US Green Party - Peace, justice, truth and hip hop
“Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils vote, vote for what is good.”
Bookmark to:
frogblog
hopping along the corridors of power
a political blog from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
If I were a green-minded US voter, i’d really prefer that the US Green party just shut up about voting for them - just takes votes away from Democrats!
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
I think the point is that the Dem and the Repubs are two sides of the same coin the same as Lab and National
If we really want change that matters then voting Green is the only viable option
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
If you really want change one should be agitating for a new voting system, I say! Voting Green would SO just get the Republicans in.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
StephenR, I don’t think that USAan Greens would agree with you.
The higher the Green vote, the more that Green ideas and policies will be noticed …
The USA ’s seriously out of date electoral system is in urgent need of change.
Change has to start somewhere and the Green Party is a very timely spearhead towards this change.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
Stephen is right. Remember Ralph Nader.
A vote for anyone but the Democrats is a vote for the Rebublicans.
Similarly, a vote for the Greens here is a vote for a Labour/First government until such time as The Greens say they will refuse to work with either.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
No! Blue Peter.
A (Party) Vote for the Greens is a vote for Green influence and Green policies … full stop.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
eredwen said
“The USA ’s seriously out of date electoral system is in urgent need of change.”
Is there another reason the US has become the most powerful nation in history?
It is due to the Americans throwing off the british political system that has led to their remarkable sucess as a nation, hows the british empire doing again?
The best thing NZ could do at the moment is get rid of MMP and actually get our country moving again.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I don’t think being powerful is as important as living standards, really.
The British are doing ok, in terms of living standards.
Less representations - no thanks. If we wanted a real democracy we’d lower the 5% threshold too.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Shunda barunda Says:
”
eredwen said
“The USA ’s seriously out of date electoral system is in urgent need of change.”
Is there another reason the US has become the most powerful nation in history?
It is due to the Americans throwing off the british political system that has led to their remarkable sucess as a nation, hows the british empire doing again?
The best thing NZ could do at the moment is get rid of MMP and actually get our country moving again.”
Really ? …
I hear a lot of that kind of talk on this blog
“Let’s do that and it will solve everything”
“Let’s get rid of that, it’s the source of all our problem”
If things were that easy …
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
StephenR said
“The British are doing ok, in terms of living standards.”
I suppose it depends on your stand point and whether or not you see the class system as a good thing.
But I guess there are plenty of chardonnay socialists in the UK which many on the left in this country can stongly identify with.
And stephen, if we wanted real democracy in NZ we would have binding citizens initiated referenda, not the noisy few passing laws 85% of Kiwi’s don’t want, democracy indeed!
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Shunda, class system bad, but isn’t particularly measurable.
Heh, well yes, but I think for the actual day to day business of governing the country and the vast majority of law-making, referenda are not really practical. I was more referring to the make up of parliament.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Shunda barunda, I suspect that the real difference between the 20th century performance of these two empires is their distance from the European mainland rather than whether they have an elected president or a hereditary monarch with the right of veto over their bipartisan, bicameral parliaments.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Stephen’s got it right - a vote for the USA Greens is a vote for the Republicans in the USA’s FPP system.
Similarly BP is oversimplifying to state that a vote for the Green Party in NZ is a vote for a Labour/NZF coalition in our MMP system.
And Shunda, how has the US becoming the most powerful nation (for the last 50 years at least) vis-a-vis the decline in the UK over that time got anything to do with your conclusion that NZ should abandon MMP? I don’t see any logic in that jump.
Barring massive efforts to change the elctoral system to some form of proportional representation in the US wouldn’t US Greens be best advised to keep working at local level to elect Green representatives - or at the very least those Congressmen and Senators with the most sustainable outlook and policies.
Surely, after all, it’s about the policies and not the name of the party?
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Yeah, lobby group is probably where they can do their best work, no point wasting money for presidential campaigns or anything. Same with the ALCP in a way…
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Woohoo watchin the VP debate right now! What a waste of life!
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
eredwen,
You keep on believing that, but the rest of us have learned the lessons of history. Until you can be seen as Nat/Act bedfellows, then if we vote Green, we know we’ll be getting Labour. If we don’t want Labour, we only have two options - National or ACT.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
>>Similarly BP is oversimplifying to state that a vote for the Green Party in NZ is a vote for a Labour/NZF coalition in our MMP system.
