June 14, 2025 • 40 mins
This week on The Panel, Tim Beveridge is joined by Simon Wilson and Allan Blackman to discuss the biggest stories from the week that was.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Insightful, entertaining and always on points.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Tim Beveridge on the Weekend Collective News Talk said, B.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I may not always love you. Good line is there.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Are stirs love you?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You never need you?
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Daddy?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Oh thank you, sir good I mean knows what I
be with that tune. Yes, So welcome to the Weekend
Collective everyone. This is the fourteenth of June twenty twenty five.
You can text your feedback anytime, by the way, on
nine two nine two on Tim Beverage. You can email
(00:59):
me if you're not in a hurry on Tim b
at newstalksb dot co dot Nz. Coming up today's show
in just our Moment, In a moment our Esteem panelists.
I'll be introducing shortly and looking further forward to the
rest of the show where we'll be taking your calls
and contributions. On our eight hundred and eight ten and
eighty four, the one roof radio show. That's after four.
We're joined by a new guest on the show. He's
(01:20):
managing director at Ari and z I go want a
mouthful harcourts. It's Martin Cooper real estate agent. That's a
safe way to put it, isn't it? And are you
upset about your counsel valuation? And even though on the
show we've been telling ourselves all the time they don't matter,
they don't matter.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
But it seems that they do matter, and how much.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Do they affect the people's expectations and attitudes towards prices.
Will be digging into that as well as how marketing
real estate has evolved over the last little while, as
well enough to five for the Parents' Squad John Cowen
on managing relationships with your in laws and how much
you have to put up with just for the sake
of preserving relationships between them and your kids, and might
have a chat about sideline parenting and bad behavior if
(01:59):
we have time before sex, and also before sex, should
I say we'll be wrapping sport again. We have Superman's back,
Reeve be looking at having a little bit of a
chat about the US Open. We've got the second semi
semi final tonight, and something else I can't think of
off the top of my head, but we'll get We'll
discover that before sex slot when we wrap sport. Right now,
(02:20):
it is eight minutes past three tim nice short, punchy sting.
There isn't it anyway? In no particular order. It's always
better to say that because otherwise they get paranoid. Why
am I the first? And because you think I'm the
oldest or whatever? But he is. I mean, he's described
as a senior writer at the New Zealand Herald. But
(02:42):
it doesn't seem enough, does it, Because he's been all
sorts of things. He's been an editor of this and that,
and he's been he's been writing and in many publications,
has had a let's not say how many decades it's been,
but he's been involved in journalism for quite a while,
and we love him. Simon Wilson, Hello, Simon? Did I
(03:03):
Did I get that wrong? Or right? You know? Hang
on a second, where's your when you just need to
get your microphone turned up? Hang on you? That's that's
not coming. We need no, it's a fader. It's a
fader issue. We just need to get the fader up
on something here. So hang on a minute. Let's that's okay,
let's start talking again.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Okay, So this is exciting.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Hello.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
I mean, you know all the things I've done in
my life, but That was the moment.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Actually, because I remember you, I suddenly second guessed myself
because you were editor of a.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Metric magazine, Yes, right, yeah, lazine magazine, consumer magazine in
the day, cuisine magazine. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Are you a good cook?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
I'm not a bad cook.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
I would of a cuisine magazine. You'd be mailing everything.
I'd be getting my advice on.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Sourdough, and pointed to the position of editor of Cuisine
magazine way back in two thousand and four. The company
wanted a journalist with editorial experience, which I had, who
was keen on food, so they had food experts. So
I got the job, which was fantastic, and I put
(04:11):
myself through a summer because I got it in January
and didn't start till March or something like that. I
put myself through a summer crash course in cooking, just
adventurous cooking, quite a bit of it from realis cuisines.
I just learned. I looked at that duck and I went,
I'm going to work out how to do that. I
can't do it the way the French cafe does it.
Sign Wight the French Cafe, it was his signature. Genius dish,
(04:33):
but I will work out how to do it. I
invented some things. I learned a lot about how temperature
works and how timing works, and those are the key
elements of a lot of cooking.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Where's my dinner invitation? Well you know, actually I'm over
it now. Well, actually that's fascinating fun facts. I could
talk more about that, but we better bring in our
second panelist. Who is he's a professor chemistry at aut
and he's not afraid of sharing opinions on things that
(05:02):
are not just to do with molecules and the way
they interact with each other. And it's it's he's almost
a newbie on the shape. But it's the second time
and Alan Blackman do we do? Introduces Professor Allan black
Blackman dtor Alan Blackman whatever and here is whatever it's
Alan Blackman.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
And yeah, nowhere near as interesting as SI.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
You would know a lot about temperature and timing and
all it.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Is important and you know cooking, Yeah it is. It's
applied chemistry absolutely.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well that's what's what's his name, Heston bluement tail and
all the crazy stuff he's done. I mean there's a
I mean, everything's.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Actually everything there we go.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Everything is chemistry. I mean the way our brains were.
Everything is chemistry.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Want to argue there's a bit of biology.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
No, no, come on, biologies. Chemistry.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Biology is chemistry. Still, I'll tell you what.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
We can.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
We bring in some paper towels with me.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
I want to say. The thing about cooking is that
it isn't just chemistry. It is about the well, it's
not hard, but the people who do it well behave
like artists. That's absolutely true. It's about making something that
is delightful to look at, delightful to taste, delightful, all
of those things, and makes a social experience. And none
(06:25):
of that is chemistry. So it's chemistry chemistry plus say
for other stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
That's are you trying to be deliberately provocative? We better
get onto the topics. Let's get onto the easy and
actually just just leave them. Just don't touch the spill water.
I'll make a note to email. Just pop that down
next to Simon so he can We've had a little
bit of a water spill, and they well, just especially
near the especially near the buttons. It's not too much
(06:53):
around there. Good, Okay, right, I do want to ask
one more question, how much of that, that enthusiasm that
you dived into cooking hast stuck or would you have
to do a fair bit of revision if you were
to become the editor of a cuisine magazine again.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
I would do a lot of revision. I'd go back
and do all that again, I think because and then
because food's moved. But yeah, I said before I'm over it.
I don't look forward to cooking posh stuff. I like
to cook easily and quickly and big on flavor, and
people make.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
It for you. I'm yeah, right, Well, I'm looking forward
to that invitation. Now we've learned that about Simon Wilson.
Now onto the well, it's Israel and Iran, the retaliatory
strikes from Iranian missiles targeting sites across Israel after Israel
made a preemptive strike because of their concerns about the
(07:50):
nuclear enrichment that they say was going on in Iran.
I've got so many mixed feelings about this, but let's
start with you, Simon. What's your take on putting aside
the Gaza and her Arsenal that this side of things
Iran and I'm and it's all interrelated, I guess because
of Iran sponsorship of ars and all that. But anyway,
the nuclear threat. They've taken out some nuclear scientists and sites,
(08:13):
and it's of concern.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
I think the thing that's obvious to me is that
the first point of kind of horrified fascination with this
is that this is the United States and Israel, apparently
on different sides of the argument. United States said to Israel,
don't do it. We are close to negotiating an agreement
with Iran that means they will step back from their
nuclear capacity. Trump was very clear on that Iran. Israel
(08:39):
went ahead and did it anyway, and the United States
has criticized them for that. So what's not clear is
whether that's a genuine schism between those two or whether
this is.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Part part of the theatrics.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Is what we say, this part of theatric, This is
what we say in public, and this is what's happening.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Good cop, bad cop?
Speaker 1 (08:57):
You could be. And I think the other element of
it is that Israel must know that while it was
absolutely right to condemn the Hummus attack on its peaceful
citizens and quite right to say we have to defend
our orders, at the same time, their response in Gaza
(09:19):
has been horrifying, and they must know that the world
on the whole belief that that's true. And so this
I think you can also see this as a distraction.
You can see this as a we want to climb
back to some sense of a moral high ground here
by attacking the baddies that everyone knows the baddies and
it's Iran and it's nuclear program. Yeah, and it is
not the same, not in the same category at all
(09:42):
as murderings. It's what do you reckon, Allen, because the look,
I don't want to run to get the bomb at all.
But who knows what to believe because I'm not sure
I'm a particularly big fan of net and Yahoo and
his moral authority on these issues.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Well, it doesn't have any let's be honest. I mean,
it seems amazing to me that Israel can fin individual
Iranian nuclear scientists and they can pinpoint them to the
nearest meter, but they can't seem to do the same
thing with the hamas leaders. And is that me being
just naive or I guess.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
That the nuclear le I mean, musk No, it's coming
all the time. So they're probably better equipped at sort
of making themselves unavailable, whereas the first strike type of thing.
