text:
Archive for 'Propaganda' Category
Culture, strategy and an end to the phony war
Posted on 08:07, August 14th, 2014 by Lew
It is a truth universally acknowledged that, in business and elsewhere, culture eats strategy for lunch.
Nicky Hager's latest book Dirty Politics (which I haven't read, but here's Danyl's summary) seems certain to cause a strategic shift in the electoral landscape. It should give credence to some of the left's claims about the National party, and turn public and élite scrutiny on the character and activities of the Prime Minister and his closest aides, including his apparently-extensive irregular corps of bin men, turd-mongers and panty-sniffers. To do so is probably its primary purpose, and the timing and cleverly-built hype around the book reflects this.
But what I hope is that it also produces a cultural shift in New Zealand politics — weakening, or at least rendering more transparent, the intrigue and back-room, or back-door, dealing that characterises this sort of politics.
The book apparently alleges that the Prime Minister's office is at the heart of a broad network of nefarious intelligence and blackmail, where they collect and hold a lien over the career or private life of everyone close to power. Nobody is their own person; everyone is owned, to some extent, by the machine. Patrick Gower wrote before the 2011 election that John Key owns the ACT party, and Hager's book seems to substantiate this, detailing how they forced Hide's resignation, in favour of Don Brash.
That is culture, not strategy, and it exerts considerable influence on those over whom the lien is held.
Immediately upon the book's release, Cameron Slater noted that some journalists, and some Labour and Green MPs, would be getting nervous. Well, good. If there has emerged some sort of mutual-assured destruction pact to manage this culture, ending it could be Nicky Hager's lasting contribution to New Zealand. Let the comfortable and the cozy live in fear for a bit. This includes Kim Dotcom, who claims to hold such intrigue against the Prime Minister, and is the target of a similar campaign, though it remains in abeyance.
This is a phony war about preserving the position of political élites on both sides of the ideological divide, to the general detriment of the sort of politics we actually need as a nation. Unlike the original MAD pact, we don't risk the end of the world if this all blows up — we just might get our political and media systems cleaned out.
At least that's the theory. I'm not very optimistic — cultural systems are sticky and resilient, and clearly many people have much invested in them. As we have seen with bank bailouts and phone hacking, the system can't be destroyed from outside, and the influence wielded applies also to anyone who might be called upon to investigate.
The final point is about intelligence and security. The book alleges that the Prime Minister's office released information from the Security Intelligence Service to these people, and that National staffers illicitly accessed Labour's computers. The documents that form Hager's source material also were apparently illicitly obtained from Cameron Slater's website during an outage. That's probably the most serious cultural indicator: sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. We are well beyond due for a serious discussion about the acceptable bounds of espionage, leakage and spying, and if Nicky Hager's book generates this debate, he will have done Aotearoa a great service.
Posted in Blogosphere, cultural difference, Democracy, Intelligence and Security, Politics, Propaganda | 6 Comments | Read More »
Monitoring Syrians and Supplicants.
Posted on 12:14, February 14th, 2014 by Pablo
The subject of spying is back in the news this week, but the coverage has been inadequate. Allow me to clarify some issues, first with regard to those who want to join the Syrian conflict and second with regard to politicians trying to ingratiate themselves with Kim Dotcom.
Contrary to the thrust of the coverage, not all those seeking to join the Syrian conflict are Syrian or descendants of Syrians. The Syrian War is a civil war between Shiia and Sunnis, where the minority Alawite-backed Assad regime is fighting to maintain its grip over a majority Sunni population (Alawites are a sub-sect of Shiia Islam). For a variety of affective and strategic reasons Iran (a very large Shiia dominant country) supports the Assad regime while Sunni-controlled Saudi Arabia and Gulf oligarchies back the armed opposition. This opposition is divided into what can be loosely called secular moderates (such as those grouped in the Free Syrian Army) and Islamicists (such as those in the al-Nusra Front and Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant).
The latter have come to dominate the military side of the opposition due to their superior combat skills and determination. Their ranks include Sunni internationalists from all over the world (including New Zealand) who see joining the struggle as a religious imperative. Egyptians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, Britons, Australians and French nationals are among those fighting in Islamicist ranks. That has led to serious clashes with the moderate secularists (who do not have as many internationalists in their ranks, although there are some), to the point that the fighting between the armed opposition factions has allowed the Assad regime to re-gain the upper hand in the overall struggle after being near collapse just six months ago.
Where the armed opposition is winning, it is the Islamicists who are doing so.
In the last nine months the Prime Minister has made repeated reference to would-be New Zealand jihadis joining the fight in Syria. Some are already there and others have been barred from going. They may or may not be Syrian in origin, but his use of the "Syrian trump card" is a naked political ploy designed to use fear-mongering as a justification for extension of domestic espionage and, perhaps, as a way of pre-emptively steeling public opinion against the negative consequences of the inevitable revelations from Edward Snowden about New Zealand's foreign espionage role within the Five Eyes/Echelon signals intelligence collection network. The trouble with the PM's ploy is that the proclaimed threat does not match the facts.
According to the government ten New Zealand passports have been revoked since 2005 and a handful of Kiwis are in Syria fighting. The PM makes it sound as if all these have associations with extremist Islam. Perhaps they do, but the Syrian conflict only heated up as of early 2012, so the Syrian card does not explain why passports were cancelled prior to that. Moreover, the PM says that passports were cancelled in order to prevent "radicalized" Kiwis from returning and making trouble at home. That begs the question as to what the frustrated wanna-be jihadis are going to do now that their plans are thwarted and they are forced to remain in the country under heavy scrutiny.
A Syrian community spokesman has said that two brothers had their passports revoked after their parents informed authorities of their plans to travel back home to join the fight. He also accused the PM and his government of "racial discrimination." The latter claim is ridiculous and shows a gross misunderstanding of how democratic governance works. John Key did not personally order the revocation of any passports nor does he have the power to rescind the cancellation order. New Zealand authorities did not cancel the brother's passports because they were Syrian but because of their purported intentions. They did not target the entire Syrian community for who they are.
In fact, under current legislation the government is well within its rights to revoke passports on the grounds that the individuals involved intend to become or are part of a criminal enterprise, of which terrorism is one. Since the Islamicists fighting in Syria are considered terrorist organizations by the New Zealand government, any intent to join them could be construed as an attempt to engage in criminal activity. One might argue that the definition of terrorism is too broad (and I believe that it is), but as things stand the government's concern about returning, combat experienced jihadis is a legitimate motive for canceling passports.
I shall leave aside the fact that the chances of survival of those joining the Syrian conflict is quite low* and they are being monitored in any event, so mitigating the potential threat posed by returning jihadis is not as formidable as Mr. Key implies. There are technical means of tracking the location of passports, and the individuals who are in Syria or want to go there have been identified already via domestic intelligence gathering. In fact, allowing suspects to travel while being secretly monitored is a standard intelligence collection method, so one can reasonably assume that the handful of Kiwi internationalists in Syria as well as their as of yet to travel brethren are the focus of both human and signals intelligence collection efforts by local espionage agencies in conjunction with foreign counterparts.
However, Mr. Key's repeated public use of the Syrian card certainly has alerted any would-be extremists in the New Zealand Muslim community that they have been infiltrated by the Police and SIS and that there are informants in their midst. In fact, the New Zealand Muslim community is a bit of a sieve since 9/11 because personal, sectarian and financial vendettas as well as legitimate concerns about ideological extremism have seen the accusation of "terrorist" thrown around quite freely within it. This has been well known inside security circles (who have to separate bogus from legitimate accusations of terrorist sympathies), but the PM's public disclosure has given potential jihadis a clear signal to exercise increased caution and diligence when planning future violence (should there be any).
The most important issue, however, is the selective application of the passport revocation authority. If would-be Islamic internationalists have not been convicted of crimes in New Zealand, and barring clear evidence that they intend to engage in crime abroad, then they should be allowed free passage to travel. If they engage in war crimes or crimes against humanity during a foreign conflict (be it in Syria or elsewhere), they can be charged upon their return, or even detained on the suspicion of complicity in said crimes. This is not a far-fetched speculation because both the Assad regime and its armed opposition have committed a raft of atrocities that fall under both definitions of illegal war-time behavior.
This applies equally to those who may choose to join non-Islamicist groups in other foreign conflicts (for example, by joining Christian militias in the Central African Republic), so specifically targeting those intending to go to Syria to fight is, in fact, selective if not discriminatory application of the relevant law. As far as following the Australian example and making it illegal to join a foreign conflict under penalty of imprisonment or revocation of citizenship, one can only hope not.
The simple fact is that would-be jihadis and other internationalists should be free to join any foreign conflict. They assume the risk of doing so and understand that they give up the diplomatic protections usually reserved for citizens traveling abroad. Should they be deemed a potential threat upon their return (in the event that they do), then it is the responsibility of local law enforcement and intelligence agencies to mitigate that threat within the rule of law. As I have alluded to above, that is not particularly hard to do in the New Zealand context.
As for politicians meeting with Dotcom, the issue is far more simple than sinister. Dotcom is a NZ permanent resident who is a fugitive from US justice still under extradition warrant (which is being argued in court). The authorities may well consider him a flight risk because he certainly has the means to do so. They may believe that he is continuing his criminal associations or practices while his court case is being heard (I shall refrain from making bad jokes about those who have flocked to his side during the GCSB Bill debates, or about the politicians who have knocked on his door). Given his penchant for partying and those he associates with when doing so, they may want to catch him in possession of illegal drugs.
Thus the Police would have legitimate reason to run ongoing surveillance operations on him, and can do so legally with or without the help of the SIS and now, thanks to the passage of the GCSB Bill, the GCSB. In doing so, they would monitor and record the comings and goings of visitors to his mansion, with that information passed up the chain of command.
