and Asia if he picked her.
Another of the ladies was dressed in a military suit. She bribed him, saying she'd help him out with his military tactics and wisdom if he picked her.
The third lady UNDRESSED RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. She bribed him, saying she'd marry him the prettiest woman on Earth who wasn't a member of the ruling class if he picked her.
In the end he chose the third lady. (Which would you choose?) However, it turned out that the prettiest woman on Earth happened to be married already. That didn't stop them eloping, causing quite a diplomatic incident. The situation deteriorated into armed conflict, and many sons of the ruling class were dragged into it. They fought heroically for both sides of the conflict and many ended up dead. v[The nasty old hag was probably laughing at all of this. Bitch.]
If you haven't guessed which story this is by now, I don't suppose you've read it. Read it - it's a good story. So good that blind musicians were paid to recite the tale in rhyming verse in ancient Greece. [A good way of providing welfare to the disadvantaged, I'd say.]
[The full title of this post is: Guessing game #1: Epic epic.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)