But actually what putting aside who we disagree with and
agree with in terms of proportionality and all that sort
of stuff. If Iran is close to the enrichment side
(10:39):
where they can create a nuclear weapon, I'm all for
Israel stopping them doing that, but I just don't trust
that I can.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
I don't trust it. And yahou Okay, so you know,
look at it. Let's fay Devil's advocate here for a
second and look at it from their Randing point of view.
Now you know, Israel will deny it to the help.
But they have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Of course, they are a nuclear power.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
I don't deny that, do they I think they do.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I think they do.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Nevertheless, well they have them.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Yeah, and so how would you feel as Iran? Okay,
So there's your nuclear imbalance right there. So Israel's got
the bomb, you haven't. What the hell do you want?
You want the bomb? Of course you do to present
you know, it's this whole mutually issued destruction thing that
supposedly when kept the peace in the Cold War.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
I think also when you say you don't trust Netanyahu,
whose strategy appears to be throughout the Middle East, we
will we will make them submit through force, And there
is no evidence that that's going to work for them
in the whole of the Palestine West Bank Gaza, wherever
it is. And it's not clear to me how that
(11:42):
would work for Iran either. I don't say this very
often in my life, but the Trump approach right now
of we think we may be close to a negotiated
solution is surely the right way to go.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Yeah, unless that's the thing. I mean, where does the
truth lie? I mean that's the problem. Where does the
truth lie? I wouldn't have a clue, actually, because you know,
I've as you started with saying that you defend Israel's
right to defend itself against those attacks, and of course
the proportionality for me has gone way beyond what anyone
(12:18):
would say was a reasonable response now but and I
don't trust it and yahoo. But likewise, it doesn't mean
that every time he says something it's not necessary it's
necessarily wrong either. I mean, that's the thing, isn't it.
I Mean, sometimes Trump, I don't think much of Trump,
but sometimes he's gonna say something which is I mean,
you're going to stumble across the right answer.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
At some stage, he's sort of trying to take credit
for it all. Now. If you look at his posts
today on whatever, truth, social or whatever, it's all over
read it that. You know, he's sort of saying, oh,
you know, I was giving them sixty days and told
them sixty days, and now it's the sixty first day,
and so you know, blah blah blah, and he's acting
like he knew about this all along. And you're right,
(13:00):
you just don't know where the hell the truth lies anymore.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
And.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
You can't trust it now. You can't trust Trump. I mean, what,
what Iranian in their right mind is going to enter
into an agreement with the US administration the way it
is that any sort of nuclear agreement.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
You've got to be kidding, you know, I just don't
know that.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
I guess it's hard to argue with that.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I think the thing that I mean, you know, the
thing that it's the presence of religiously sort of religious
zealotry and foreign policy. And I guess that's why I
don't trust around to have a bomb, because you know,
it's the same sort of thing of the reason someone
can walk into a room and blow themselves up and
crying akbar. God is great, I don't think. And then
(13:44):
we have the problem. Then we have the problem of
Israel's operation being called Operation Gideon's Charits, And I'm like,
that's got it's got the sort of religious a certain
sniff of religious extremes, and of course which true in
the American government too. Ye okay, What is the answer, then,
Alan to the meaning of life?
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Well, I think if you asked your average Iranian, I
think that they would much rather be living in a
democracy rather than a theocracy that they're living under. Now,
you know, I can't see that their regime has much
support on the ground. But well that's why if you
want to get support from them, attack the country and
then they'll That's.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Why Natanya who addressed the Iranian people, because you know,
that's that's what card he wants to try and play.
That's not going to work. Oh yeah, they're not listening
to him. I thank goodness.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
What Allen just said is absolutely right, and it's not
right just about it Ran, it's right about a strategy
for the entire attle least. People do in general want
to live in democracy, and political policies as well as
military policies have to be aimed at that have to
be faced at the idea that we won't back people
up against the wall so badly that they will become
(14:59):
simply the army we have to defeat, which is what's
happening in Kata, and you don't want that to be
happening in Iran either. It runs strong enough to fight
back and keep fighting back, and of course it is
doing that right now. In television.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I guess there does seem to be when there have
been these conflicts in the past, that Israel makes a
strike and then they brace themselves for the strikes that
come in the other direction. There seems to be ping pong,
ping pong, and then it sort of settles down. But
I think people are a bit more nervous about whether,
in fact, you know, it is going to have its
sort of stalemate, reach its inevitable stale mate where it
(15:32):
quietens down. What do you think are just sort of.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Thinking, how would you like to be living in Jordan
or Iraq? Now? With those missiles flying overhead from both directions.
You know these are neutronominally neutral countries who are not
involved in this, and you know they're caught up unavoidably.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
The splendid isolation of being in New Zealand, I say sometimes, Actually,
by the way, you're going to be watching Trump's the
parade that they're going to be doing, looks like there's
going to be thunderstorms. I really should be we really
should be playing Barbara Streisand's don't run them a parade.
But anyway, like that's not really set for discussion on
the just on the Israel blockade and every thing. Greta
(16:13):
Turnberg Tunberg has been deported. I mean they were trying
to sail and sort of breaking the blockade. Of course
they knew they were going to get turned around. I
did see a reasonably amusing meme that says, it's interesting
that she was claimed she was kidnapped, when not many
kidnappers put the person on the first plane out of
their country. But what did you I mean to me,
(16:35):
it didn't achieve anything. And we know the headlines we
see every day are enough without Greta climbing in there.
But anyway, Simon, you may have a different point of
view ond this.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
I do have a different reason. What a shock. The
reason celebrities get involved in political causes is to highlight
those causes and give them a degree of prominence that
they wouldn't have ordinarily. And I don't think you can
argue that Greta Turnberg's involvement here has done anything except
that we are talking about it now in a way
(17:04):
that we wouldn't be talking about it if it had
just been a ship of twelve ordinary humanitarians trying to
get some to Carca. Because of her presence there, this
has become a major issue globally and it enables people
to think about the question of how humanitarian aid actually
does get to the people of Carcer.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
That's interesting because I think she said nothing to do
with people's awareness of it, because I mean, I think
their issue was well out there and it just was.
I mean to me, it didn't add anything to it
in the same way that she might have.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
In the news cycle.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Yeah, it's not out of the new cycle.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Well is it?
Speaker 2 (17:42):
What do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Al I reckon I reckon the Israelis mister trick here
because they talk about this what they should have sunk her.
You know, they say that they can't let aiden because
they'll be arming hermas and all that, and they'll be
snacking arms to it. The most sensible thing they could
have done is just let them go through. Look there
there's twelve humanitarians or whatever. They're not going to be
(18:04):
carrying any arms. So they could have just let them
sail on through, deliver the food, and then it would
have been you know, it would have been almost.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Backfired because it would have been seen as simply a
very minor token. Yes, the whole purpose of the trip,
of course, was to make yet publicity exactly. I think
you're right did miss a trick there, because it's preposterous
to argue that it was in some way a front
for for COVID arms up of course, but of course they're.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Not going to be allowing any trafficing. But you're right.
Imagine if they just let them sail on and it's
like if you go, yeah, I tell you what, we
just want to they should. They could have actually just
quickly boarded them and says, tell you what, we'll just
have a quick look away. You go, Yes, here's our
phone number if you need some help getting out.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
This is the parallel universe of the Middle East where
things like that.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
The thing is with Greta I guess is that people
who she would want to change the minds of would
look at her and just go Greta whatever. And yet
the people who love Greta, well, they're already on board
with us. But that's what I mean.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
It's not true.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
There's always people in the middle. There's always people, you know, reminding,
keeping the issue going all of that.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
If you're in the middle and Greta change your mind,
text me on nine ten. But you have to prove
you and also text some love for Simon too. Okay,
text and love for Simon too.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I tell you what we got, No, am I getting
the opposite?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
No, No, I'll tell you what we're gonna. I'm gonna
go and over a cup of tea in a lie
down and we'll be back in about two and a
half minutes with Alan Blackman and Simon Wilson. I'm Tim Beveridge.
We'll be talking about those LA riots in just a moment.
We've got some happier things to talk about, but you're
gonna have to stick with us for a second. Came
back in the mine, yes, and welcome back. This is
(19:49):
the panel. I'm Tim Beveridge. My guests are Simon Wilson,
New Zealand Herald Senior writer and Alan Blackman, Professor of Chemistry,
with opinions. I think that's maybe what his thesis says.
He got a doctorate of the chemistry with opinions. I'm
not sure. I'm just a thing added to the some
of human knowledge, I hope, isn't it because it sometimes
(20:11):
says PhD CAM and it says a little you could
you know how it has a little brackets and whatever
subject it was. What did you do your thesis?