That is why Mr Key's version of how he came to know about Mr. Peters' treks to the Coatesville property is odd. He claims that he got his information about Dotcom's political visitors from Cameron Slater working with or independently from a Herald gossip columnist. That is troubling.
The Right Honorable John Key is the Minister of Intelligence and Security, so presumably he is aware of the status of security operations and the Dotcom case in particular given its history. But he claims that he received domestic espionage information about Dotcoms's visitors from a right-wing, admittedly partisan "attack" blogger, rather than from the security agencies for which he is responsible and who have a legal right to monitor Mr. Dotcom. That is a sign of incompetence or willful ignorance on his part.
I have shares in a Bolivian gold mine I am willing to sell at a very affordable price to readers who believe a sociopath was the first source of the Dotcom visit data provided to the PM. Perhaps I am wrong and it is simply too much for domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies to pursue the monitoring of Dotcom for a supposed copyright infringement when so many Syrian-focused terrorists abound. But given the amount of resources expended and the reputational stakes involved, it would not be surprising and in fact legal for security agencies to do so.
I would suggest that if people like Winston Peters are concerned about being spied on when visiting Mr. Dotcom, then they should look at their own roles in allowing that to happen. Since 9/11 the legal powers and practical reach of the domestic espionage apparatus have been increased incrementally yet extensively under both Labour and National governments. Other than a relatively small number of Left activists and the Green Party (as well as ACT while Rodney Hide was still around to lead it), neither the majority public or the majority of political parties did anything to oppose this extension.
In fact, although Labour party figures and Winston Peters joined Kim Dotcom on the stage at various anti-GCSB Bill protests last year, and the bow-tied buffoon with a pompadour posing as a political party objected to having his personal communications accessed during the course of an investigation into leaks of confidential government information, Labour is responsible for the majority of the extensions and Dunne and Peters supported all of them. National has merely deepened the trend towards a surveillance society.
Hence, whatever Labour, NZ First or United Future may say now as a way of partisan point-scoring, they are full accomplices in the erosion of Kiwi privacy rights over the last decade. Any current whinging about violations of their personal and the larger collective privacy should be dismissed as cowardly rank hypocrisy.
In any event, when it comes to intrusions on basic freedoms of association, privacy and travel, not only Syrians living in New Zealand have reason to feel aggrieved.
* This is due to the immutable Buchanan rule of ground warfare: if you are firing your weapon over your head, or firing blindly around corners in the general direction of the enemy, you will not last long once s/he closes in. Should that rule be miraculously violated without consequence, the fifth Buchanan rule of asymmetrical warfare comes into effect: strapping explosives or amulets to your body in the hope of divine intervention is based on a false premise.
Blogging and consulting.
Posted on 15:52, June 5th, 2013 by Pablo
I am somewhat amused by the attacks on Martyn Bradbury over his consultant relationship with Mana while running a leftwing blog. From what I gather Bomber has been pretty upfront about his association with leftist organizations (without having to go into the particulars), and even if his advertorial work on behalf of a certain medical service provider was on the margins of ethical, he is certainly no different than many other pundits attempting to earn a crust.
The blogging right (and some journalists) seem to be going after Bomber for two reasons. One is that, for rightwing bloggers the Lusk/Slater revelations needed a diversion, or at least a modicum of balance. Bomber has made plenty of enemies on the right (and some on the left), so he is an easy target. That is particularly so for point number two: his consultancy fees for Mana are ultimately paid for by the NZ taxpayer. The right blogosphere has all but choked on that thought and some have suggested a conflict of interest on Bomber's part.
I really do not see what is the big deal. Some rightwing bloggers undoubtably consult for public agencies and political parties. Some are every open about their arrangements, and some are not. So what? Various people are trotted out in the media to give their opinions as supposed experts about political issues. Some of these people have financial relationships with political entities and some of them blog. This may or may not be known to the produces and interviewers, and the talking heads may or may not reveal their associations. Again, so what? Can their views not be judged on the merits rather than on who they may be shilling for or what they write on blogs? And if they are selling a particular line in the media, is it not the job of the interviewers to call them on it?
Blogging can generate revenue for a fortunate few, but most blog for free. Many blog under their own names, but some, like us here, use pseudonyms (in our case pretty obvious ones). Sponsored blogging obviously toes an editorial line (less so in the case of ad-derived revenues, since ads are placed on blogs more due to a blog's popularity than its content). Sponsor-free blogging provides a forum for expression unbeholden to client relationships or employer dictates. Even so, bloggers tend to understand the limits to what they can say in their posts. In the KP experience as a sponsor-free blog by design, members of the blogging collective have taken a hiatus or desisted from blogging about topics connected to their work when potential conflicts are discernible. It is simply prudent and common sense to do so.
Consulting is about offering informed advice and opinion for a fee. In my post-academic life I have found that many people seek advice or opinion, but few want to pay for it. Most seem to think that there is no research or work involved in developing the expertise required to give said advice. They think that their areas of interest are naturally those of the prospective advisor.They forget that it is they who are doing the asking for a service they are unable to provide for themselves.
Think of it this way: if you cannot do the electrical work when installing lighting in your home or business, you pay an electrician to do so. So why would you call a "terrorism expert" and ask him to give his views on a given terrorist event for free? Why would you ask a political risk advisor or strategic analyst to provide expert advice or opinion for free?
That is why fee-paying clients are highly valued by consultants, whether the latter blog or not. It also ensures that consultants who blog are keenly attuned to client requirements in and outside the service provision relationship that binds them together.
That advice given to a client may or may not be congruent with what a consultant cum blogger writes on a blog. The client may or may not know of the consultant's blogging activities, but regardless the relationship is based on something other than the content of the blog. If the client decides that the content of the blog is not acceptable for some reason, the consultancy contract will not be renewed. Since consultancies operate on a retainer, hourly or service project fee basis, there is latitude in the contractual terms, which may or may not include prohibitions or editorial constraints on blogging content that is deemed inimical to the client's reputation or goals.
People may disagree with Bomber's views on political matters to the point of questioning his credibility, and many might wonder why anyone would pay for Bomber's advice. His advice may be intuitive rather than "expert." In my opinion, his views on politics have been wrong from time to time. So what?
The issue of credibility and paying for advice is between the client and Bomber, and in Mana's case, the party seems content with the arrangement. There is no conflict of interest. There is no hidden agenda. That is the end of the story. As a private contractor Bomber does not have to reveal anything about his consulting relationships, much less on his blog or in his other media work. In this he is no different from Brian Edwards, Bill Ralston or others who give privileged (and private) advice to clients in parallel with their public writing and commentating. Again, this is no big deal.
In the end, this episode strikes me as a rightwing beat up that is designed to deflect attention away from National's internal divisions by targeting a convenient leftwing object of contempt. In other words, it is all about politics rather than professional ethics. That seems natural, because if it were the other way around and the shoe was on the other foot, some of those leading the charge against Bomber would not have a leg to stand on.
Posted in Blogosphere, intellectuals, Politics, Propaganda, Uncategorized | 4 Comments | Read More »
Market-oriented social engineering.
Posted on 13:13, July 24th, 2012 by Pablo
The political Right regularly accuses the Left of engaging in social engineering. Be it pushing such unnatural constructs as union and civil rights, health awareness and environmental concerns, the Right claims that the Left is out to control how people behave and even think. For freedom-loving individualists, this is anathema.
Consider my surprise, then, when I saw the Prime Minister saying that one of the reasons for the $2000 dollar "kiwi-first" purchase option with loyalty premium for Mighty River Power shares was to "change the investment psychology" of New Zealanders. It seems Kiwis put money into real estate and bonds, but not the stock market. Mr. Key thinks that his countrymen and women should diversify their portfolios into stocks, and the asset sales option is one way of promoting that. After all, it is not really prudent to have too many eggs in one basket.
I can see his logic. As a money trader and speculator, stock manipulation comes natural to Mr. Key. Sell short, hold, think long…he has the field covered. And truth be told, in a market environment such as NZ's, it may not be unreasonable to urge people to spread their savings around. Higher rates of savings are traditionally linked to higher standards of living and growth, so by market logic such a move is both collectively and individually optimal.
What I find notable is the PM's admission that the Mighty River Power stock purchase proposal is a deliberate attempt to alter the way Kiwis think about investment. In other words, it is a social engineering project that proposes to transform the psychological disposition of Kiwis when looking at their investment options.
But if that is the intention, how is that different from campaigns to get people to stop smoking, not drink and drive, use public transport, practice safe sex, license and desex their pets or stop littering? Are these not all examples of what the Right claims is undue interference by government on the rights of individuals to freely choose how to live their lives? Even if one admits that the share purchase option is not compulsory and still a matter of free choice (as are some of the examples just mentioned), is not the intention of the National government and Mr. Key to engage in exactly the type of social engineering–to include psychological indoctrination–that the Right accuses the Left of championing for its nefarious totalitarian purposes? Mr. Key has admitted that there is a social engineering intent to the proposal, so how is that good when other social engineering experiments are considered by the political Right to be bad? Or are some types of social engineering more acceptable to freedom-loving market individualists than others?
If the latter is true, than even the Right has to admit that social engineering projects embarked upon by governments are not always contrary to the small-governance/more market/individual choice principles that ideologically underpin Right thought. And if that is the case, then how can social engineering experiments be totalitarian, collectivist and fundamentally anti-democratic at their core?
Pardon me if I see a little contradiction here…
Posted in An inclusive society, Economics, Economy, governance, National identity, Politics, Propaganda, Public services | 13 Comments | Read More »
On "average"
Posted on 20:44, May 25th, 2012 by Lew
The New Zealand Herald's archetypal "average" Kiwi family, the Ray family of Sandringham East, has declared the 2012 Budget "sensible and unspectacular", probably the strongest endorsement Bill English could have hoped for. But let's look at what this article signifies.