No I’m not.
A vote for the Greens gets us a Labour government. It’s as simple as that. If the Greens aren’t in a position to help form a government, then they’re irrelevant.
Two scenarios: Irrelevancy. Or Labour.
I’ll be voting Labour out.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
There is a significant different in NZ from the US - votes for minor parties can and will have political influence. If there was a really big Green turnout, you’d probably still get Labour, you just wouldn’t get as much Labour - some people might find that more palatable in terms of leadership/personality issues in cabinet etc, but realistically still kind of Labour-ish/left-ish. Which is why im surprised the Greens aren’t getting pissed-off Labour voters - probably the ‘morris dancing’ aspect I’d say.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
“probably the ‘morris dancing’ aspect I’d say.”
And all the not-so-accurate connotations. Who’s up for basket weaving?
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
>>you just wouldn’t get as much Labour
You get an even more left version of Labour. Shudder.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“You get an even more left version of Labour. Shudder.”
Perhaps. Wonder why the progressives and alliance don’t think so…
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Hold on BP, aren’t you forgetting the Maori Party?
“If we don’t want Labour, we only have two options - National or ACT.”
October 3rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
The Maori Party could go either way.
The same cannot be said of the Greens.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
At the moment the Greens still could, BP.
But, at least for me, National are releasing so much policy in direct conflict with Green policy the they would have to swallow far more dead rats then Labour to get a deal with the Greens to govern after the election.
As I have mentioned here, re the Nats’ Industrial Relations policy on g.blog and Steve Pierson mentioned here at The Standard re their policy on the Resource Management Act. I don’t always agree with Steve Pierson, but on this issue I think he’s got it spot on.
That said, Labour’s record on fresh water quality and defending a corrupt or seriously negligent politician from outside their party is so poor that they are not at the top of my popularity list either.
I just wish the polls had the Greens and the Maori Party both at their current polling - then we would really be in business, because there is far more concurrence between Green Party and maori Party policy than there is with either National or Labour.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Despite their taiaha rattling, the Maori Party can’t ‘go with National’ - their ‘flax roots’ won’t wear it. Best scenario - Maori and Green parties muscle-up and restrain and retrain Labour to produce a government that serves the best interests of the nation. National retires, hissing and spitting, to their natural state, opposition.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
greenfly
“best interests of the nation”
Is that code for hammer the rich and middle class and give money to dole and DPB bludgers?
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Nope bb, it’s not code, it means best interests of the nation. A fair deal for all, opportunity for each and everyone to flourish without diminishing others in the process and at last, a chance for the environment to recover and regain it’s position as our true source of wealth and well being.
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Greenfly
With respect that last post is rather short on detail and so typical of the Green party.
How about giving me some detail, what do YOU consider needs to be done to operate the country “in the best interests of the nation”
I note that you did not say “in the best interests of us ALL” so I assume that somebody is about to be taxed at a lot higher rate for your plan to be possible.
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
big bro - the short post is typical of me. The Green Party, by contrast, has masses of detailed policy! I can’t believe you are serious there! Check out Toad’s latest contribution to g.blog to see what I mean. If you really want details on ‘what i consider needs to be done to operate the country in the best interests of the nation” you’ll need to be a bit more specific. I’d be happy to start with the ‘organic nation’ concept, but perhaps this isn’t the thread. As for your assumption re. tax, I think you must have plucked that out of a heavily shaded spot.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
shunda barunda says:
“It is due to the Americans throwing off the british political system that has led to their remarkable sucess as a nation, hows the british empire doing again?
The best thing NZ could do at the moment is get rid of MMP and actually get our country moving again.”
……………………………………………
I reply:
Two obvious misconceptions there!
Firstly, MMP was the system developed by/for post WW2 Germany “to ensure another Hitler could not rise again”.
Kiwis voted for that system, after an education campaign where we looked at the pros and cons of various proportional systems that we might adopt.
Secondly, the young USA did not throw off the British political system completely.
One of the most dangerous aspects of the current governance of the USA, is the resultant POWER* of the (monarch-plus-unelected-advisers replacing) President and his unelected advisers … who recently took the USA into war with Iraq.