Speaker 3 (20:19):
And when your bromination and courbalt three coordinated in the Daesels?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
So you are right, yeah, you did ask?
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Is there a plain English version of that?
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Not really?
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (20:29):
And about four people have read it. That'll be about it.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So well, as long as they matter. Hey, the l
A Rights seems like old news or myst stuff to
all the stuff we've just been discussing with. But over
one hundred and ninety people have been arrested over the
past days. Are Trump speculated to have an invoked to
eighteenth century Low or the Insurrection Act? Amazing that he's
so upset about these protesters, Alan, given that he would
(20:54):
seem to be fine with just some of many of
them were good folk on January the sixth.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
But sorry, when you say Trump has invoked. Now, come on,
you're telling me Trump knows anything about eighteenth century bloody
US jurisprudence.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Come on, No, Actually, I think the interesting thing is
who are the people in the room who are making
a lot of these calls, or Stephen Miller would be one.
I guess, So what do you what are you worried
about the authoritarian messages that seem to be coming across
when you're ignoring the wishes of the governor. I mean,
(21:28):
it's serious. It's a few streets, some protests, of course,
and we've got the way that they're enforcing ice, are
enforcing the immigration and deportations.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Which is what it's all about, isn't it. It's all
about ice. And you know that they're going to get
their job done regardless. And you know this is what
Trump wants. He wants all of these so called illegals
out of the country, and he has no idea how
it's going to have an impact on the US economy,
all of these people who are doing the jobs that
(21:58):
Americans don't want to do.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
You know, well, yeah, Simon, yeah, I think there are
some latter issues going on to I think you were
alluding to it a bit before. There tim that. I mean,
I had a historian a couple of months ago, American
historian saying Trump is not a dictator, and I think
that's right. But he added, but he wants to be one.
(22:23):
And I thought that's quite an interesting thing that what
we are seeing here in terms of the use and
abuse of law, the use and abuse of the courts,
and the way and media retreated, and in this whole
arrangement of federalizing the national Guard, calling them out despite
the governor and the mayor saying no, don't do it
and trying to stop them. These things are all testing
(22:45):
the limits of how what there's the Trump testing the
limits of what he can do and what he can
get away with, what he can build popular support for.
Why is he doing that? Is there a grand strategy
or is he just having fun? You know, it's hard
to know. But it's nasty and it is extremely authoritarian,
and it's not going to as well.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Yeah, he's not worried about re election, That's the thing,
you know, it's the same term. Supposedly that's going to
be it.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Suppose it's got people working on Yeah, I know, I
don't think Trump's going to walk away from the presidency
in four years time.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
I think the Key didn't see that.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Jesus don't. It's a sad day afternoon, come on.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Come on. As with many issues, look, somebody reminded me
that Obama had a very effective sort of deportation policy
and deported a lot of people. In fact, Bush Clinton
and Obama did, but the difference was more than Trump's
that's right, his last Biden's last year. It sort of
(23:49):
sort of set some sort of record last year. Okay,
but the it was interesting digging into it, and a
bit when actually you look at some more nuanced facts
about it, is that Obama's policy was focused on literally
criminals and recent arrivals, so he was trying to stem
that flow. Whereas I guess the problem is is that
(24:09):
Trump's gone into the heart of California, a sanctuary you know, LA,
a sanctuary city, and he's deliberately causing chaos by uprooting
these communities. And Okay, you might have a view that
people have been there in twenty years shouldn't be there,
But the difference was was that Obama was getting literally
going for the criminals, and he had a very he
had a very high deportation rate and so it's worth
(24:31):
acknowledging that. But he was doing it. It's the way
you I think it's all about the way you enforce
the law. That's the big issue, isn't it. Simon.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Trump's also doing it in a state California, whose entire
economy is based on migrants. Now, so you know, and
he knows that.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
There's a real.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Difference between what Trump's doing now and what happened to say,
in nineteen ninety two when Rodney King, who was fleeing
from the police and was beaten to death by the police,
and it was caught on video camera first time that
had happened, and that that didn't cause ryants. But when
the jury who were sitting on the police who've beaten
Rodney King to death, when those police officers were acquitted,
(25:09):
that caused the rights What that dispute was about in
the end was how to make the law work properly.
If you look back to the civil rights movement of
the sixties, Selma and Alabama and so on again, how
do we make the law work properly? So it really
is it is fair law that we work out. Those
principles have been in play in the American democracy for
(25:34):
most of these periods of great upheaval. But that's not
what's happening now. Trump is not trying to make the
law work properly trying. Trump is trying to find ways
to break the law, get around the law, ignore the
law out Well, you know, I.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Watch this space. I can't wait for the parade. I
can't wait for the parade, but I can't wait for
the thunderstorms as well. I think that'll be quite funny. Anyway, Look,
just on the good news. It's not good news, it's
amazing news. The tragedy of Air India is terrible news.
But how could one person walk away from a crash
(26:09):
with a with some bruises and cuts and grazes and
a flight that killed over two hundred and forty people
after the takeoff? I guess we're all dying. But what
the black box has got to reveal as well? Alan,
I found one of them. I believe they're still looking
at the other one. But oh, I mean, you just
watched the footage and it just looks all so gentle,
doesn't it. It's just sort of just.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Going down, down, down, down, down in all and then
puff just this amazing massive fireble and you wonder how
the hell anybody could get out of that. It's just astonishing.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
The thing that I sort of think people need to
just get a grip is everyone's all. It's boeing sort
of thing. I mean, I saw some stat on the
how many how many people have taken trips on seven
eight sevens and it's I mean many hundreds of millions
and there's been one crash. But another point talked about
(27:00):
that there are a small number of airlines who've been
involved in what crashes have happened, and that maybe you
know who knows what the maintenance records are. We're dying
for the black boxes, but nevertheless, we've all probably gone
through it in our minds. How would you survive if
you were sitting near the escape door, if you imagined
how you get out or which It's.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
An awful thing, isn't it, Because it is known and
that this one man who survived he was by an
escape door, so he had presumably the ability to get
up and move out, and he was lucky the fire
wasn't where he was at that time. But the closer
you are to an escape door, the greater your chances.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
The terrible thing is clearly the impact didn't kill him,
and if it was only enough to give him bruises,
it just makes you think that those people who didn't
get out suffered are terrible and what a tragedy.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
And the other thing is that disasters like this don't
almost never have one cause sometimes they do, but almost
almost never. There will be a whole lot of things
that happened that contributed. And because all those things were
present a plane.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Yeah so, and you could be bloody sure that people
are going to be taking a lot of notice of
those safety demonstrations for the.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Next week, month, year, whatever.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
But yeah, and people will be counting the roads.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Oh no, I still won't be paying attention to those
ridiculously long stories they like to play on. You know,
you don't have to remember this. I'll be thinking, well,
I need to be doing sitting where that guy was sitting.
Forget the briefing. Anyway, Look, we'll take a moment, we'll
come back and just to take this as the panel
on news talks hed b it's twenty two minutes to four.
(28:45):
Don't tell me not.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
To live just sitting cudder, life's candy and the sun's
a ball of butter.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Don't bring around a cloud to read al don't tell
men not to fly. I simply, yes, we had a lap,
had a little bit of Barbara scene. Don't run on
my parade? Given, maybe we're playing that when we find
out whether in fact it has rained on Donald Trum's parade.
But onto Happier, Onto Happier stories with my panelist Alan Blackman.
(29:11):
He's a professor of chemistry and opinions and senior writer
of the New Zealand Herald is Simon Wilson. Now let's
go to use Actually, let's go to you, Simon. It's
Field Days today, we've had them. I think there's the
last day tomorrow. It's not today as the last I
think today. I think the last day, last day today,
So Sunday off, that's right, Sunday off, but their Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
(29:35):
I think Field Days is a great day on New
Zealand's cultural calendar, even though it's a day for so
much more than that, you.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Know, I think that's absolutely right. You know, I drove
on the highway the bypass, Hamilton Bypass a few days
ago and it was Field Days and a lot of
traffic and a lot of people clearly there to have
a good time, and that's exciting. I think there really is.
I also spend a bit of time yesterday with the
Minister for Climate Change, Simon Watts, who had been at
(30:06):
field Days and had announced a program to support farmers
putting in solar energy, and he said to me, you know,
the thing about doing this is that we don't try
and knock them over the head with climate change rhetoric.