First and most obviously, the article makes something of the fact that the average income in Sandringham East is nearly identical to the average income across Auckland as a whole — not quite $27,000 per annum* — but the Ray family income is about four times that, $105,000. If both adults were in paid work, their income level would be about twice the average. But the article says that Amanda Ray is a full-time stay-at-home mum, from which we can reasonably assume that Alistair Ray's income is four times the median on its own. Income level: not "average".
The figures given for income, and for the decile rating of the local school, date from "the last census", which was held in 2006. Census data from 2011, had it been held, would probably not yet have been released anyway, so that's not really a factor — but the data is six years out of date in any case. The principal of the local school says the area is "gentrifying" and the middle-of-the-road decile 5 status is likely to be revised upwards. Suburb: not "average". [Edit to add: the school decile rating doesn't necessarily support this conclusion; see Graeme Edgeler's comment explaining deciles, below.]
Alistair Ray is an urban designer, and Amanda has a doctorate in cancer research. I'm not sure of the qualifications required to become an urban designer, but I think it's safe to assume that it requires postgraduate study to honours — probably master's — level. Education: not "average".
Education is just one aspect of social capital more generally. The Rays immigrated relatively recently from the UK. Their language is our language; their qualifications and experience are accepted here without question; many of our social norms and customs, and our legal and political systems are very similar to those of the UK, having been largely derived from the institutions of the Old Country. This is hardly uncommon — roughly a third of immigrants to NZ come from the UK — but neither is it typical. Immigrants from Asia and the Pacific (combined) make up a higher proportion, and these groups do not enjoy the same degree of familiarity that British immigrants do. Social capital: not "average".
None of this is any sort of criticism of the Ray family. I have no doubt that they are honest, hardworking, skilled and decent folk who are committed to this country, who make a valuable contribution to it, and are as entitled as anyone else to express opinions on its government. They are welcome here. The Herald chose to frame them as an "average" family, though, and by these metrics they are not an "average" family. I think it is fair to characterise the Rays as an "aspirational" family.
And that, I think, answers the implicit question of whose view the Herald's coverage seeks to express, and whose interests yesterday's budget serves. The elision of "average" and "aspirational" is, I think, the single most powerful shift in this country's political discourse in the past five years — since John Key took the National party leadership. This piece of terminology (and its close cousin, "ambitious") dominated the 2008 election campaign, and while it has tailed off more recently, the policy settings the government has chosen demonstrate that it is still a core theme of their ideological project. This government does not speak to, or for "average" New Zealanders — it speaks to, and for "aspirational" New Zealanders, and in this article the Herald does not really speak to, or for "average" New Zealanders — it speaks to, and for "aspirational" New Zealanders. Blurring ideas of "aspiration" almost interchangeably with ideas of "average" defines an "us" in which nearly everyone includes themselves, persuading "average" people that the government speaks for, and to them, even though the policy programme yields them no direct advantage whatsoever. At the same time, it permits the government and others to define anyone who fails to "aspire" hard enough, for whatever reason — a lack of education or financial or social capital, chronic illness or disability, or a history of abuse, mental illness or repression, poor choices or simply bad fortune — as an unperson. So defined, the state can with relative impunity dismantle the system of benefits, state assistance and remedial advantage that, in the final analysis, enables more of the population to become genuinely "aspirational".
That bell probably can't be un-rung. I think we are stuck with this elision, and this delusion that everyone can be above-average — it's normal, and expected, and if you aren't, you're a failure. That's a concerning prospect.
* I should at least give credit to Simon Collins for using the median, rather than the mean with regard to income — many, including the government, are not so scrupulous.
Posted in Economy, journalism, Media, Propaganda, working class politics | 14 Comments | Read More »
Putting the mandate to work
Posted on 00:41, May 2nd, 2012 by Lew
I struggle to believe the National party that read and led the public mood so well for most of the previous six years has so spectacularly lost its way. Recent months, and the past few weeks in particular, have been the government's hardest, and only part of that is due to ministerial incompetence and bad optics. Part of it is because they have chosen policies that contradict the very narratives Key and his government have so carefully crafted.
This can't be accidental. I think the fact that they barely won a majority despite the worst performance in a generation by the Labour party has convinced Key that this term is probably his last, and he intends to make best possible use of it. This is good strategy for them. It's a strategy I've been writing about since Key was in opposition, and one that the Labour party ignored, to their detriment, until late in the last term. John Key is no mere smile-and-waver, but a man of action who, when the time is right, will act ruthlessly and decisively. He has spent his five years as leader earning the trust of the electorate, gaining a mandate, and now he intends to put that mandate to work. This country will not be the same in three years.
There are many possible examples here: privatisation of state assets is the most obvious, but is well-covered by others more informed than I am. I'll cover three more recent topics: two are bad politics, but I can see the point to them; the last is simply a terrible idea that, if not abandoned quickly, will have profound implications for the future of New Zealand's political discourse.
Paid parental leave
The decision to call an immediate veto on Sue Moroney's private member's bill extending paid parental leave was badly handled. If it were to be done, it ought to have been done immediately the bill was drawn, in an offhand way so as to frame the veto as inevitable; as it was, sufficient space was left for the idea to take root in the collective imagination of the electorate, and now the use of the veto looks anti-democratic; signalling it before it has even been debated looks doubly so, and leaves about a year for sentiment to continue to grow.
Of course, the government has the procedural right to take this action, if perhaps not the moral right to prevent Parliament from passing something that a majority of its members supports. But it chips away at the Key government's carefully-framed appeal to being pro-middle-class, pro-family, pro-women. Unlike welfare reform, this is not an issue that only impacts people who would never vote for the National party anyway. Paid parental leave predominantly benefits middle-class (rather than working-class) families, and especially middle-class women — those who, for five years, the government has been reassuring that we are on your side. Key is personally very popular among women, and this has been central to National's success. It looks like the government are prepared to sacrifice this on the altar of fiscal responsibility. The comparison to Barack Obama's strategy to win a second term on the basis of strong opposition to GOP misogyny could hardly be more stark.
This is in spite of the argument on the merits: a low-cost policy that yields considerable long-term benefits of the sort the government has been anxious to create (or invent, if need be). And the arguments being levied against the scheme are particularly weird: "Is it about labour force participation, or about women spending more time with children?" Well, yes. "It's discriminatory against non-working mothers!" Well, yes, but I don't see any of the people making that argument supporting a Universal Motherhood Entitlement, and in fact, I distinctly remember some rhetoric about "breeding for a business" whenever such ideas are raised.
A possible reason for this bad veto call is that it foreshadows a future softening of National's position on the topic; as Key did with the Section 59 bill, when it looks close to passing the government will signal support, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation.
Or, maybe it's just that they don't care any more — so they're unpopular, so what?
Student entitlements
The latter argument also explains the decision, announced today, to limit the availability of student allowances and require higher repayments of student loans, although not completely. This is bound to be popular with those who have forgotten (or who never experienced) how hard it was to undertake tertiary study and build a career without Daddy's cash and connections, and those of the generations who had it all laid on for them by the taxpayers of their day. But it will be less popular among the growing ranks of young voters, and it will be less popular among the parents of those young voters, who are having to provide financial support to their kids through their 20s and in some cases into their 30s, because said kids are finding the economic dream is more rosy than the reality.
This policy is also anti-middle-class, anti-family, and anti-women: because the middle class includes most of those who can afford to (and have the social and cultural capital to) undertake tertiary study; because it places an additional burden on their parents, and because women are already disadvantaged in terms of earning power, and therefore have less ability to avoid or pay back loans. It also erodes National's aspirational, high-productivity, catch-up-with-Australia narrative, by raising the barrier to becoming qualified to do the high-productivity jobs that such a goal requires. More crucially, it erodes National's "money in your pocket" narrative by imposing upon borrowers a higher effective marginal tax rate — over and above the existing 10% higher effective marginal tax rate — making it harder to survive on the wages that come with those jobs.
It could be worse. They're not reintroducing student loan interest. But it is only the first budget of the term, and the same reasoning — this is good because it allows borrowers to pay off their loans sooner, and it will provide cost savings for the government — is true in spades when you charge interest. People can already pay their loans back more quickly if they choose — it is easy to do. People don't, because wages are low and the cost of living is high, so the government wants to force them to do so. So much for choices.
Although I disagree with them, there is some political justification behind both these previous positions. But nothing explains the government's decision to take a harder stance against asylum seekers. In the Australian context (and in the USA and the UK, although I know less about these), immigration and the treatment of asylum seekers is a political bonfire. This is most obvious in terms of human life and potential. Able, resourceful and motivated people are imprisoned for months or years, barely treated as humans, and allowed to become disenchanted and alienated while hostile bureaucrats decide their fate, and cynical politicians on all sides use them as ideological tokens in a dire game — before being released into society to fulfill the grim expectations that have been laid upon them. But it is also a bonfire for political capital — the more you chuck on, the brighter it burns — and for reasoned discourse. Politicians, commentators, lobbyists and hacks of all descriptions dance around this fire like deranged cultists which, in a sense, they are.
The immigration debate in Australia, though it barely deserves that name, is toxic, internecine, and intractable; it has been propagandised to the point where it is practically useless as a policy-formation tool, or as a means of gauging or guiding public sentiment. It sets light to everything it touches; people take leave of their senses and run around shrieking whatever slogans fit their lizard-brain prejudices. The word "sense" is used so often it ceases to have any meaning: all is caricature, and in keeping with this, other ordinary words also lose their value: assurances that asylum seekers will be treated "fairly" or that systems will be "efficient" would not be recognised as such by an impartial observer. Somehow, it becomes possible to simultaneously believe that the policies are targeted against "people-smugglers", while being fully aware that the punitive costs imposed by such regimes are suffered by the smugglers' victims. Otherwise-reasonable people resort to idiotic bourgeois framing such as "jumping the queue" — as if it's OK to escape from political or religious persecution, if only you do so in a polite and orderly fashion. Mind the gap!
