15 Comments

The link will not open - so not able to join you

Expand full comment

Could you mail a new link please?

Expand full comment

Re the Seymour and ACT caucus appearance at the Hīkoi, it reminded me of the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and Keith Holyoake. He would come out from the function he was at and wave to us demonstrators, we would howl and hiss, then he would smile and go back inside.

Expand full comment

I understand Holyoake made NZ's contribution as minimal as he believed he could while keeping the US happy. Is the tale of him deliberately getting his driver to drive the PM's car - with him and Lyndon Johnson in it - through an area where a protest was taking place so Johnson could see the opposition - true?

Expand full comment

Quite likely. Exporting beef to US meant having to send some troops to Vietnam.

Expand full comment

Another memory of Holyoake was a televised debate before a live audience - 1969 election I think. Keith started an answer with "I don't think" and the audience drowned out the rest of the answer applauding and agreeing with him. Took 3 goes to answer.

Expand full comment

The heady days of early broadcasting in NZ.

Expand full comment

Helen Clark lost me when she took a populist rather a principled stand on the foreshore and seabed issue back in the day. She hasn't moved very far. She would, she tells us, have embraced a solution where the foreshore and seabed were declared to belong to no one. Well, the treaty is unclear on lots of things, but it's very clear that tangata whenua should enjoy undisturbed ownership and enjoyment of their lands and taonga unless they chose to alienate them... What a pity the courts didn't get to decide whether they'd alienated the foreshore and seabed, surely a taonga in anyone's terms.

Expand full comment

Thanks so much Bernard and team. V grateful. I thought that comment by Helen re foreshore and seabed surprising, but otherwise found the views of the hoon participants including those of Helen reflected much decency and logic.

I will make one little note re Bernard's use of 'negative feedback' a few times when it is technically 'positive feedback' - eg in a slowing economy budget cuts causing further slowing. It's nasty so negative in that sense but, if an event is occurring and it, or response to it' causes more of it to happen that is called positive feedback.

It is usually dangerous.

eg global warming causing permafrost to melt resulting in microbial activity releasing vast amounts of gases causing further warming.

(Cathrine inadvertently once said on the hoon negative feedback when meaning pos and on being asked she said it was a brain fade moment and she meant pos.)

Body homeostasis is maintained to a large degree by 'negative feedback' where something occuring causes the opposite to happen eg body temp dropping below a certain point causes, via sensors and brain functions etc, a few responses including shivering producing heat and conscious awareness of being cold so we don warm clothes and body temp rises. Science 101 lesson endeth..

Expand full comment

Oh ok, so if I've interpreted what you said, the phrase positive in that context isn't "good" or "bad" it's weather is causal or not? Correct?

To give them the benefit of the doubt the semi casual, conversational nature of the show probably lends itself to using less academically correct language. But I think I get what you are saying, fair point :-)

Expand full comment

I think when talking about an economic mechanism like this correct technical terms should be used, but I agree it seems good for the hoon not to be very academic as many watching are lay people in most areas discussed.

Expand full comment

Should say positive feedback is 'often' dangerous..

Sometimes it is good of course.

eg where investment, such as support, financial or other in an activity causes that activity to improve resulting in money or engagement of others and enables more investment..

It can overheat though of course..

Expand full comment

PS 100% agree with Robert that US allies should be loudly complaining about the US vetoing the UN Security Council Gaza ceasefire resolution, when all other members supported it!

Expand full comment

Honestly Bernard!

You could easily make this a 3 hour podcast, it is so information dense. But I understand it takes time in prep & post as well as actual streaming time, so fair enough in keeping it to 1 hour.

Enjoying these Hoons!

Expand full comment

Very interesting and informative show thank you. You covered a broad range of topics.

Expand full comment