What we do is we explain how this will make
them money, and it does. And a similar thing has
(30:27):
been rolled out now for residential solar as well. So
you've got people like what at field Days going Okay,
we want the agricultural sector to keep up with the
rest of the economy. We are transitioning to a lower
emissions economy. Agriculture has to play its role in that,
and we are working out how to find ways to
(30:49):
make that economically efficient for farmers to do. I think
that's fabulous.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
X well Bingo. Look, I always think we innovate as
well a way out of many of our problems. And
I mean, mind you, the interesting thing that came out
around the similar time is the Federated Farmer's Pole, which
shows that labour only has three percent of farmers votes
National fifty four Act nineteen Yewsum first eight Labor three
Greens too. The funniest comment I heard was Jordan Williams
(31:16):
on here this huddle, saying, oh no, that's a rogue pole.
There's no way labor would get anything near three.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
I was surprised it was that low allen the problem
there and lies the problem because you know, labor are
going to be back in power one day, and it's
obvious that the farmers don't trust them. Okay, so look,
we know that we our economy relies on agriculture. Let's
face it, it just does. So we have to do
(31:44):
things right by the farmers. But obviously this whole climate
change thing, the agricultural emissions, we've got to cut them.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
It has to be done.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
So maybe let's get together as a country. Let's forget
the bloody political parties and everything. Let's have a bipart
or a tripartisan or a tetrapartisan or whatever it needs.
But it has to be done. It has to be done.
You can't have you know, next time labor gets in
and then you knows to the farmer's right, you've got
to do it tomorrow. It's got to be done. No,
we need a long term planning with this, and it's
(32:13):
got to be done so that everybody trusts everybody and.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Actually it can be done, and this is one of
the countries where we have already demonstrated it can be
done way more efficient. Climate Change Commission was set up
as a bipartisan project. It is still alive and still functioning.
The Zero Carbonate the same bipartisan and widely supported, supported
by all the parties in Parliament except what at the moment, and.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
So building on that and building on it in ways
that mean that there are not big losers, that the
transitions are functional and viable and will not cast well.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
I've had enough of the planting trees on good farm lands.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Yeah, yeah, we don't need lots more pinus radiata planted
on good farm and absolutely I think. And the government
is now moving to storm.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
I think the stat where that many farmers will want
to put out there is that there's no point trying
to clamp down on our farmers who are producing products.
What did I see that a liter of milk? You
might have heard the stat A liter of milk produced
it and exported to Ireland is greener than a liter
of milk produced in Ireland because we just do it
(33:20):
more efficiently, and our farmers are very innovative and imaginative,
and the science around that is evolving constantly with crop,
with crop science, and this is in your side of
things in chemistry, where you're creating crops where there's less
methane produced, the whole shebang.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
If we lead the world, that's not a reason to
stop leading the world. It's not the reason to just
stop now and go Okay, everyone has to tot chat
with us. We should keep leading the world. We should
keep innovating, we should keep making it economically more efficient,
and we should keep showing the rest of the world
and helping the rest of the world to understand how
they can do it the way we do. That is
the role. That's a terrific role for us.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
This is where science rocks, because science being all amazes
me the different discoveries and what they you know in
terms of the way we farm and the changes that
can be as simply by science and innovation.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Chemistry again, isn't it is chemistry.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
I was trying to bring you in there, jumping on and.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Fund you more. I thought you were saying fun does more,
and I think, actually, I hate to say this, my
days chemistry was the worst subject in terms of fun
I ever learned. Oh god, you teach I did not
have the right. He was a lovely man, but yeah,
it was tragic.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Actually I managed I managed to pass chemistry without understanding it.
I thought there was something that lots of people do,
whereas my daughter, many of us get through life understand it.
Actually we've just a parent teacher day at my daughter's school,
my twelve year old daughter, Rosie, and we met this
and she loves science, and the teacher showed me the
(34:54):
science exam where they're extending them a bit and it
was about you know, what sort of molecule does this represent?
And what are these molecular patterns represent? And I was like,
oh my god, I would have this and raises like
it's so simple, Dad, that's such and such as like
science science, rock.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Doing chemistry.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Well, you know, I'll get a come and say hello, hey,
look just before we head to the break the AI Journey.
So Disney and Universal are going to sue this AI
firm called mid Journey because Mid Journey I think I've
admitted they don't really even think about the you know,
the relationship of what they generate, what the AI generates
(35:35):
to copyright materials and they they claimed Disney and Universal,
claiming that mid Journey's tool makes innumerable copies of character,
including characters including Darth Vader from Star Wars, Frozens Elsa,
the minions, Oh, the minions from Despicable Me. You've probably
seen those ones, even if you don't follow AI too
much and social media. It just feels I mean, well,
(35:56):
I guess they're going to tear themselves apart, are they?
Speaker 3 (35:58):
What do you think? Allan, It's interesting this because it's
just a sort of myself here. I've written a textbook,
chemistry textbook first year, and it's on the list of
books that have been used to train AI. And so
I let the publishers know about this, and you know,
(36:20):
so that this this is being done without permission from
the publishers. So and there's a whole you know, there's
a vast literally library of books that are being used
to train AI. It's totally without permissions.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
It's so blurry though, because teachers might read your book
and use it to train their studios. Absolutely, and yet
it's it's the the the massive subsummation of that's a
word of information and spitting it out to huge audience
without paying you so much that it does feel like
it's like playing a songwriter's song to a massive audience
(36:54):
without actually paying them any royalty.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
In fact, it's just like that, okay, and sue them.
There is an inuil contradiction in AI that I own
not sure how is going to be resolved. I imagine
there are people who do know how to resolve it.
But it is that AI works by taking the information
available in the world and convincing it into a set
of factorily based set of facts. Right. Essentially, when it's
(37:22):
working properly, that information that it bases its work on
comes from people like you, Ellen and all the other
content creators who are actually doing the work. If your
role becomes redundant because we've got AI to tell us
what you already know, then what's are going to be
basing its next level and next gen and next gen.
(37:43):
It's all going to collapse. And this will also happen
in media. You can find out what the story is
about any topic you care to name from AI programs
that will that will scour the world's media to tell you.
But when we're all out of jobs as journalists, that's
all going to fold in on itself, and.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Then you've got to worry about the veracity of the
information that's been as well. Hey, by the way, way,
what's your book called chemistry? How's that for a snappy.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
What I want to know is, surely you ripped that
off from someone else, chemistry Chemistry by you cannot have
invented it.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
It's just called Chemistry's just good chemistry. I don't believe
that Bottle, Moserino and Villa. There you go, five of
us black who what bottle, Schmidt, Mosserino and Villain.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
You notice black Man's first, Actually is I want to
know if it is in fact first, just in case
he stuck himself first. Just now it's actually bottle in
Schmidt and black Man.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
I wrote most of it?
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Did you not? Most? You say that?
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Good?
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Good stuff? I was going to say I was. I
was hoping for something that's slightly quirkier with the title.
But it's on pointe. Hey, it does what it says
on the bottle.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
There is a novel called Chemistry.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Have you seed them? It's it will be fun if
AI has scrubbed that and confused with Allen's text, there's
the problems. We'll be back in just a moment. It
is eight minutes to Poor News Talks head b Yes
News Talk said be Tim Beverage with Simon Wilson and
Alan Blackman. Just a lucky last question for our panel.
(39:15):
There's been a study done that shows that if you
shower at night, apparently you're dirtier than if you shower
in the morning overall because of your sweat and things
like that. And you carry that, you know, you sweat
up to half a half a liter or something morning
or after morning or evening showers boys morning, morning, morning.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
But it's interesting, isn't it that showering, It that showing
at night, and then you sweat away anyway, that you
sweat as much as a tin of drink.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
It's disgusting something.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Which it's natural.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
Shall I share I'll share my revolting story. When I
was a student, I thought at university, I thought, if
I showered in the evening, I wouldn't need to worry
about washing my sheets as often. And I think I
went ten weeks before I shoved them in the washing
machine and realized that that hadn't been the smartest. I
would also have a shower in the morning.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
But he was a lonely, lonely lad.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
That's I was going to mention that, yes, yes, you know.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
To shower and you need to share. Well, it might
have been a tight night this morning, but then I've
been out for a run.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Well, I'm not going to shout because I've already I.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Share twice a day. I showed twice a day. It's
just that I thought that the sheets didn't turn out
too well. Anyway, Hey, guys, lovely to see you.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
Simon.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Thanks for coming in and wearing dirty clothes now, is
that what you're doing? No, I'm clean as a whistle anyway, Alan,
good luck with the book. Make it required reading. There
you go, make it required reading. Chemistry by Alan Blackman
and others. Go and look it up people, good novel,
or just go and check it out on chat GPT.
In a day or two. Anyway, we'll be back with
the one roof radio show and this is News Talk.
(40:48):
Sa'd be.
Speaker 1 (40:52):
For more from the weekend collective.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
Listen live to News Talks It'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Insightful, entertaining and always on points.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Tim Beveridge on the Weekend Collective News Talk said, B.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I may not always love you. Good line is there.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Are stirs love you?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
You never need you?