What makes it all the more stupid is that a brown tide of refugees in rusty boats is not even an issue for us: we are simply too isolated, and surrounded by waters too hostile, to be a viable destination. Unfortunately this fact will not be sufficient to prevent people from getting worked up about it, and demanding that Something Be Done. Someone on twitter recently said that anyone who could get a boatload of people here from the third world deserved a beer and our congratulations, and I couldn't agree more. We need people with the degree of daring, toughness and pioneer spirit to make such a journey, and qualities such as these were once most highly prized.
This policy also undercuts National's mythology about itself, most assiduously cultivated over the past year in preparation for the sale of the Crafar farms and other assets — of New Zealand as a land of opportunity, welcoming to outsiders and open for business. National have been swift to condemn any deviation from this line as xenophobic, and yet this is somehow different. It is worse than a solution in search of a problem — it is a cure that is far more harmful than its ailment.
What's more, while I can see the underlying political reasoning behind the two other policies I've discussed here, I can't see the reasoning for this one. Most likely it is an attempt to cultivate some love in redneck-talkback land; to shore up slipping sentiment among the culturally-conservative base that National used to own. But even in this it is misguided: this is not a debate that does any major party any good. It is an opportunity for extremists to grandstand, to pander to society's most regressive elements. It crowds out meaningful discussion of other matters, it makes reason and compromise impossible, and what's worst: it never dies. We saw a glimpse of this with the Ahmed Zaoui case; by fearmongering about boatloads of Chinese en route from Darwin on the basis of just one isolated case National runs the risk of admitting this sort of idiocy to the national conversation permanently.
And that might be this government's legacy. The former two topics, while they will change New Zealand's politics in meaningful ways, are essentially part of the normal partisan ebb and flow. Asset sales is much bigger; other topics, like primary and secondary education reform and the proposal to cap government expenditure will also have longer-term and more profound impacts. The National government has a mandate, and they are using it while they can, in the knowledge that you can't take it with you when you go. That is understandable, if perhaps regrettable.
But to use such a mandate to permanently poison New Zealand's discourse, willingly driving it towards a permanent state of cultural war is a different sort of politics altogether — deeper, more ancient, harder to control, and much more dangerous. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted in comparative politics, cultural difference, Democracy, Propaganda | 12 Comments | Read More »
Urewera Terror: epic fail
Posted on 06:01, March 21st, 2012 by Lew
Whatever your opinion regarding the Urewera Terror raids, you have to admit that the Police and Crown Law have failed.
The so-called "Urewera 4″ were convicted on about half of the least-serious charges brought, and the jury was hung on the more serious charges of participation in an organised criminal group. The defendants may be retried on these latter charges, and they may yet be found guilty. But the paucity of the Police and Crown Law operation is pretty clear regardless.
Let's put this in context. The Crown sought initially to lay dozens more charges against many more people than the four who eventually stood trial; leave to bring charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act was not granted, and most of the other charges were dropped after the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence upon which they were founded had been illegally obtained. A year of fancy intensive surveillance; an extreme and unprecedented police assault on an unsuspecting community, including violent treatment of old people and children; four and a half years of lawyering comprising the most expensive trial in New Zealand history, held almost as far from the homes of the defendants as is possible; leaks and publicity tactics designed to bring about a de-facto trial-by-media — and the best they convict on is Arms Act offences such as about half the adult male population of rural New Zealand would be guilty of at some time or other? This, we are supposed to believe, is Aotearoa's finest at work.
Not only did they fail at the nominal objective of securing convictions, they totally failed at the personal, punitive motive of punishing Tāme Iti and shaming him before his people. Iti has been literally the face of Māori activism, at least since Hone Harawira took the institutional path, and it is impossible to see this trial as anything other than utu for his temerity in escaping conviction for previous acts of defiant political theatre, most notably shooting a flag at a Waitangi Tribunal hearing in 2005. By going in loud and heavy, attempting to show them uppity Māoris who was boss, the Crown set themselves an ambitious target: they had to actually show who was boss. By failing to convict him on the serious charges at a canter, they failed. Tāme Iti is now a celebrity. His mythology is greater than his deeds, except inasmuch as resisting such a legal and ideological onslaught with dignity is a significant deed in itself. He has, in the view of a significant minority of the population, been victimised by the system, and that victimisation provides proof of Crown oppression he had previously struggled to demonstrate. For the rest of the population, Iti represents a brown, tattooed bogeyman, an object of fear, and of loathing that ranges from mild to virulent depending on who you talk to. Iti isn't standing for office, he doesn't need to be loved by 50%+1; he just needs to engender fervent support among an active minority, and vague feelings of unease in the rest. Notoriety differs from fame only in its polarity. The Police and the Crown have granted Tāme Iti this sort of fame. He should probably thank them for it.
As if the particular and the personal weren't failures enough, the Crown also failed at the strategic project of redefining "activism" as "extremism". Despite all the preceding factors weighing in the Crown's favour, that a heavily-vetted jury was split indicates that they have failed to blur this crucial distinction, and failed to reframe left-wing and Māori activism* as a threat to civilisation, rather than a legitimate expression of dissent in an open society. This suggests that, in spite of years of Police infiltration and surveillance, of decades of stigmatisation and propagandisation of groups from Ngā Tamatoa to Ploughshares to SAFE, in spite of the better part of two centuries of official attempts to elide the gulf between dissent and insurrection, the public doesn't really buy it. The jury — and, I would suggest, the people of Aotearoa — quite like and value that distinction and although it is been somewhat eroded, there it remains.
For that finding alone, and regardless of the result of any retrial, yesterday was a good day.
* Māori and leftist because, let us not forget, the Right Wing Resistance are free to continue with their training camps and their pseudo-secessionist projects, unmolested.
Posted in An inclusive society, Authoritarianism, Crime, National identity, NZ Security, Propaganda | 12 Comments | Read More »
Hearing no evil
Posted on 22:25, January 17th, 2012 by Lew
A few days before the November 26 general election, TV3 aired Bryan Bruce's documentary Inside Child Poverty, and I posted on the depressingly predictable response of the usual right-wing subjects.
And now NZ On Air board member Stephen McElrea (who, in Tom Frewen's marvellously dry turn of phrase, "also happens to be John Key's electorate chairman and the National Party's northern region deputy chairman") has used his dual position of authority to demand answers from the funding body and, simultaneously, make implicit but forceful statements about what constitutes "appropriate" policy material for such a funding body to support.
There has been some outrage on the tweets about the obvious propaganda imperative here — agenda-control is pretty crucial to a government, never more so than during election campaigns — and I agree with Sav that this shows a need for NZOA to be more independent, more clearly decoupled from the government, not less so. Stephen McElrea, after all, is not simply a disinterested member of a crown funding agency — he is a Key-government appointee to the NZOA board, a political actor in his own right, and has a history of advocating for broadcasting policies curiously similar to those being enacted by the present government, such as in a 2006 column titled "Scrap the charter and get TVNZ back to business".
I may write more about this as it develops, although it seems likely that the ground will be better covered by people much more qualified than I am. But what I will do is return to my initial point, to wit:
I still haven't heard that peep. Given the fact that the National party leader feels at liberty to dismiss attempts by David Shearer and others to make child poverty alleviation a matter of bipartisan consensus, and that a senior National party official so close to the leader feels at liberty to throw his weight around in this professional capacity, I rather despair of hearing it.
Posted in Authoritarianism, Democracy, elections, Media, Propaganda | 10 Comments | Read More »
Know your enemy
Posted on 19:46, December 4th, 2011 by Lew
The image above is "scientifically formulated to enhance [women's] perception of men who drink Molson [...] a perfectly tuned combination of words and images designed by trained professionals. Women who are exposed to it experience a very positive feeling. A feeling which they will later project directly onto [men who drink Molson]."
That's not my analysis; it's what the creatives who developed the ad said about it, in another ad. The first ad, the one you see above, ran in Cosmopolitan and was pitched at women. The ad from which the explanatory text was drawn ran in Playboy under the heading "Hundreds of thousands of women. Pre-programmed for your convenience." The full analysis is here, on the Sociological Images blog.
The lesson is essentially that propaganda relies on market segmentation; messages crafted and pitched with accuracy and intent. If you read what you're told to read, you'll think what you're told to think. Avoiding such a fate means embracing diversity of input, understanding your opponents' arguments and their reasoning even if you disagree with it. To a large extent that means consuming their media. For a rounded perspective you'll need, at least occasionally, to read sites like DailyKos and Free Republic, infuriating and interminable comment threads on The Standard and Kiwiblog, and SOLOpassion and Gates of Vienna and WSWS and the Wall Street Journal; listen to talkback, watch Fox News and pick up both Cosmo and Playboy from time to time, for the articles or whatever. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but the point is: read, listen, watch and discuss promiscuously. Argue with those folks you disagree with; drink beer with them from time to time. Take them seriously. Insist that they take you seriously, and give them reasons to do so.
It might hurt; in fact, it often will. But it beats being a dittohead.
Edit to add: Anita points out that the Sociological Images post created a bit of a stir. They write:
As you would. Not clear whether they now regret the decision to run such ads, or whether it's a pro-forma blowback response.
Posted in Blogosphere, Media, Propaganda | 9 Comments | Read More »
Further thoughts on Team Shearer
Posted on 01:08, December 3rd, 2011 by Lew
These things occurred to me while making my daughter's birthday cake:*
Endorsement games continue, with a range of people from across the political spectrum still out for Shearer; including Goff's erstwhile strategist John Pagani and that notorious Mooreite Phil Quin alongside the rest of us Tory plants. Meanwhile, David Cunliffe has the endorsement of the Young Nats, here and here. Cheap shots, but it is the Young Nats after all. When they're not photoshopping your head onto a dictator they obviously have the hots for you.