In the USA (an ex British Colony turned (early) democracy) a great deal of POWER remains with that ONE elected person, whereas other former monarchies have given the full power to their fully elected assemblies, of which “the President” or “Prime Minister” is both a member and a (replaceable) leader.
*(The USA’s power grouping remains as a copy of “the King James of Great Britain and his unelected advisors” which was the setup at the time the American Colonies went independent.
Meanwhile the British and other European Monarchies have become vibrant democracies with totally changed systems … some of them retaining their monarchs as useful “figureheads”.)
October 4th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Wow… I’m amazed. Usually I can’t find anyone who thinks that the Greens don’t talk too much, especially if they get me going! Well done Big Bro, you are truly unique among the commentors in the New Zealand Blogosphere.
And the reason Greenfly was short on detail was because you were getting an overview of some of the reasons why we Greens feel our party has some of the best policies for all of New Zealand- not just the white upperclass part that National likes to represent when it talks about chucking the Maori seats, or acts like welfare recipients are out of control when they’re staying at the same percentage, or in some cases, growing smaller.
If you really want to know why some of us think that the Greens (possibly with a hand from the Maori Party, the Progressives, and Labour, if they’re willing to compromise with us and find solutions we can all agree on) are good for all of New Zealand, you merely need to ask us about the issue.
And seeing you asked about taxes- Green policy is to tax polluters more and give everyone else (especially private taxpayers who are struggling to pay for food and electricity) tax breaks to grow the clean sector of the economy while shrinking the dirty sector, and to raise taxes on the dirty sector as it shrinks to continually push for a more sustainable New Zealand, with clean water, safe food, and that does its part to address climate change. We hoped to do this with a revenue-neutral carbon tax, until some idiot drove a tractor up to Parliament and started moaning about fart taxes as if millions of cows farting isn’t going to warm up the planet with all of that smelly methane.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Well okay, technical methane just carries the smell from going through the colon with all of the bullshit that said idiot on a tractor brought to parliament, and doesn’t actually smell itself, but that’s just engaging in pedantry. Which I’m not supposed to do.
Also, I probably should have said Carbon-equivilent tax, as we definitely want to tax more than just Carbon emissions, and there’s some tricky stuff to quantify there, like just how much carbon is dumping effluent in a lake or river worth? Anyway, you can totally read the details in our policy section, in multi-page documents that are much longer than both these posts combined.
Or just read the one-page, cliff notes version if you only need the general idea.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Ari,
Wow….. I’m amazed too!!!
talk about racism and sterotyping. That is akin to saying all Greens are sandle wearing, treehugging, survivalists.
The only sexist and ageist bit you left out was the “middle aged male” when refering to the National party.
So lets talk about the issues. First and the one you refered to is that taxation policy.
Russel has been quoted this as being taxation neutral. So far so good.
Now the details. (a policy is not a policy without detail) What, when, where, whom and how much will you tax polluters, how will this be “redistributed”?
And what will you tax when all pollution (after all that is the policy target) has been eliminated but the crowd still goes wild for the tax benifits they have been receiving and would rather not do without.
You see, we (and no, I’m not a National party supporter) are more then happy to discuss issues, you are the one stoupping to racism and stereo typing.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Stereotyping, perhaps. Racism? Is it racism if you think that select members of your own race sometimes get over-entitled like many people are inclined to, and that those people are catered to the most by a certain political party? I disagree. I was indeed dogwhistling middle aged men too, but that’s not because I believe the interests of white upperclass middle-aged men are irrelevant. It’s because I believe they’re overrepresented. Tell me, how voters, as a percentage, are under 24? How many MPs are under 24? Can you honestly tell me that parliament is not biased to the old? Seems to me you are reading my backlash against privilege as an attack on people who are actually quite like myself. I happen to like who I am, and am proud of it- just not the people who claim to be “like” me when they’re not.
So yes, false-alarms aside, issues please. The proposed tax policy is indeed conceived as REVENUE-neutral. It’s an increase in taxation, but also an increase in tax relief, to be very precise.
While there isn’t currently a policy summary for tax reform, you can find ALL of the details as voted on by the Party here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/18144
Highlights:
First $5000 of income is tax-free, giving a fair and equal flat reduction in tax to all New Zealanders, and lowering the total tax take before the introduction of new polluter-pays taxes by just over $1billion.