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Daddy?
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Oh thank you, sir good I mean knows what I
be with that tune. Yes, So welcome to the Weekend
Collective everyone. This is the fourteenth of June twenty twenty five.
You can text your feedback anytime, by the way, on
nine two nine two on Tim Beverage. You can email
(00:59):
me if you're not in a hurry on Tim b
at newstalksb dot co dot Nz. Coming up today's show
in just our Moment, In a moment our Esteem panelists.
I'll be introducing shortly and looking further forward to the
rest of the show where we'll be taking your calls
and contributions. On our eight hundred and eight ten and
eighty four, the one roof radio show. That's after four.
We're joined by a new guest on the show. He's
(01:20):
managing director at Ari and z I go want a
mouthful harcourts. It's Martin Cooper real estate agent. That's a
safe way to put it, isn't it? And are you
upset about your counsel valuation? And even though on the
show we've been telling ourselves all the time they don't matter,
they don't matter.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
But it seems that they do matter, and how much.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Do they affect the people's expectations and attitudes towards prices.
Will be digging into that as well as how marketing
real estate has evolved over the last little while, as
well enough to five for the Parents' Squad John Cowen
on managing relationships with your in laws and how much
you have to put up with just for the sake
of preserving relationships between them and your kids, and might
have a chat about sideline parenting and bad behavior if
(01:59):
we have time before sex, and also before sex, should
I say we'll be wrapping sport again. We have Superman's back,
Reeve be looking at having a little bit of a
chat about the US Open. We've got the second semi
semi final tonight, and something else I can't think of
off the top of my head, but we'll get We'll
discover that before sex slot when we wrap sport. Right now,
(02:20):
it is eight minutes past three tim nice short, punchy sting.
There isn't it anyway? In no particular order. It's always
better to say that because otherwise they get paranoid. Why
am I the first? And because you think I'm the
oldest or whatever? But he is. I mean, he's described
as a senior writer at the New Zealand Herald. But
(02:42):
it doesn't seem enough, does it, Because he's been all
sorts of things. He's been an editor of this and that,
and he's been he's been writing and in many publications,
has had a let's not say how many decades it's been,
but he's been involved in journalism for quite a while,
and we love him. Simon Wilson, Hello, Simon? Did I
(03:03):
Did I get that wrong? Or right? You know? Hang
on a second, where's your when you just need to
get your microphone turned up? Hang on you? That's that's
not coming. We need no, it's a fader. It's a
fader issue. We just need to get the fader up
on something here. So hang on a minute. Let's that's okay,
let's start talking again.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Okay, So this is exciting.
Speaker 3 (03:24):
Hello.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
I mean, you know all the things I've done in
my life, but That was the moment.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Actually, because I remember you, I suddenly second guessed myself
because you were editor of a.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Metric magazine, Yes, right, yeah, lazine magazine, consumer magazine in
the day, cuisine magazine. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Are you a good cook?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
I'm not a bad cook.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
I would of a cuisine magazine. You'd be mailing everything.
I'd be getting my advice on.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Sourdough, and pointed to the position of editor of Cuisine
magazine way back in two thousand and four. The company
wanted a journalist with editorial experience, which I had, who
was keen on food, so they had food experts. So
I got the job, which was fantastic, and I put
(04:11):
myself through a summer because I got it in January
and didn't start till March or something like that. I
put myself through a summer crash course in cooking, just
adventurous cooking, quite a bit of it from realis cuisines.
I just learned. I looked at that duck and I went,
I'm going to work out how to do that. I
can't do it the way the French cafe does it.
Sign Wight the French Cafe, it was his signature. Genius dish,
(04:33):
but I will work out how to do it. I
invented some things. I learned a lot about how temperature
works and how timing works, and those are the key
elements of a lot of cooking.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Where's my dinner invitation? Well you know, actually I'm over
it now. Well, actually that's fascinating fun facts. I could
talk more about that, but we better bring in our
second panelist. Who is he's a professor chemistry at aut
and he's not afraid of sharing opinions on things that
(05:02):
are not just to do with molecules and the way
they interact with each other. And it's it's he's almost
a newbie on the shape. But it's the second time
and Alan Blackman do we do? Introduces Professor Allan black
Blackman dtor Alan Blackman whatever and here is whatever it's
Alan Blackman.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
And yeah, nowhere near as interesting as SI.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
You would know a lot about temperature and timing and
all it.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Is important and you know cooking, Yeah it is. It's
applied chemistry absolutely.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well that's what's what's his name, Heston bluement tail and
all the crazy stuff he's done. I mean there's a
I mean, everything's.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
Actually everything there we go.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Everything is chemistry. I mean the way our brains were.
Everything is chemistry.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Want to argue there's a bit of biology.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
No, no, come on, biologies. Chemistry.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Biology is chemistry. Still, I'll tell you what.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
We can.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
We bring in some paper towels with me.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
I want to say. The thing about cooking is that
it isn't just chemistry. It is about the well, it's
not hard, but the people who do it well behave
like artists. That's absolutely true. It's about making something that
is delightful to look at, delightful to taste, delightful, all
of those things, and makes a social experience. And none
(06:25):
of that is chemistry. So it's chemistry chemistry plus say
for other stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
That's are you trying to be deliberately provocative? We better
get onto the topics. Let's get onto the easy and
actually just just leave them. Just don't touch the spill water.
I'll make a note to email. Just pop that down
next to Simon so he can We've had a little
bit of a water spill, and they well, just especially
near the especially near the buttons. It's not too much
(06:53):
around there. Good, Okay, right, I do want to ask
one more question, how much of that, that enthusiasm that
you dived into cooking hast stuck or would you have
to do a fair bit of revision if you were
to become the editor of a cuisine magazine again.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
I would do a lot of revision. I'd go back
and do all that again, I think because and then
because food's moved. But yeah, I said before I'm over it.
I don't look forward to cooking posh stuff. I like
to cook easily and quickly and big on flavor, and
people make.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
It for you. I'm yeah, right, Well, I'm looking forward
to that invitation. Now we've learned that about Simon Wilson.
Now onto the well, it's Israel and Iran, the retaliatory
strikes from Iranian missiles targeting sites across Israel after Israel
made a preemptive strike because of their concerns about the
(07:50):
nuclear enrichment that they say was going on in Iran.
I've got so many mixed feelings about this, but let's
start with you, Simon. What's your take on putting aside
the Gaza and her Arsenal that this side of things
Iran and I'm and it's all interrelated, I guess because
of Iran sponsorship of ars and all that. But anyway,
the nuclear threat. They've taken out some nuclear scientists and sites,
(08:13):
and it's of concern.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
I think the thing that's obvious to me is that
the first point of kind of horrified fascination with this
is that this is the United States and Israel, apparently
on different sides of the argument. United States said to Israel,
don't do it. We are close to negotiating an agreement
with Iran that means they will step back from their
nuclear capacity. Trump was very clear on that Iran. Israel
(08:39):
went ahead and did it anyway, and the United States
has criticized them for that. So what's not clear is
whether that's a genuine schism between those two or whether
this is.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Part part of the theatrics.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Is what we say, this part of theatric, This is
what we say in public, and this is what's happening.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Good cop, bad cop?
Speaker 1 (08:57):
You could be. And I think the other element of
it is that Israel must know that while it was
absolutely right to condemn the Hummus attack on its peaceful
citizens and quite right to say we have to defend
our orders, at the same time, their response in Gaza
(09:19):
has been horrifying, and they must know that the world
on the whole belief that that's true. And so this
I think you can also see this as a distraction.
You can see this as a we want to climb
back to some sense of a moral high ground here
by attacking the baddies that everyone knows the baddies and
it's Iran and it's nuclear program. Yeah, and it is
not the same, not in the same category at all
(09:42):
as murderings. It's what do you reckon, Allen, because the look,
I don't want to run to get the bomb at all.
But who knows what to believe because I'm not sure
I'm a particularly big fan of net and Yahoo and
his moral authority on these issues.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Well, it doesn't have any let's be honest. I mean,
it seems amazing to me that Israel can fin individual
Iranian nuclear scientists and they can pinpoint them to the
nearest meter, but they can't seem to do the same
thing with the hamas leaders. And is that me being
just naive or I guess.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
That the nuclear le I mean, musk No, it's coming
all the time. So they're probably better equipped at sort
of making themselves unavailable, whereas the first strike type of thing.
But actually what putting aside who we disagree with and
agree with in terms of proportionality and all that sort
of stuff. If Iran is close to the enrichment side
(10:39):
where they can create a nuclear weapon, I'm all for
Israel stopping them doing that, but I just don't trust
that I can.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
I don't trust it. And yahou Okay, so you know,
look at it. Let's fay Devil's advocate here for a
second and look at it from their Randing point of view.