This sudden and spontaneous outbreak of public-sphere democracy is sending Labourite dittoheads into a panic; they're convinced it's a trap — one so cunning they can't see what the right has to gain from it, but it must be something. It's like they've forgotten what they believe; they just read Farrar, Slater, Hooton and Odgers and believe the opposite. Tragic. Those guys are good and all, but they only have so much power because so much of the NZ left is stricken with paranoiac idiotosis.
Meanwhile Trevor Mallard has it all figured out: the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy decision to endorse Shearer is not a trick to ship Labour with an easybeat leader (or worse, a wolf in sheep's clothing) — in fact it's a double-bluff designed to give Labour second thoughts about choosing the obviously-best candidate. (Incidentally James Meager, formerly of the now-defunct Mydeology blog, called this on Thursday.) Someone should redo the poison scene from The Princess Bride with such rationalisations. It's positively Kremlinesque; parallels to the well-documented phenomenon of impending-collapse paranoia within authoritarian regimes seem almost too obvious.
Nevertheless, amongst all the bogus objections, I think there are two legitimate concerns about Shearer's potential leadership. The first I noted in the Close Up interview: his presentation is not strong. He ums, stutters and hesitates, speaks too softly and lacks cut-through. When he's been put on the spot he has struggled. He is much better at the set-piece but that on its own is not enough. What he does have to say is often very good; he is a very perceptive listener and he has a pretty remarkable grasp on a wide range of issues. (There's a comprehensive archive of his weekly in-depth interviews with interesting and important people on the radio here.) That having been said, our present PM is akshully not the world's greatest public speaker, and the public may view a less-polished performance as a common touch. Whatever the case, this weakness can be overcome by training; presentation is one of the few things in politics that can really be taught. Key and Clark are both great examples.
(Incidentally, it amuses me greatly to see folk who've always been focused on wonkish detail and hard policy, to the stern exclusion of doing anything that might win elections, now complaining about a candidate on the grounds that he talks a bit funny.)
The second objection is a bit more substantive, and was raised separately by Anita and by Chris Trotter, and also by Audrey Young: Shearer is reputedly aligned with Damien "gaggle of gays" O'Connor, and perhaps other members of what I have previously termed the blue collars, red necks faction of Labour. Because of this, Young suggests, a Shearer-led Labour will be "a more pragmatic party, with less emphasis on gays and feminists", or as others might say, he might mean the end of identity politics. Leaving aside the offensive dichotomy between pragmatism and support for equal rights, I don't think this necessarily follows. O'Connor's views as expressed in his infamous "gaggle of gays" comment were somewhat archaic, but it's not clear they will greatly shape the party's culture. In addition, O'Connor has a point: homophobia aside, his critique of the faction politics of the Labour party has some merit (he also criticised "self-serving unionists", Trotter's latest target). Absent any indication that Shearer himself shares O'Connor's unreconstructed views I think it's a long bow to draw. Even so, I think the priority for Labour now is sorting its institutions out, and that will mean deemphasising some other projects. I can see this being a touchstone issue for some people; vive la difference.
Lastly, what we have before us is a Labour leadership candidate that can be supported by the right-wingers and former strategists noted above, Sanctuary, AK, myself and presumably because of his potential appeal to Waitakere Man and supposed opposition to identity politics, Comrade Trotter. A person like that doesn't come along very often.
* Huhu grub cake made of rolled lemon sponge filled with fresh cream and bush honey, lemon cream cheese icing. Yeah, colonial-bourgeois Kiwiana is how we postmodern Gen-X long-spoon suppers roll.
Posted in Blogosphere, Democracy, Parliament, Propaganda | 19 Comments | Read More »


text:
Britney Spends Her Weekend With the Boys
by POPSUGAR Celebrity 125 Reactions 0 Shares Print
A nappy haired brunette Britney and her favorite bodyguard spent time playing house with her two boys this weekend. It's almost a cute picture, except for SP seems to think mommy's cigarettes are a toy. Of course, Brit had her requisite Red Bull in hand as she carried Jayden around the yard. It looks like she's not afraid to show him off these days! There are rumors of a radio station playing one of Britney's songs today but we'll believe it when we hear it. Stay tuned for more.
More of Brit and the boys playing around so read more
Celebrity Babies
cari907 7 years
aww so cute those boys are so adorable
divalicious23 7 years
I think Brit is behaving like a mum should these days, smoking is no big deal, she's enjoying her boys which is lovely to see. I want to hear her music man! I'm waiting to dance to it.
Daddisgrl 7 years
Disgusting that she can't have alone time with her kids in her own back yard... The photog's have really been pushing it... People wonder why BS snaps. I don't doubt she has postpartum depression, I've thought so since she had JJ.. To top it off, people follow her around.. I don't think she knows how to handle it all; especially when Kevin starts looking like the good parent. Funny, it was ok for him to bar hop & leave the kids at home, now allof a sudden he's Mr parent. *puke If he does get custody, he'll go back to his ways, just like Paris, a leopard doesn't change it's spots... BS isn't one of my faves, but I was young once too & wish people would leave her alone long enough to get her life back together.
krisua 7 years
If she could only quit the smoking.
RustyAngel73 7 years
I don't think what she's wearing is actually too bad.
VirgoVirgin 7 years
I haven't been here for a LOOOONG while, and I don't know why I bother. This site used to be better, sadly it seems to be turning into another PerezHilton. Or maybe it's just the state of the world now? I don't know. People are so horribly mean nowadays, it's really sad. So many judgemental people out there with less than perfect lives to brag about. They THINK they're so much better than the people they talk trash about, but they're actually WORSE. Celebrities are out there minding their OWN business, living their own lives, while these people sit behind their computers pretending to be the Perfect God. Give me a break! I cannot condone smoking in front of children, or anyone who's not into for that matter, Britney should know better. The only plus I see here is that she's outside, but it's still bad. Outside of that, I don't see her doing anything wrong here. The paparazzi are the ones that are completely crossing the line. She's done many things to attract attention, but any sane person can CLEARLY see this is not one of them. Anyone saying the opposite is most likely saying it because they hate her (even though they don't know her which only shows how insane they are).
sibalc 7 years
she is actually acting like a mum, great!
serena 7 years
I feel like Brit needs to be educated on things everyone else seems to know but that allude her. I don't think that if she knew how much she was potentially harming the lungs of her children she would still do this. I'm not making excuses for her - she's doing a really stupid and dangerous thing. On the other hand, Pop knows posting these pics (not to mention taking them) is wrong and yet they are still posted. This is Brit's private time with her little boys - it's not for us to see.
msshellokitty 7 years
The kids are adorable.It's about time she spent some time with them.
Ginger 7 years
Isn't it weird to kids to be passed around to strangers? She lets strange guys in her life really close to her kids quite easily.
Ginger 7 years
Not only did Britney wear this dress to church, but her guy pal wore that orange t shirt to church, with a suit jacket over it. Classy duo. Haven't seen Alli in awhile. Maybe she finally told Britney she didn't look good one day and got tossed??
picka 7 years
she loves her kids and spends time with them after all, so why everyone talks so much shit, i mean i dont like brits music and her ..i never was a fan, but i think that when she hasnt good hair or something she isnt the fuckin bitch again. i mean look at mk and ashley olsens hairstyles in last time.. LOL ?! and her underwear on that one photo..i mean shes in HER garden, and not her fault that papparazzi r takin fotos of her and the kids.. tsts ;]
ladybugrenee 7 years
as for the smoking around the kids, lets not forget recent pix of melanie griffith LIGHTING up her teenaged daughters cigarette! now THATS even worse! yikes!
ladybugrenee 7 years
so is THIS her backyard? isnt this an invasion of privacy? if it was my yard, id be soo pissed!
any 7 years
cute kids!
lorenashley 7 years
epicurean_Essy 7 years
wow, her kids are cute!
Jillness 7 years
I am sure that if Brit didn't want her buddies at x17 in her backyard, she would just write them another cute little note. Don't feel too bad for her, folks!
high-d 7 years
im sorry but i think her babies are fugly.
tiabia 7 years
I'm guessing they probably broke-up!!!! Kissin' cousins and all!!!
tiabia 7 years
perhaps Flintstones III...next she'll be telling us she visited McDonald's almost daily to try their "brontosaurus" burgers...but it's all for a movie "roll".
FB1977 7 years
LOL Thanks Tatti...I'm liking your comments too!! :-) And you're right...where the heck is Alli?
tati33 7 years
britney needs to wash up her hair... dont even get me started on the cigs or that one of her children is playing with the box as she is holding them... but did anyone see the pictures on x17 where basically boyguard/boyfriend/friend with benefit has his shirt off? britney needs to take that boy off to a tanning salon.. & wtf is Allie? Is she no longer Britney's cousin...
tati33 7 years
FB1977 - you are hilarious!! i love your comments! everything has been well said!!
FB1977 7 years
you mean her "rolls" don't ya deba? LOLOL
barjar1122 7 years
Method acting.
Deba 7 years
yeah, you know she is practicing for the big screen (Umbrella incident).... and she takes her roles too seriously!!!!
Deba 7 years
:ROTFL: Barjar
barjar1122 7 years
Maybe she is practicing for a new "roll". Flintstones II must be coming out.
tiabia 7 years
:rotfl: Barjar, how could you not, LOL
tiabia 7 years
Unfortunately PhatE, I am a Britney basher...she blows!!!
barjar1122 7 years
I am glad I wasnt the only one that thought of the Flintstones when I saw her in these shots.
FB1977 7 years
Yeah pink, that was back when her every move was handled or managed by someone else. When she's left to her own devices, sadly this is what we get...
Pink81406 7 years
Its really sad how pretty and put together she used to seem compared to the train wreck she has become.
FB1977 7 years
LOL yeahmon, good one!
yeahmonmeirie 7 years
Mizz Britt spends a day with her boys, Who must think her cigs are just toys. She plays in the sand, With her new Nanny-Man, A Red Bull and smokes she enjoys.
aphrodite 7 years
cheersdarlin, only reason I said everyone loved KZJ was because everyone was praising her in a recent thread. it seemed like nobody knew (or cared) about the smoking incident. she's obviously done a lot to protect her image.
kaylensmommy06 7 years
Oh - no biggie.
