Key makes "peace" with actress

[short-circuit]

Given that I set out to do that, I am pleased that you have seized upon my intent.


And an attack on a legal entity rather than on a specific person cannot be ad hominem. Look it up if you don't believe me.

1. Yeah sure

2. Semantics - play the ball not the man [sic.]

[RantyDave]

changing the way society works fundamentally needs to happen to prevent us drowning in our own filth

Do you really *not* think this is the case?

You're not going to drown in your filth. Your children won't drown in their filth either but your grandchildren are going to have to either live with or clear up whatever shit we leave behind. The Oceans may be entirely lifeless. Whole countries way well be abandoned. Wars may be fought over fertile soil instead of petrochemicals, power or money. The patent on the few plants than *can* grow on the crap left behind may be owned by a few unthinkably powerful organisations. The cost of food for a family would exceed all other household costs by a factor of two.

We are well on the way to *all* of these actually happening and if it does it will be directly the fault of two groups of people: Those who thought is was a lefty pinko plot to take away our god given right to drive fast and kill towelheads; and those who believed it but did nothing.

So, up to you man - do you want future generations to regard us as the people who shat all over the planet while preoccupied with brangelina's latest antics, or as the generation who realised what shallow self-obsessed fucktards the boomers have been and starting putting things right.

Dave

[mowgli]

Hey, don't get me wrong I'm sold on the need to clean up our act and live more sustainably. It's the alarmist, bull shit stories about armagedon just around the corner that piss me off. The science is not settled, nor can it ever be.

[rainman]

That this is a political debate not an environmental one.

Perhaps I should have been more specific: what factual evidence do you base that view on?

It is certainly not a membership-driven organisation whose policy making is transparent to its paying "members" and which is accountable to those same members.

If Greenpeace was a membership-based organisation, then a couple of busloads of people could rock up to an Annual General Meeting (which it doesn't have) and do serious democratic stuff, like voting off directors or even winding the organisation up.

That can't be done, because Greenpeace International is a multinational corporate conglomerate...

Oh pffft. They're far from ideal as an organisation, but that's no reason to lie about them. I expected better from you, Hitcher.

Greenpeace International Board of Directors

The Board of Directors of Greenpeace International (Stichting Greenpeace Council) consists of seven members. Its role is to approve the annual budget of Greenpeace International and the audited accounts, and to appoint and supervise the Greenpeace International Executive Director.

The International Board is also responsible for monitoring the operations and activities of the wider organisation; deciding organisational policy; approving the start of new campaigns and new national offices; ratifying the Greenpeace International Annual General Meeting (AGM) decisions; granting the right to use the Greenpeace trademark; and for determining the voting status of national and regional offices in the AGM.

International Board members are elected for a three-year period by representatives from the National / Regional Offices at the AGM, and may be re-elected for a subsequent term. The International Board reports annually to the Greenpeace International AGM.

Greenpeace International Annual General Meeting

Each National / Regional Office is also governed by a board of directors. These are usually elected by a voting membership of volunteers and activists, who are firmly rooted within the local environmental communities and are well positioned to represent the wider public in influencing Greenpeace decisions and policy.

Each National / Regional Office Board appoints a representative to the Greenpeace International Annual General Meeting, called a Trustee. In this way, the AGM is effectively the supervisory body for the organisation as a whole. The Trustees elect the International Board, the legally responsible entity.

Key responsibilities of the AGM include:

* To establish and uphold the core principles of the organisation
* To elect or remove the International Board
* To approve the opening of new Greenpeace offices
* To approve the annual Greenpeace International budget ceiling
* To identify issues of strategic significance to be addressed by the organisation

These issues are annually debated and voted on by the International Board and the National/Regional Office Trustees at the AGM. The Greenpeace International Board determines the voting status of National / Regional offices at the AGM based upon offices meeting a set of detailed criteria on financial solvency and independence, and adherence to internationally accepted good governance and financial management standards.

Didya see that "AGM" word there?

[pzkpfw]

As much as the Climate Change debate has been turned into a noble crusade, that changing the way society works fundamentally needs to happen to prevent us drowning in our own filth, we deserve EVERYTHING we get when we start listening and reacting to the scripted blitherings of a chick who rode a digital whale.

I haven't seen that movie yet.

Did you just give away the ending?

[mowgli]

It's all in the way the message is being delivered.

Consider being pulled over by a cop and finding your WOF has expired by a few weeks. Now consider two responses.

Cop 1 reminds you that the WOF is an important check for yours and others' safety and suggests you call into VTNZ on the way home. You agree and dutifully do as suggested.

Cop 2 proceeds to berate you for riding without a WOF. "Don't you know your bike could fail catestropically launching you through the windscreen of some poor family killing all but the baby in the back seat who now has to live with his aunt and the knowledge that you killed his parents simply because you wouldn't fork out $50 to get a WOF....." Five minutes later, as boredom sets in, you make some remark and whammo, you get fined.

Cop 1 is the voice of reason and commonsense. I understand where he's coming from because his message is truthful and accurate. So I agree to play my part in what I know is for the greater good.

To me Cop 2 is the climate change brigade. I have no respect for them because they demonstrate no respect for me. It pisses me off that when they ultimately get their way I will be fined.

When the UN IPCC was set up the chair was quoted as saying something along the lines of "the truth will not be enough". Basically he was admitting that if they told it like it was then no one would take any notice. This is perhaps where Gore got his inspiration from. So from the outset the message has been spun up in apocalyptic proportions and this has attracted a semi-religious response from the uneducated masses.

I don't believe that armagedon is but a few generations away. I do believe that we should take steps to live in harmony with the planet in perpetuity.

[MIXONE]

I'm surprised at both the level of emotion this "News" item sparked in me and the fact that I managed to write something that wasn't laden with discombobulated invective.

I think I agree with you but need a dictionary to find out...

[Creeping Death]

Bring back free shopping bags.

[mowgli]

Perhaps I should have been more specific: what factual evidence do you base that view on?

This website offers objective opinions on climate change. I've seen a few and read around but this one is the most balanced in my view. It's the one I've bookmarked and refer others to. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

The new world order theory is drawn from parallels between the emissions trading scheme (essentially trading in nothing) and the activities of Enron and Gore. I read Air Con (Wishart) when it came out and viewed his theories in the later chapters with skepticism. Then last week I watched "Smartest People in the Room", a documentary into the collapse of Enron. Considering Gore's relationship with Enron at the time and Enron's aspiration to create a global emissions trading scheme, Gore's actions since (climate change activist) have taken on new meaning for me. There's too much money at stake for people and governments to be doing this out of a sense of charity.

[JimO]

She should stick to acting, that's what she's good at. That is all.

is she, and having babies out of wedlock...fuckem all i say

[Street Gerbil]

who is Keisha ??

A teenage mom.

[Hitcher]

Didya see that "AGM" word there?

For Greenpeace in New Zealand? All you have done is reinforce my proposition that Greenpeace is a multinational conglomerate.

[Hitcher]

A teenage mom.

Not when she's in New Zealand.

[short-circuit]

For Greenpeace in New Zealand? All you have done is reinforce my proposition that Greenpeace is a multinational conglomerate.

Wrong. It's a Non-government Organisation (NGO)

[mynameis]

She should stick to making babies and riding whales.