Now you know, Israel will deny it to the help.
But they have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Of course, they are a nuclear power.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
I don't deny that, do they I think they do.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I think they do.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Nevertheless, well they have them.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Yeah, and so how would you feel as Iran? Okay,
So there's your nuclear imbalance right there. So Israel's got
the bomb, you haven't. What the hell do you want?
You want the bomb? Of course you do to present
you know, it's this whole mutually issued destruction thing that
supposedly when kept the peace in the Cold War.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
I think also when you say you don't trust Netanyahu,
whose strategy appears to be throughout the Middle East, we
will we will make them submit through force, And there
is no evidence that that's going to work for them
in the whole of the Palestine West Bank Gaza, wherever
it is. And it's not clear to me how that
(11:42):
would work for Iran either. I don't say this very
often in my life, but the Trump approach right now
of we think we may be close to a negotiated
solution is surely the right way to go.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Yeah, unless that's the thing. I mean, where does the
truth lie? I mean that's the problem. Where does the
truth lie? I wouldn't have a clue, actually, because you know,
I've as you started with saying that you defend Israel's
right to defend itself against those attacks, and of course
the proportionality for me has gone way beyond what anyone
(12:18):
would say was a reasonable response now but and I
don't trust it and yahoo. But likewise, it doesn't mean
that every time he says something it's not necessary it's
necessarily wrong either. I mean, that's the thing, isn't it.
I Mean, sometimes Trump, I don't think much of Trump,
but sometimes he's gonna say something which is I mean,
you're going to stumble across the right answer.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
At some stage, he's sort of trying to take credit
for it all. Now. If you look at his posts
today on whatever, truth, social or whatever, it's all over
read it that. You know, he's sort of saying, oh,
you know, I was giving them sixty days and told
them sixty days, and now it's the sixty first day,
and so you know, blah blah blah, and he's acting
like he knew about this all along. And you're right,
(13:00):
you just don't know where the hell the truth lies anymore.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
And.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
You can't trust it now. You can't trust Trump. I mean, what,
what Iranian in their right mind is going to enter
into an agreement with the US administration the way it
is that any sort of nuclear agreement.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
You've got to be kidding, you know, I just don't
know that.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
I guess it's hard to argue with that.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I think the thing that I mean, you know, the
thing that it's the presence of religiously sort of religious
zealotry and foreign policy. And I guess that's why I
don't trust around to have a bomb, because you know,
it's the same sort of thing of the reason someone
can walk into a room and blow themselves up and
crying akbar. God is great, I don't think. And then
(13:44):
we have the problem. Then we have the problem of
Israel's operation being called Operation Gideon's Charits, And I'm like,
that's got it's got the sort of religious a certain
sniff of religious extremes, and of course which true in
the American government too. Ye okay, What is the answer, then,
Alan to the meaning of life?
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Well, I think if you asked your average Iranian, I
think that they would much rather be living in a
democracy rather than a theocracy that they're living under. Now,
you know, I can't see that their regime has much
support on the ground. But well that's why if you
want to get support from them, attack the country and
then they'll That's.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Why Natanya who addressed the Iranian people, because you know,
that's that's what card he wants to try and play.
That's not going to work. Oh yeah, they're not listening
to him. I thank goodness.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
What Allen just said is absolutely right, and it's not
right just about it Ran, it's right about a strategy
for the entire attle least. People do in general want
to live in democracy, and political policies as well as
military policies have to be aimed at that have to
be faced at the idea that we won't back people
up against the wall so badly that they will become
(14:59):
simply the army we have to defeat, which is what's
happening in Kata, and you don't want that to be
happening in Iran either. It runs strong enough to fight
back and keep fighting back, and of course it is
doing that right now. In television.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I guess there does seem to be when there have
been these conflicts in the past, that Israel makes a
strike and then they brace themselves for the strikes that
come in the other direction. There seems to be ping pong,
ping pong, and then it sort of settles down. But
I think people are a bit more nervous about whether,
in fact, you know, it is going to have its
sort of stalemate, reach its inevitable stale mate where it
(15:32):
quietens down. What do you think are just sort of.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
Thinking, how would you like to be living in Jordan
or Iraq? Now? With those missiles flying overhead from both directions.
You know these are neutronominally neutral countries who are not
involved in this, and you know they're caught up unavoidably.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
The splendid isolation of being in New Zealand, I say sometimes, Actually,
by the way, you're going to be watching Trump's the
parade that they're going to be doing, looks like there's
going to be thunderstorms. I really should be we really
should be playing Barbara Streisand's don't run them a parade.
But anyway, like that's not really set for discussion on
the just on the Israel blockade and every thing. Greta
(16:13):
Turnberg Tunberg has been deported. I mean they were trying
to sail and sort of breaking the blockade. Of course
they knew they were going to get turned around. I
did see a reasonably amusing meme that says, it's interesting
that she was claimed she was kidnapped, when not many
kidnappers put the person on the first plane out of
their country. But what did you I mean to me,
(16:35):
it didn't achieve anything. And we know the headlines we
see every day are enough without Greta climbing in there.
But anyway, Simon, you may have a different point of
view ond this.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
I do have a different reason. What a shock. The
reason celebrities get involved in political causes is to highlight
those causes and give them a degree of prominence that
they wouldn't have ordinarily. And I don't think you can
argue that Greta Turnberg's involvement here has done anything except
that we are talking about it now in a way
(17:04):
that we wouldn't be talking about it if it had
just been a ship of twelve ordinary humanitarians trying to
get some to Carca. Because of her presence there, this
has become a major issue globally and it enables people
to think about the question of how humanitarian aid actually
does get to the people of Carcer.
Speaker 2 (17:26):
That's interesting because I think she said nothing to do
with people's awareness of it, because I mean, I think
their issue was well out there and it just was.
I mean to me, it didn't add anything to it
in the same way that she might have.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
In the news cycle.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
Yeah, it's not out of the new cycle.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Well is it?
Speaker 2 (17:42):
What do you reckon?
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Al I reckon I reckon the Israelis mister trick here
because they talk about this what they should have sunk her.
You know, they say that they can't let aiden because
they'll be arming hermas and all that, and they'll be
snacking arms to it. The most sensible thing they could
have done is just let them go through. Look there
there's twelve humanitarians or whatever. They're not going to be
(18:04):
carrying any arms. So they could have just let them
sail on through, deliver the food, and then it would
have been you know, it would have been almost.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Backfired because it would have been seen as simply a
very minor token. Yes, the whole purpose of the trip,
of course, was to make yet publicity exactly. I think
you're right did miss a trick there, because it's preposterous
to argue that it was in some way a front
for for COVID arms up of course, but of course they're.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Not going to be allowing any trafficing. But you're right.
Imagine if they just let them sail on and it's
like if you go, yeah, I tell you what, we
just want to they should. They could have actually just
quickly boarded them and says, tell you what, we'll just
have a quick look away. You go, Yes, here's our
phone number if you need some help getting out.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
This is the parallel universe of the Middle East where
things like that.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
The thing is with Greta I guess is that people
who she would want to change the minds of would
look at her and just go Greta whatever. And yet
the people who love Greta, well, they're already on board
with us. But that's what I mean.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
It's not true.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
There's always people in the middle. There's always people, you know, reminding,
keeping the issue going all of that.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
If you're in the middle and Greta change your mind,
text me on nine ten. But you have to prove
you and also text some love for Simon too. Okay,
text and love for Simon too.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I tell you what we got, No, am I getting
the opposite?
Speaker 2 (19:27):
No, No, I'll tell you what we're gonna. I'm gonna
go and over a cup of tea in a lie
down and we'll be back in about two and a
half minutes with Alan Blackman and Simon Wilson. I'm Tim Beveridge.
We'll be talking about those LA riots in just a moment.
We've got some happier things to talk about, but you're
gonna have to stick with us for a second. Came
back in the mine, yes, and welcome back. This is
(19:49):
the panel. I'm Tim Beveridge. My guests are Simon Wilson,
New Zealand Herald Senior writer and Alan Blackman, Professor of Chemistry,
with opinions. I think that's maybe what his thesis says.
He got a doctorate of the chemistry with opinions. I'm
not sure. I'm just a thing added to the some
of human knowledge, I hope, isn't it because it sometimes
(20:11):
says PhD CAM and it says a little you could
you know how it has a little brackets and whatever
subject it was. What did you do your thesis?
Speaker 3 (20:19):
And when your bromination and courbalt three coordinated in the Daesels?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
So you are right, yeah, you did ask?
Speaker 3 (20:24):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Is there a plain English version of that?
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Not really?