I wasn't inferring that you would allow your child to be around second hand smoke. I was just stating my ground rules with smoking around my daughter.
I wasn't inferring that you would allow your child to be around second hand smoke. I was just stating my ground rules with smoking around my daughter.
pinkprincess1101 7 years
kaylen i would never smoke or allow anyone to smoke infont of my son, pop posted sp was reaching for the cigs not you guys
kaylensmommy06 7 years
We said Jayden - unless someone else said Sean? (but) Yeah, I'd rather see her smoking outdoors than indoors - but as a rule of thumb, I don't smoke anywhere near by daughter. (I don't even let her see me smoking) If someone lights up around her - I leave.
FB1977 7 years
The problem with Brit is she refuses to accept the help of anyone around her. She acts like a stubborn little brat, mad that mommy and her mgr pushed her into rehab (when I believe they only had her best interests in mind) so now she is "rebelling". She is too old to be "rebellious", and she needs to grow the hell up. And, someone had to take care of her kids while she was in rehab, so what's the big deal that her mom gets along with K Fed? It's a better environment for the kids if they get along...*shaking head* I just think Brit is way immature.
Deba 7 years
yup Greggie
tickintime 7 years
Her kids are cute. Too bad her money can't buy her some class.
pinkprincess1101 7 years
and the child reaching for the cigs is jayden not sean, this is to funny if there were pics of the boys by themselves people would say why isnt she there, and when she is she gets bashed, and by all means i do not like brit at all but give the girl a break, yes smoking is bad especially in front of kids, she is smoking outside which is still wrong but at least its not in a closed place, not that im saying its ok to smoke so dont start bashing me for condoning smoking
kaylensmommy06 7 years
Oh, I see what you're talking about...I thought you were talking about a carton - not a pack. Gotcha! I didn't even see that in the first pic. ;-)
dharmalove 7 years
OMG!!!!!!! can you possibly get more white trash than this??!! She is a perfect example of when money happens to classless people. WTF is she wearing?! Diapers all over the yard, smoking while playing with the kids. She seriously needs to just go back to her double-wide and just give up.
Greggie 7 years
No, when she's walking with him she's holding her cigarettes in the same hand and he's reaching for them.
phatE 7 years
in the first picture it's her cigs
kaylensmommy06 7 years
***I know someone commented about Jayden reaching into her carton of cigs...but that's a package of diapers. I'm not a big fan of hers...but I just wanted to clarify. :-)
phatE 7 years
tiabia, we are saying the same thing, treat her like a normal person. i don't think it's right to smoke around kids, and i don't agree, but i am not in a place to be so judgemental of her, and it's so obvious she's freaking out, i feel sorry for her, and i think those who just bash her and nit-pick need to make sure they check their own lives as well
sydneyalias 7 years
I feel sort of sorry for Brit. I think she's trying to be a good mom and get her career back, but she's got NO common sense. She doesn't seem to know how to do either very well. She needs to accept some help! She's also getting chunky again. I feel for her because I know it's hard to lose weight, but she's never going to be what she was unless she gets her life in order.
pinkprincess1101 7 years
greggie, i think CZJ is beautiful because she is, the smoking while pregnant was wrong, brits boys are flipping gorgeous, i think brit actually looks good in these pics minus the nappy head and dress, she seems so happy and involved with her boys i really hope its not a publicity stunt, by the looks of it, it doesnt seem that way
Jennie 7 years
Someone needs to put the hose on that girl, I can't wait to see how her kinds turn out.
Greggie 7 years
I'm still trying to figure out how CZJ has a career at all, or why people think she's so beautiful. Cuz I don't get it.
tiabia 7 years
My initial problem with Zeta-Jones is that she is overly litigious, and the fact that she smoked pregnant and now she's just awful. If there's a picture of her picking up a pencil, she will threaten a lawsuit. I'm trying understand why she's even followed.
tiabia 7 years
phatE, is Spears NOT pathetic for smoking around her kids? And I don't care how many parents actually do it, it's still digusting, gross and wrong on all levels. You can not make an excuse for Spears because she's a celeb. Instead you should be just as furious with her as the "normal" people.
cheersdarlin916 7 years
KZJ is nasty. I liked her until I saw the pictures of her smoking while pregnant so I think you are wrong when you say everyone still likes her.
Diya 7 years
It's sad she can't even her privacy in her own backyard. If she was at the park or standing outside on a balconey, I would understand but this is invasive. I also remember seeing pictures of Liev smoking while walking with a pregnant Naomi Watts but I don't think anyone made a big deal out if it. But I guess since this Britney, it's different. As much as she screws up, I think people can be really mean to her. Her kids looks happy and so does she.
ali_h23 7 years
Ugh come on smoking around your children now that there demonstrates how horrible of a parent you are. I was hoping she would get her life back on track even though I can't stand her.
phatE 7 years
you guys are ridiculous. first, how much of an invasion of privacy is this? i agree, when they are out and about it's free game, but in her back yard, like this? this is just wrong. second, you all must be absolutley perfect! i am not a britney fan, and I do think she's about as white trash as they come, BUT who the hell am i to judge what type of parent she is, etc. I don't agree with smoking, but how many parents smoke in front of their kids? i just think everyone is so critical and basically jumps her every chance they get, it's obvious she is mentally freaking out, and i don't think things like this help, it would SO suck to be her, try to look at her as someone who is really needing help, not someone who is a horrible, malicious person
ana_pink 7 years
boys are cute!!!i think im falling in love!! just kidding!!
amanaceer 7 years
gross. is that her underwear i see peeping out from under the ugly tacky way too short dress thing she has on. ugh!
Lexie_Kesh 7 years
It should be a crime for anyone to smoke in front of their kids. That said K-Fed sure makes cute babies, Brit on the other looks the same.
Deba 7 years
*she has received* sorry :OOPS:
cine_lover 7 years
Those pics are completely set up. It makes me laugh to think that people think that she did not know the paps were there.
juju4 7 years
Her booty is hanging out the back of her dress! Yuck.
SassAndBide 7 years
jayden james looks cute
Deba 7 years
And it fits perfectly well, since she was received a lot of critics because of her parental skills... mother of the year with these pics
Deba 7 years
I agree with Jillness, common, since when Britney have wanted/requested a private life, we all know she has a big :LOVE: with x17online.
Padraigin 7 years
She wore that dress to church?
FB1977 7 years
So true, Jillness so true!
Deba 7 years
meh.... still trash
Jillness 7 years
Mello, you ask people to post what they looked like in their backyards this weekend. The big distinction here is that the people on this board didn't invite paps to take pictures of them. She loves x17, remember? She wears their hats, gives them interviews, gives them hand written notes, posts notes to them on her website, takes them with her to humiliate her mother...It isn't a surprise they are welcome in her backyard.
FB1977 7 years
Hi Tiabia!! Thanks for the welcome back...I love posting on here. :-) Unfortunately, Brit's just the one celeb who has burned one too many bridges for me.
xmeghanx 7 years
I'm glad to see her home with her boys enjoying them
oh_its_me 7 years
oh brit, just started liking you...then you go and smoke around your kids...why? why? :(
roxy17 7 years
Those boys are just soooooo cute.
aphrodite 7 years
i have no love for KZJ either. :-\
lilgrasshopper 7 years
Smoking around her kids? Nice. Britney may have a ton of money, but the one thing she can't buy is class.
tiabia 7 years
:wave: Hey FB1977...glad you decided to come back to Pop...I love your comments!!!
tiabia 7 years
Sorry aphrodite, but Zeta-Jones gets no love from me on that action. I just read that the pictures were taken down because of threat of legal actions...here's hoping she was embarassed by such vile behavior.
notoriousrem_22 7 years
I agree that she shouldnt be smoking around her kids but geez people lay off with the way she looks, she is playing in HER BACYARD with her children she is not out in public so let her be. I am sure so many of us lay around our houses dressed to the 9's, please. How invasive that the paps are getting shots of her in her backyard like that, I would hate living like that espically with kids she should move out of L.A. or Malibu or wherever she lives she needs to be with her kids and getting better. I think she is bi-polar, you can tell by how she changes hair color from light to dark, its like she is 2 different people. I hope one day she gets some help.
hvnly34 7 years
:ROTFL: This comment string has been hilarious. My thoughts: she looks like a backwoods country bumpkin. Seriously? She wore that dress to church? Wow... I wish her well...
MEXICANBUTTAFLY 7 years
All I have to say is, at least she's spending time with them. She's at home peeps! I don't brush my hair, or get dressed when i'm at home! Geesh, get a grip folks! At least she's being a mother and now out partying like Parasite Hilton! Keep going on the right track Brit, event hough you do stupid things..i'm still pulling for ya. PS: I'm not a fan, but I'm happy she's getting herself together!
Greggie 7 years
I disagree that she wouldn't smoke or have them in diapers if it was set-up. Hell, she's done a lot worse when she's called photographers first. The pregnant smoking picture of CZJ is one reason I cannot stand her.
in-the-zone-brit 7 years
yea britney!! okay you are spending much more time with your kids thats great.now all you need to do is get a better colour weeve like a blonde one,and go back to the gym and dress as hot as you dress in your younger days.
aphrodite 7 years
katherine zeta jones was photographed smoking while 8 months pregnant, and everyone seems to love her.
rcgfg 7 years
I smoke and have a 3 year old but never have I smoked in front of him or near him. I don't want my little boy to ever even know I soke so I have to quit pretty soon before he starts wondering why I always go to the garage..She's trash.
aphrodite 7 years
I'm no fan of Britney, but jeez, she should have some damn privacy in her own backyard. I am totally disgusted with the media right now. This is sick.
