Jacqueline Rowarth is a disgrace and an embarrassment. She, along with Willem De Lange of the Earth Science department, and Ron Smith and Dov Bing of the Politics Dept., is largely responsible for Waikato University not being taken seriously as an academic institution.
Not to forget the fact that the Waikato School of Management endowed a chair after Saatchi boss Kevin Roberts.
Morena Paul, dang what a link, thanks for posting.
400 Scientists challenged her wild claim of a clean Waikato River.
Turns out she is also a professor of economics.. go figure
“Rowarth said she expected her appointment to an organisation centred on environmental protection would raise eyebrows among the environmental lobby, given her role as an agricultural commentator and her dairy farming interests in Waikato.”
Turns out she is also a professor of economics.. go figure
It’s amazing how many ‘scientists’ who deny climate change and pretty much any other science that proves them wrong happen to be economists. They seem to think that being an economist makes them experts on everything.
Meanwhile, the economic hypothesis that they spread is destroying the environment.
Jenny, you have been roundly criticized for posting this propaganda before. Perhaps your energy would be better spent in lobbying our government to stop supporting the “rebels”, i.e, Al Qaeda.
Since when has being roundly condemned ever stopped you from wasting your energy and posting hackneyed, partisan or even pro alleged rapist Assange pieces? Maybe you’re the one who needs to focus on how time could be better spent.
You’re wildly overestimating the deepness of your intelectual puddle.
[You know the rules. If you want to be clever and rude, make a political point as well (but don’t use this as an excuse to dress up your abuse in politics). Given I’ve already made several comments on this today, I think you can now take this as a warning – weka]
Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people.
But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties.
In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.
The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by “us” – by the United States and Britain. They even have a media centre that is funded by Britain and America.
Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city.
Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad.
What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria.
If you had even the slightest clue, Jenny, you would realize that CNN and Al Jazeera are indeed hardline. They are biased almost totally in favour of the U.S. regime’s support of the “rebels”, who are, as everybody except you seems to understand, are actually Al Qaeda. As I’ve pointed out before, you do not know enough.
Psycho Milt, you’re really not equipped to engage in a battle of wits. Why don’t you do something more in line with your talent—like giving Jenny a hand packing suicide vests for your friends in Al Nusra?
Only to the same extent that your or I are allowed to say something Morrissey. See I find your comment about hand packing suicide vests to easily be the most offensive thing in this subthread, and it probably does cross the line from political debate to gratuitous offence, but what I am really looking for is if people have abandoned debate and are merely trying to escalate aggression. Because that’s what destroys the community’s ability to discuss politics and make arguments.
I know you don’t like Peter Swift’s comments, but that alone isn’t a good reason to call on the moderators. If you want to make a case for how he is breaking the site rules, go for it (I don’t see it myself).
All good Morrissey. I think it is useful in general for people to comment on what is happening in threads because moderators don’t see everything and it’s easy to miss context. best to make a case though.
The sad thing about the Syrian war is that there are no ‘goodies and baddies’ just ‘baddies and baddies’. As such most of the innocent people there seem to be trying their best to get the hell out of the country as best they can and try to get to Europe.
If Europe don’t like that, they need to actually do something for peace not just sit back as the social instability starts unstablising them. Look at the middle east and Israel – disaster! Iraq – disaster! Afghanistan – disaster. Making it worse with Syria, worst disaster!
They need to look at what worked with Northern Ireland. Political peaceful solution and negotiating with both parties. There is no one who can win this war.
“What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria.
Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaida and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today.”
What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003.
Handy tip: when there’s an emergency and urgent action is required, it’s not the best time for establishing who’s to blame for this emergency. Yes, this wouldn’t be happening if the loons running the US in 2003 hadn’t invaded Iraq – however, they did invade Iraq and wishing it weren’t so doesn’t affect the situation.
Anti-American activists might like to imagine the people of Syria and Iraq would be living happy lives right now if not for the evil western democracies, but that’s all it is – imagining stuff. Even without the invasion of Iraq, there were competing interests in the region that cause conflict. This particular shitpile wouldn’t exist without the US invasion of Iraq, but some other shitpile would. Speculating about whether the real, actually-existing shitpile is bigger and smellier than the hypothetical alternative one would have been is pointless.
You lump ISIS, Al Qaida and Al Nusra all together as if they were the same. But they are not. If you cannot tell them apart then you are certainly not equipped to discuss the moral equivalence or otherwise of Aleppo and Mosul.
For example, there is a substantial body of evidence of a genocide of Yazidi people by ISIS. Have Al Nusra done such things? It may be that they exaggerate their jihadist credentials for some reason – or it may be that Assad’s forces exaggerate them, to justify the bombing of civilian positions in Aleppo.
To be credible you would have had to demonstrate that you had engaged critically with such possibilities. It seems that you have not.
He replied that if journalists had done their job, “there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq”.
It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question — Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous.
In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul.
Think about that for a second.
If the journalists had done their job and reported accurately and the people of those countries had then done their job and held their politicians in check thennone of this would be happening.
In a democracy, everyone is responsible for the actions of their government.
Maybe you’re the one who needs to focus on how time could be better spent.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/28/inside-the-invisible-government-war-propaganda-clinton-trump/
Your m on f bullying is getting out of control.