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (20:29):
And about four people have read it. That'll be about it.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So well, as long as they matter. Hey, the l
A Rights seems like old news or myst stuff to
all the stuff we've just been discussing with. But over
one hundred and ninety people have been arrested over the
past days. Are Trump speculated to have an invoked to
eighteenth century Low or the Insurrection Act? Amazing that he's
so upset about these protesters, Alan, given that he would
(20:54):
seem to be fine with just some of many of
them were good folk on January the sixth.
Speaker 3 (20:59):
But sorry, when you say Trump has invoked. Now, come on,
you're telling me Trump knows anything about eighteenth century bloody
US jurisprudence.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Come on, No, Actually, I think the interesting thing is
who are the people in the room who are making
a lot of these calls, or Stephen Miller would be one.
I guess, So what do you what are you worried
about the authoritarian messages that seem to be coming across
when you're ignoring the wishes of the governor. I mean,
(21:28):
it's serious. It's a few streets, some protests, of course,
and we've got the way that they're enforcing ice, are
enforcing the immigration and deportations.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Which is what it's all about, isn't it. It's all
about ice. And you know that they're going to get
their job done regardless. And you know this is what
Trump wants. He wants all of these so called illegals
out of the country, and he has no idea how
it's going to have an impact on the US economy,
all of these people who are doing the jobs that
(21:58):
Americans don't want to do.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
You know, well, yeah, Simon, yeah, I think there are
some latter issues going on to I think you were
alluding to it a bit before. There tim that. I mean,
I had a historian a couple of months ago, American
historian saying Trump is not a dictator, and I think
that's right. But he added, but he wants to be one.
(22:23):
And I thought that's quite an interesting thing that what
we are seeing here in terms of the use and
abuse of law, the use and abuse of the courts,
and the way and media retreated, and in this whole
arrangement of federalizing the national Guard, calling them out despite
the governor and the mayor saying no, don't do it
and trying to stop them. These things are all testing
(22:45):
the limits of how what there's the Trump testing the
limits of what he can do and what he can
get away with, what he can build popular support for.
Why is he doing that? Is there a grand strategy
or is he just having fun? You know, it's hard
to know. But it's nasty and it is extremely authoritarian,
and it's not going to as well.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Yeah, he's not worried about re election, That's the thing,
you know, it's the same term. Supposedly that's going to
be it.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Suppose it's got people working on Yeah, I know, I
don't think Trump's going to walk away from the presidency
in four years time.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
I think the Key didn't see that.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Jesus don't. It's a sad day afternoon, come on.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Come on. As with many issues, look, somebody reminded me
that Obama had a very effective sort of deportation policy
and deported a lot of people. In fact, Bush Clinton
and Obama did, but the difference was more than Trump's
that's right, his last Biden's last year. It sort of
(23:49):
sort of set some sort of record last year. Okay,
but the it was interesting digging into it, and a
bit when actually you look at some more nuanced facts
about it, is that Obama's policy was focused on literally
criminals and recent arrivals, so he was trying to stem
that flow. Whereas I guess the problem is is that
(24:09):
Trump's gone into the heart of California, a sanctuary you know, LA,
a sanctuary city, and he's deliberately causing chaos by uprooting
these communities. And Okay, you might have a view that
people have been there in twenty years shouldn't be there,
But the difference was was that Obama was getting literally
going for the criminals, and he had a very he
had a very high deportation rate and so it's worth
(24:31):
acknowledging that. But he was doing it. It's the way
you I think it's all about the way you enforce
the law. That's the big issue, isn't it. Simon.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
Trump's also doing it in a state California, whose entire
economy is based on migrants. Now, so you know, and
he knows that.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
There's a real.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Difference between what Trump's doing now and what happened to say,
in nineteen ninety two when Rodney King, who was fleeing
from the police and was beaten to death by the police,
and it was caught on video camera first time that
had happened, and that that didn't cause ryants. But when
the jury who were sitting on the police who've beaten
Rodney King to death, when those police officers were acquitted,
(25:09):
that caused the rights What that dispute was about in
the end was how to make the law work properly.
If you look back to the civil rights movement of
the sixties, Selma and Alabama and so on again, how
do we make the law work properly? So it really
is it is fair law that we work out. Those
principles have been in play in the American democracy for
(25:34):
most of these periods of great upheaval. But that's not
what's happening now. Trump is not trying to make the
law work properly trying. Trump is trying to find ways
to break the law, get around the law, ignore the
law out Well, you know, I.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Watch this space. I can't wait for the parade. I
can't wait for the parade, but I can't wait for
the thunderstorms as well. I think that'll be quite funny. Anyway, Look,
just on the good news. It's not good news, it's
amazing news. The tragedy of Air India is terrible news.
But how could one person walk away from a crash
(26:09):
with a with some bruises and cuts and grazes and
a flight that killed over two hundred and forty people
after the takeoff? I guess we're all dying. But what
the black box has got to reveal as well? Alan,
I found one of them. I believe they're still looking
at the other one. But oh, I mean, you just
watched the footage and it just looks all so gentle,
doesn't it. It's just sort of just.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Going down, down, down, down, down in all and then
puff just this amazing massive fireble and you wonder how
the hell anybody could get out of that. It's just astonishing.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
The thing that I sort of think people need to
just get a grip is everyone's all. It's boeing sort
of thing. I mean, I saw some stat on the
how many how many people have taken trips on seven
eight sevens and it's I mean many hundreds of millions
and there's been one crash. But another point talked about
(27:00):
that there are a small number of airlines who've been
involved in what crashes have happened, and that maybe you
know who knows what the maintenance records are. We're dying
for the black boxes, but nevertheless, we've all probably gone
through it in our minds. How would you survive if
you were sitting near the escape door, if you imagined
how you get out or which It's.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
An awful thing, isn't it, Because it is known and
that this one man who survived he was by an
escape door, so he had presumably the ability to get
up and move out, and he was lucky the fire
wasn't where he was at that time. But the closer
you are to an escape door, the greater your chances.
Speaker 2 (27:38):
The terrible thing is clearly the impact didn't kill him,
and if it was only enough to give him bruises,
it just makes you think that those people who didn't
get out suffered are terrible and what a tragedy.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
And the other thing is that disasters like this don't
almost never have one cause sometimes they do, but almost
almost never. There will be a whole lot of things
that happened that contributed. And because all those things were
present a plane.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
Yeah so, and you could be bloody sure that people
are going to be taking a lot of notice of
those safety demonstrations for the.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Next week, month, year, whatever.
Speaker 3 (28:15):
But yeah, and people will be counting the roads.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Oh no, I still won't be paying attention to those
ridiculously long stories they like to play on. You know,
you don't have to remember this. I'll be thinking, well,
I need to be doing sitting where that guy was sitting.
Forget the briefing. Anyway, Look, we'll take a moment, we'll
come back and just to take this as the panel
on news talks hed b it's twenty two minutes to four.
(28:45):
Don't tell me not.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
To live just sitting cudder, life's candy and the sun's
a ball of butter.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Don't bring around a cloud to read al don't tell
men not to fly. I simply, yes, we had a lap,
had a little bit of Barbara scene. Don't run on
my parade? Given, maybe we're playing that when we find
out whether in fact it has rained on Donald Trum's parade.
But onto Happier, Onto Happier stories with my panelist Alan Blackman.
(29:11):
He's a professor of chemistry and opinions and senior writer
of the New Zealand Herald is Simon Wilson. Now let's
go to use Actually, let's go to you, Simon. It's
Field Days today, we've had them. I think there's the
last day tomorrow. It's not today as the last I
think today. I think the last day, last day today,
So Sunday off, that's right, Sunday off, but their Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
(29:35):
I think Field Days is a great day on New
Zealand's cultural calendar, even though it's a day for so
much more than that, you.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Know, I think that's absolutely right. You know, I drove
on the highway the bypass, Hamilton Bypass a few days
ago and it was Field Days and a lot of
traffic and a lot of people clearly there to have
a good time, and that's exciting. I think there really is.
I also spend a bit of time yesterday with the
Minister for Climate Change, Simon Watts, who had been at
(30:06):
field Days and had announced a program to support farmers
putting in solar energy, and he said to me, you know,
the thing about doing this is that we don't try
and knock them over the head with climate change rhetoric.
What we do is we explain how this will make
them money, and it does. And a similar thing has
(30:27):
been rolled out now for residential solar as well. So
you've got people like what at field Days going Okay,
we want the agricultural sector to keep up with the
rest of the economy. We are transitioning to a lower
emissions economy. Agriculture has to play its role in that,
and we are working out how to find ways to
(30:49):
make that economically efficient for farmers to do. I think
that's fabulous.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
X well Bingo. Look, I always think we innovate as
well a way out of many of our problems. And
I mean, mind you, the interesting thing that came out
around the similar time is the Federated Farmer's Pole, which
shows that labour only has three percent of farmers votes
National fifty four Act nineteen Yewsum first eight Labor three
Greens too. The funniest comment I heard was Jordan Williams
(31:16):
on here this huddle, saying, oh no, that's a rogue pole.