FB1977 7 years
Amen to that one, Tiabia. Call me a sucker for believing all I read, but there's just way too much I've heard about her to believe she's truly a good parent.
tiabia 7 years
Please show me a picture or pictures of other celebs smoking near their children, and you will see a digusted TiaBia. That's just laziness and rudeness on the parents. She could have moved, she could have resisted the temptations. I hate that!!! Oh, and it will take divine intervention for her NOT to be a loser in my book.
mello 7 years
She wouldn't have had the kids naked and smoked near one of them if they were set up. She went out earlier in the day to church with the boys. It's not like this is the only time we saw them. They have taken picture before of her in her backyard. Lord if this was anyone but Britney most people would be outraged.
demonkitty18 7 years
wow she can't even get some privacy in her own backyard. Anyway, they're at home- her kids should be able to wear or not wear anything at all- they're babies!
Greggie 7 years
I have absolutely no doubt that these pictures are set up and that the photographers were given access to the area. Nothin' makes a good chew toy like Mommy's cigarettes and lighter.
Cheetah521 7 years
I actually don't think she looks that bad, and I'm glad she's spending time with her boys but come on, don't smoke that close to them! The bodyguard was there to watch the boys, so she easily could've walked away to smoke.
mello 7 years
Omg one last thing, everyone please post what you looked like while hanging in your backyards this weekend. I'm sure we'll all be dazzled by your ~*beauty*~
mwmsjuly19 7 years
Cute kids. Hate the cig and the cavewoman outfit..
Wisdombody7 7 years
It's good to see her at home with her kids and she's even wearing panties now! Check out her flashing us in the first picture.
mello 7 years
the smoking thing I don't like, but she's also outside and I won't even tell you the number I know of people who do it. Other celebs have done it too, but I guess they aren't Britney. :rotfl: people also need to stop with thinking just because she isn't doing a jennifer garner with the park photo ops she's never with her kids. really how much do you think we really see of her? or anyone else? I guess since we have never seen Kevin with the kids alone, he doesn't even know them? I hope he meets Jayden one day. :oy: I'm also done with my Britney defense for today. I totally know it's a lost cause. :rotfl:
Janeiro 7 years
I can't stand reading about her anymore, not out of a sense of hostility just exasperation. I just pity her and, especially, her boys. Sad.
Jennifer_2sugar 7 years
finnally :oy:
zc 7 years
yes her hairs a mess and her dress is a dont but come on she in her own backyard. it would be alot more sadder if she dolled up to go outside and play with her kids.
FB1977 7 years
I have to say, the images of her puffing away, in that tacky dress with her nappy hair, well she is the poster child for white trash, that's for sure!
mello 7 years
She's wearing A DRESS. Go look at x17 and it's a dress she went to church in. She looked pretty good minus her hair. In other pictures of these she went in the pool with the kids. Jesus. Do people really have to pick on her and how she looks while in her own backyard with her kids?
ktjones 7 years
I want to hear one of her new songs!
tiabia 7 years
She's a disaster!!! I was ALMOST about to say a rather nice comment, until I saw the pictures of her smoking so close to her "booboos", and then the picture of one of the boys reaching for her cigarette carton...I am sooo over this broad :oy: BUT I NEED GOLD!!!
FB1977 7 years
Well I think it goes without saying it's sad that paparazzi are stalking her for pics in her backyard, but really, not much we can do about it. I don't think they'd be as interested in her if she wasn't so scandalous.
controlledspin 7 years
I will say though, I am really glad that no one took pics of me this weekend in my backyard and waxing my car, or I would be pretty mortified ;) LOL
cherrygirl143 7 years
While I'm glad she is spending time with her kids (and they are cute) she could at least put clothes on them and not just diapers! I think that is so gross. At least a pair of shorts over the diaper!
kaylensmommy06 7 years
I like that she's spending time with her kiddos...but smoking near the baby is horrible. Also, why does she need to wear that outfit with the kids? (why wear it AT ALL) But especially with your kids? YUCK. She is getting trashier by the minute.
FB1977 7 years
Kids are cute, I have to agree. I just feel for them. I've read way too much on her parenting skills (or lack thereof) and it just makes me cringe.
computerdiva 7 years
What is she wearing and why didn't she brush her hair? I totally agree, though, way too much paparazzi around her and her kids trying to have some together-time.
mello 7 years
Stalker pictures taken in her backyard of her half naked children and all people can whine about is that she is doing something wrong. Gotta love it.
fashionhore 7 years
It has always stunned me that a parent would smoke around or allow anyone to smoke around their child when it is that young. Why? I understand that it is an addiction and that the child is going to see it sometime so why not now, but really? Do you want to expose them to anything more than what they are already going to get (bad images, secondhand smoke, the idea to smoke)? At least Britney looks semi decent for once but pop is right, her hair still looks awful. Her dress seems to call upon a fairy, does it not? But hey, its a little progress.
greeneydmonster 7 years
britney spears needs to learn to eat right. she's always eating fast food, drinking red bull and smoking cigarettes. her insides are probably nastier than her outside. this is just disgusting.
lilflowa 7 years
awww babies! she looks so dirty and trasy tho! fix ur self up already britney! geeezz.....the chunky trampy look is not cute!!
Brians-Girl 7 years
well atleast she is spending time with them!
controlledspin 7 years
P.S. Bodyguard's shirt the other day said "I'm on a seafood diet - I see food, I eat it." and today it says "Dangerously Cheesy". WTF?
controlledspin 7 years
They really are cute kids.
razzlemoon 7 years
it's good to see her spending some family time...but the outfit and hair ick!
t0xxic 7 years
ITs sad she cant even be in her back yard the lengths these paps go to is ridicuous. I mean do they really make enough money off her to use a chopper as much as they do? Sick.
PJM 7 years
She is so white trash. Love the cheesey bodyguard!!
pinupsweetheart 7 years
At least she is spending time with them. :)
pepperatstate 7 years
I am REALLY going to need her to get some help. She looks horrible......
Jillness 7 years
I really don't like her, but it is creepy that it looks like they are in their backyard. Of course, maybe this is part of her arrangement with x17.
Link Love
- Ashley Tisdale is really enjoying her honeymoon — Us Weekly
- Lindsay Lohan didn't touch Whitney Houston's body at the morgue — HuffPost Celebrity
- The Colombia cycling team's uniforms are, well, interesting — ET
- See the first photos of Brad and Angelina on their new movie set — Lainey Gossip
- You won't believe what this celebrity just named her new baby — Dlisted
- Hillary Clinton is on "constant grandchild watch" — People
- How Vine is changing the music industry — BuzzFeed
- Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow get together with the kids — JustJared
- Lindsay Lohan wears underwear for a magazine spread — Hollywood Tuna
- Why you shouldn't believe the Beyoncé pregnancy rumors — The Superficial
- It's hard to look at anything but Nicki Minaj's chest in this outfit — The Blemish

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Welcome to Bildergeschichten.Geblogt.org!
Thank you for visiting and… Welcome to Bildergeschichten.Geblogt.org! We are currently working on providing you some fresh and truly awesome content. We appreciate your visit to our website and hope you will bear with us while we are revamping. We promise to make Bildergeschichten.Geblogt.org the amazing online EMS lifestyle showcase that you have been craving.
For further information on our website, we welcome you to read our terms of service and privacy policy. If you still have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us and we will respond as quickly as possible. Thank you again for visiting Bildergeschichten.Geblogt.org and "cheers" to the future!
In you are looking for something to do during our downtime, we welcome you to check out our most current online project EMT Training. It's been a long road getting this site up and running, but through hard work, perseverance, and the support of our following we have been able to launch the website.
We have a ton of great articles already up on that site such as Paramedic Training New York City. We are working hard with our content writers to add more soon. We hope you will check it out.


text:
Realt Dubh is a best-priced 25-1 for the Champion ChasePICTURE: Patrick McCann (racingpost.com/photos)
Champion Chase looking like Realt Dubh's target
LAST year's Arkle third Realt Dubh will stick to 2m, with the Sportingbet.com Queen Mother Champion Chase the preferred option for his Cheltenham Festival target rather than the Ryaniar over 5f further.
"I'm nearly certain that he's going to go for the two-mile race," said Noel Meade. "We had a look at it and decided that the Ryanair probably isn't as good a race but it looks far more competitive.
"There's about seven in that race with a chance whereas there's probablyonly the top three to worry about in the Queen Mother. The horse is absolutely flying. Paul Carberry schooled him during the week and said that he's never felt as good."
Realt Dubh was a general 16-1 shot for the Ryanair, although BetVictor went 25-1, while his price ranges from 16-1 to 25-1 for the Queen Mother, with Betfred best-priced about his chances.


text:
Jaqen H'ghar. A Man Has Said.
Game of Thrones Arya and Lord Tywin scene. Clearly the best scene of this episode…
The Cersei and Littlefinger scene…another one of my favorites from last night's episode!
I just had to cut this scene. Direwolf comes out to play…
I can't decide what's cuter…the puppy or Richard Madden's face.
One of my favorite season 2 GoT photos released so far. Uggghhh Arya kills me. Seriously. In the books, whenever her chapter comes up I have to prepare myself for resurrection because I know I will be dead by the end of it.
So this summer it seems like EVERYTHING is coming out. I don't know what I'm going to have left to look forward to afterwards but man, I'm loving this! Here's my list of stuff I'm totally excited for (like stand in line, lose sleep, dance around excited).
1. JULY 15th. For those of you who don't belong to this universe and don't know what this date is…IT'S THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL HARRY POTTER MOVIE…AND I HAVE MY MIDNIGHT PREMIERE TICKETS!!!!
2. July 12th. A DANCE WITH DRAGONS, the next installment of the Song of Ice and Fire series by GRRM comes out! So excited! (For those who just know the show…it's the next book in the Game of Thrones series).
3. July 31st. Pottermore beta version release. Knowing my luck I won't be one of the million people who get in early but a girl can always dream right? IF IT WILL EVER TAKE MY E-MAIL THAT IS!
4. Already released…X-men First Class. Everything I look for in a Summer blockbuster!
Sooo what's left you ask? When this is all over, I get to start looking forward to Doctor Who again! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a wonderful summer.
Brilliant. Get Joe On The Show!
Daenerys Targaryen
I cannot wait for this. And she is GORGEOUS.


text:
New study of Panama shark, ray fossils sheds light on ancient ocean connectionsOctober 14th, 2013
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — A new study led by University of Florida researchers provides evidence of an interchange between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans nine to 11 million years ago despite the ongoing formation of the Isthmus of Panama.
Seeking to provide the most complete description to date of 10-million-year-old shark and ray fossils in an outcrop on the Caribbean side of Panama, the researchers identified species that today are restricted to the Pacific Ocean, suggesting the oceans were connected at the time. The study appears in the current issue of the Journal of Paleontology.
The research has significant implications for the evolutionary history of sharks and possibly other marine animals, said lead researcher Catalina Pimiento, a doctoral candidate at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the UF campus. (more…)
Dig into geology at the Florida Museum during 'Can You Dig It?' March 17March 1st, 2012
Editors Note: A complete list activities follows this release
Photos available
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Dig into geology and discover the ground beneath your feet at the sixth annual "Can You Dig It?" at the Florida Museum of Natural History from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. March 17.
This free, family-friendly event is sponsored by the University of Florida department of geological sciences and features hands-on activities and engaging demonstrations from the Gainesville Gem and Mineral Society, Jackson Stoneworks and Santa Fe College.
"We've added some new displays and tables this year," said Matt Smith, lecturer for the UF department of geological sciences. "We really want to get the people and kids out to see what geology is all about. Lots of kids don't know what geologists actually do, so every year we try to mix it up and make the event better."
Monthly presentation series discusses fossils, paleontology at Florida MuseumFebruary 9th, 2012
Photos available
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Learn more about fossil nuts, primates and horses from Florida Museum of Natural History researchers during the "Cruisin' for Fossils" spring presentation series.
The three free presentations are scheduled for 2 p.m. on Feb. 19, March 11 and April 29 in the museum classroom.
Topics include "Cruisin' for Fossil Nuts" by curator of paleobotany Steve Manchester, "Cruisin' for Fossil Primates" by associate curator of vertebrate paleontology Jonathan Bloch and "Cruisin' for Florida's Fossil Horses" by vertebrate paleontology collections manager Richard Hulbert, respectively.
Bring fossils, questions to museum 'Ask a Paleontologist' events February through MayFebruary 8th, 2012
Photos available
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Area residents who have discovered a mysterious fossil while gardening or hiking and would like to learn more about it now have the perfect opportunity.
The Florida Museum of Natural History is hosting "Ask a Paleontologist" events from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. Sunday (Feb. 12), March 4, April 15 and May 6.
Florida Museum vertebrate paleontology collections manager Richard Hulbert and Florida Museum invertebrate paleontology collections manager Roger Portell will identify fossils for visitors and share information about paleontology March 4 and May 6. Hulbert is also scheduled for Feb. 12 and Portell for April 15. (more…)
Fla. Museum offers opening day activities for new fossil exhibit Feb. 4January 27th, 2012
Photos available
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Take a prehistoric road trip with the Florida Museum of Natural History during the opening of "Cruisin' the Fossil Freeway with artist Ray Troll and paleontologist Kirk Johnson" from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Feb. 4.
University of Florida mascots Albert and Alberta are scheduled to appear from 11 a.m. to noon for visitor photographs with the Albertosaurus skeleton in the exhibit. UF paleontologists, paleobotanists and geologists, as well as members of state fossil clubs including the Tampa Bay Fossil Club, Southwest Florida Fossil Club, Florida Fossil Hunters and the Florida Paleontological Society will also speak with visitors and display specimens from their collections. (more…)
Dinosaurs invade Gainesville with 'Cruisin' the Fossil Freeway' exhibit Feb. 4December 22nd, 2011
Photos available
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Dinosaurs are coming to Gainesville! Take a prehistoric road trip through the Florida Museum of Natural History's newest temporary exhibit, "Cruisin' the Fossil Freeway with Artist Ray Troll and Paleontologist Kirk Johnson," Feb. 4 through Sept. 3.
The exhibit features 30 fossils, including complete skeleton casts of the three-horned Triceratops dinosaur, and Albertosaurus, a carnivore that lived about 70 million years ago. The fossils complement 19 color prints and five large-scale murals by Troll, created for the book "Cruisin' the Fossil Freeway," by Troll and Johnson. Visitors also will be able to observe Florida Museum scientists in a functioning paleontology lab preparing fossils collected during research projects from around the world. (more…)
Museum researchers name new ancient crocodile relative from land of TitanoboaOctober 1st, 2011
By Danielle Torrent
Did an ancient crocodile relative give the world's largest snake a run for its money? In the post-dinosaur world of giants, Florida Museum of Natural History researchers discovered a new species related to crocodiles they say ate the same freshwater fish as Titanoboa. (more…)
Researchers discover oldest evidence of nails in modern primatesAugust 15th, 2011
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – From hot pink to traditional French and Lady Gaga's sophisticated designs, manicured nails have become the grammar of fashion.
But they are not just pretty – when nails appeared on all fingers and toes in modern primates about 55 million years ago, they led to the development of critical functions, including finger pads that allow for sensitive touch and the ability to grasp, whether it's a nail polish brush or remover to prepare for the next trend.
In a new study co-authored by University of Florida scientists, researchers recovered and analyzed the oldest fossil evidence of fingernails in modern primates, confirming the idea nails developed with small body size and disproving previous theories nails evolved with an increase in primate body size. More than 25 new specimens of Teilhardina brandti – an extinct primate originally described from a single lower molar – include pieces of upper teeth and ankle bones that show the mammal lived in trees. Its nails allowed the lemur-like animal to grasp onto branches and move through the trees with more agility, researchers said. (more…)
UF study names new genus of 125-million-year-old eudicot from ChinaMarch 30th, 2011
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – A University of Florida researcher has helped describe the earliest known fossil remains of a flowering plant from China that has a direct evolutionary relationship with most plants humans depend on today.
The study, scheduled to appear as the cover story in the March 31 issue of the journal Nature, describes the basal eudicot species, Leefructus mirus, which lived during the early Cretaceous period about 125 million years ago. It is most closely related to living plants in the buttercup family. Eudicots, known as "typical dicots," are one of the largest groups of flowering plants. (more…)
Fossil bird study describes ripple effect of extinction in animal kingdomMarch 7th, 2011
GAINESVILLE, Fla. – A University of Florida study demonstrates extinction's ripple effect through the animal kingdom, including how the demise of large mammals 20,000 years ago led to the disappearance of one species of cowbird.
The study shows the trickle-down effect the loss of large mammals has on other species, and researchers say it is a lesson from the past that should be remembered when making conservation, game and land-use decisions today. (more…)


text:
Aspring Graphic Designer, discussing everything and anything geeky. Everyone loves a good nerdasm :D
This kid has been staring at a picture of broccoli for about 15 minutes now
He keeps zooming in and out and looking over every branch
Finals week has really taken a lot out of some people
(Source: derivethis)
Gorgeous heart necklace inspired by LoZ Skyward Sword @_@ I really hope someone gets me this for x-mas…..hell, I'll buy it for myself if I have to~
If you wanna buy it for me:http://www.thepixelsmithy.com/collections/necklaces
haha wow, I did not expect such a huge response from my last post about this subject. I received both negative and positive replies which is what I expected anyways. Please remember that this is a blog which means MY opinion. In no way will I ever say that I am always 100% correct or that my word is law. You do not have to agree nor waste your time typing up every insult you can think of to throw at me over how I feel. My cousin already in fact broke up with her WoW guildie and now he is stuck down here with no money, home, and girlfriend. If they really wanted to have a relationship they should have waited til they were both out of high school and able to support each other financially instead of hoping her parents pay for his room and board. So sorry, her soul mate isn't a level 90 holy paladin and she won't be, as quoting by one of my favorite responses, "spiting in my face and not inviting me to the wedding" :)
That is very true, you can't put everyone in the same barrel. I do wish my cousin the best and hope it works out. If not, the poor guy is stuck across the country with no one.
awww that's awesome! we should certainly stay in touch and compare tips/work :D It's always great to meet other people with similar passions
wow…..so I just found out my cousin is dating some dude she met on World of Warcraft….wtf?! Like I get that more and more people are meeting online through dating web sites and social gaming but…really? She's bringing him to Thanksgiving dinner at our house. It's just….really really weird for me. I've played Wow for about…2 years and I KNOW how guys are on there. They are like leeches….UGH I just….I can't even think straight about this…It is just too damn weird for me. She's 18 so she can do whatever she wants but….omg xD it's so ridiculous it makes me laugh….What do you guys think of meeting your "soul mate" while hashing it out at dragons or trolls? Lemme know guys~ I'm out!


text:
Upload Photo
How to work out in style
This spring, workout wear isn't just functional -- it's taken a fashion-forward turn, with daring prints, intricate details and look-at-me shades -- even in pants. Bold hues are huge, says Marissa Stephenson, fitness editor at Self magazine. Neons, jewel tones, coral and yellow are just some of the top shades for fitted jackets, tops, sports bras and, yes, even pants.
High school homecoming celebrations across LI Best bets this weekend on LI Your pet photos: Adorable dogs, cats and more LI people on the move! Promotions, new jobs Field hockey players to watch Rocky Point vs. Sayville Faces of football: Roosevelt vs. West Hempstead LI notable deaths Recent LI fires Recent LI mug shots LI car accidents Twitter reacts to Miss America's talent, LI roots