There's no way labor would get anything near three.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
I was surprised it was that low allen the problem
there and lies the problem because you know, labor are
going to be back in power one day, and it's
obvious that the farmers don't trust them. Okay, so look,
we know that we our economy relies on agriculture. Let's
face it, it just does. So we have to do
(31:44):
things right by the farmers. But obviously this whole climate
change thing, the agricultural emissions, we've got to cut them.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
It has to be done.
Speaker 3 (31:52):
So maybe let's get together as a country. Let's forget
the bloody political parties and everything. Let's have a bipart
or a tripartisan or a tetrapartisan or whatever it needs.
But it has to be done. It has to be done.
You can't have you know, next time labor gets in
and then you knows to the farmer's right, you've got
to do it tomorrow. It's got to be done. No,
we need a long term planning with this, and it's
(32:13):
got to be done so that everybody trusts everybody and.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Actually it can be done, and this is one of
the countries where we have already demonstrated it can be
done way more efficient. Climate Change Commission was set up
as a bipartisan project. It is still alive and still functioning.
The Zero Carbonate the same bipartisan and widely supported, supported
by all the parties in Parliament except what at the moment, and.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
So building on that and building on it in ways
that mean that there are not big losers, that the
transitions are functional and viable and will not cast well.
Speaker 2 (32:46):
I've had enough of the planting trees on good farm lands.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
I agree with you.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Yeah, yeah, we don't need lots more pinus radiata planted
on good farm and absolutely I think. And the government
is now moving to storm.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
I think the stat where that many farmers will want
to put out there is that there's no point trying
to clamp down on our farmers who are producing products.
What did I see that a liter of milk? You
might have heard the stat A liter of milk produced
it and exported to Ireland is greener than a liter
of milk produced in Ireland because we just do it
(33:20):
more efficiently, and our farmers are very innovative and imaginative,
and the science around that is evolving constantly with crop,
with crop science, and this is in your side of
things in chemistry, where you're creating crops where there's less
methane produced, the whole shebang.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
If we lead the world, that's not a reason to
stop leading the world. It's not the reason to just
stop now and go Okay, everyone has to tot chat
with us. We should keep leading the world. We should
keep innovating, we should keep making it economically more efficient,
and we should keep showing the rest of the world
and helping the rest of the world to understand how
they can do it the way we do. That is
the role. That's a terrific role for us.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
This is where science rocks, because science being all amazes
me the different discoveries and what they you know in
terms of the way we farm and the changes that
can be as simply by science and innovation.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Chemistry again, isn't it is chemistry.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
I was trying to bring you in there, jumping on and.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Fund you more. I thought you were saying fun does more,
and I think, actually, I hate to say this, my
days chemistry was the worst subject in terms of fun
I ever learned. Oh god, you teach I did not
have the right. He was a lovely man, but yeah,
it was tragic.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Actually I managed I managed to pass chemistry without understanding it.
I thought there was something that lots of people do,
whereas my daughter, many of us get through life understand it.
Actually we've just a parent teacher day at my daughter's school,
my twelve year old daughter, Rosie, and we met this
and she loves science, and the teacher showed me the
(34:54):
science exam where they're extending them a bit and it
was about you know, what sort of molecule does this represent?
And what are these molecular patterns represent? And I was like,
oh my god, I would have this and raises like
it's so simple, Dad, that's such and such as like
science science, rock.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
Doing chemistry.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Well, you know, I'll get a come and say hello, hey,
look just before we head to the break the AI Journey.
So Disney and Universal are going to sue this AI
firm called mid Journey because Mid Journey I think I've
admitted they don't really even think about the you know,
the relationship of what they generate, what the AI generates
(35:35):
to copyright materials and they they claimed Disney and Universal,
claiming that mid Journey's tool makes innumerable copies of character,
including characters including Darth Vader from Star Wars, Frozens Elsa,
the minions, Oh, the minions from Despicable Me. You've probably
seen those ones, even if you don't follow AI too
much and social media. It just feels I mean, well,
(35:56):
I guess they're going to tear themselves apart, are they?
Speaker 3 (35:58):
What do you think? Allan, It's interesting this because it's
just a sort of myself here. I've written a textbook,
chemistry textbook first year, and it's on the list of
books that have been used to train AI. And so
I let the publishers know about this, and you know,
(36:20):
so that this this is being done without permission from
the publishers. So and there's a whole you know, there's
a vast literally library of books that are being used
to train AI. It's totally without permissions.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
It's so blurry though, because teachers might read your book
and use it to train their studios. Absolutely, and yet
it's it's the the the massive subsummation of that's a
word of information and spitting it out to huge audience
without paying you so much that it does feel like
it's like playing a songwriter's song to a massive audience
(36:54):
without actually paying them any royalty.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
In fact, it's just like that, okay, and sue them.
There is an inuil contradiction in AI that I own
not sure how is going to be resolved. I imagine
there are people who do know how to resolve it.
But it is that AI works by taking the information
available in the world and convincing it into a set
of factorily based set of facts. Right. Essentially, when it's
(37:22):
working properly, that information that it bases its work on
comes from people like you, Ellen and all the other
content creators who are actually doing the work. If your
role becomes redundant because we've got AI to tell us
what you already know, then what's are going to be
basing its next level and next gen and next gen.
(37:43):
It's all going to collapse. And this will also happen
in media. You can find out what the story is
about any topic you care to name from AI programs
that will that will scour the world's media to tell you.
But when we're all out of jobs as journalists, that's
all going to fold in on itself, and.
Speaker 3 (38:00):
Then you've got to worry about the veracity of the
information that's been as well. Hey, by the way, way,
what's your book called chemistry? How's that for a snappy.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
What I want to know is, surely you ripped that
off from someone else, chemistry Chemistry by you cannot have
invented it.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
It's just called Chemistry's just good chemistry. I don't believe
that Bottle, Moserino and Villa. There you go, five of
us black who what bottle, Schmidt, Mosserino and Villain.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
You notice black Man's first, Actually is I want to
know if it is in fact first, just in case
he stuck himself first. Just now it's actually bottle in
Schmidt and black Man.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
I wrote most of it?
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Did you not? Most? You say that?
Speaker 3 (38:43):
Good?
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Good stuff? I was going to say I was. I
was hoping for something that's slightly quirkier with the title.
But it's on pointe. Hey, it does what it says
on the bottle.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
There is a novel called Chemistry.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Have you seed them? It's it will be fun if
AI has scrubbed that and confused with Allen's text, there's
the problems. We'll be back in just a moment. It
is eight minutes to Poor News Talks head b Yes
News Talk said be Tim Beverage with Simon Wilson and
Alan Blackman. Just a lucky last question for our panel.
(39:15):
There's been a study done that shows that if you
shower at night, apparently you're dirtier than if you shower
in the morning overall because of your sweat and things
like that. And you carry that, you know, you sweat
up to half a half a liter or something morning
or after morning or evening showers boys morning, morning, morning.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
But it's interesting, isn't it that showering, It that showing
at night, and then you sweat away anyway, that you
sweat as much as a tin of drink.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
It's disgusting something.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Which it's natural.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
Shall I share I'll share my revolting story. When I
was a student, I thought at university, I thought, if
I showered in the evening, I wouldn't need to worry
about washing my sheets as often. And I think I
went ten weeks before I shoved them in the washing
machine and realized that that hadn't been the smartest. I
would also have a shower in the morning.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
But he was a lonely, lonely lad.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
That's I was going to mention that, yes, yes, you know.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
To shower and you need to share. Well, it might
have been a tight night this morning, but then I've
been out for a run.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Well, I'm not going to shout because I've already I.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
Share twice a day. I showed twice a day. It's
just that I thought that the sheets didn't turn out
too well. Anyway, Hey, guys, lovely to see you.
Speaker 1 (40:27):
Simon.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Thanks for coming in and wearing dirty clothes now, is
that what you're doing? No, I'm clean as a whistle anyway, Alan,
good luck with the book. Make it required reading. There
you go, make it required reading. Chemistry by Alan Blackman
and others. Go and look it up people, good novel,
or just go and check it out on chat GPT.
In a day or two. Anyway, we'll be back with
the one roof radio show and this is News Talk.
(40:48):
Sa'd be.
Speaker 1 (40:52):
For more from the weekend collective.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
Listen live to News Talks It'd be weekends from three pm,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.