Extend petrol taxes to diesel fuel, too, helping discourage excessive use of road transport that is reliant on lack of tax as a “soft subsidy”.
Found an ecological tax commission to re-evaluate all existing taxes to include all other practically taxable ecologically harmful emissions, pollutants, toxins, and practices. The commission will also have a mandate to ensure that tax systems and income support work together better, such as introducing a Universal Basic Income and eliminating harsh tax penalties for those moving from benefits to paid employment.
Your objection is the second Q&A:
Q. If there’s less pollution won’t there be less tax?
A. Over time some pollution will fall but energy use, for example, will always be with us. In the short term, tax rates can be raised. In the long-term, less pollution, a cleaner economy and more investment in health mean lower costs as well.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:36 am
That “how (doublespace) voters” is meant to be “how many voters”.
I am, alas, spoiled by edit functions.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Are the greens the flip flop party, as drongo Sue wants parents to start the smack again. What a liability these stupid greens are!
October 4th, 2008 at 5:44 am
And for the post trifecta, I totally forgot to mention that I take issue of the excessive over-representation (no, I’m not being redundant, a small amount of over-representation is acceptable, a large amount is not. Small and large will of course end up being defined by each person’s own moral compass) of white upper-class middle-aged straight gender-conformant cis-gendered heteronormative western-normative free-market little-c-conservative or little-c-centrist men.
Have I laid out my bias transperantly enough for you? I acknowledge it and embrace it, but I don’t claim that it’s always right. I’m perfectly willing to be talked out of any unreasonable claims I make. The trouble is that you have to convince me I’m being unreasonable, and alas, thinking our own views are reasonable is one of the many failures of humankind.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:34 am
# Shunda barunda Says:
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
eredwen said
“The USA ’s seriously out of date electoral system is in urgent need of change.”
Is there another reason the US has become the most powerful nation in history?
It is due to the Americans throwing off the british political system that has led to their remarkable sucess as a nation, hows the british empire doing again?
The best thing NZ could do at the moment is get rid of MMP and actually get our country moving again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system
http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2004/11b/OWR_2004_14.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_different_voting_systems_under _similar_circumstances
I AM an American and I know EXACTLY whereof I speak.
The electoral system there elected Bush, the worst President (arguably the worst leader of ANY nation) in history with a MINORITY of 50,000 votes and the margin was far less than the “Green” vote in both of his elections.
Minor parties invariably DAMAGE the cause they most favour there. Minor parties sometimes find themselves surreptitiously funded by their most despised enemies because of this.
Majority parties represent concentrated and permanent power which is, because of the money required to get elected, easily bought.
The country became a kleptocracy quite a long time ago as a result, and the consequences for the planet are only beginning to emerge.
As for the success of the United States, the natural advantages of the place (resources, starting population density and isolation from the rest of the planet) have much more to do with it than the political system… and you ought to notice that its dominance is disappearing as we speak (Thanks to the aforementioned Presidential leadership).
What voting system do you prefer?
Something very simple no doubt.
BJ
[ Despite what you may think Eredwen, I pulled back very hard on this post… this is RESTRAINED…
]
October 4th, 2008 at 6:48 am
d4j - you’ve sprung us - seen past our benign and smiling mask and into the evil cesspit of our corrupt green souls! Whaddawegonnadooonowwwww!!!
October 4th, 2008 at 6:48 am
” A fair deal for all, opportunity for each and everyone to flourish without diminishing others in the process and at last, a chance for the environment to recover and regain it’s position as our true source of wealth and well being”
All we are saaaaaying, is give peace a chhhhance.
Get out of the 60s, Greenfly. There will be a National government, and the only question is do you want to sit on the sidelines.
Looks like that’s the case…..
October 4th, 2008 at 6:53 am
WTF is he on about with that comment about Sue?
October 4th, 2008 at 7:03 am
From the policy document:
” In the short term, tax rates can be raised.”
So there we have it. Typical socialist reaction - raise taxes. Given we already pay a lot of tax, raising taxes at this point may result in a declining tax pool. Let us know what tax rate you’d impose, given all the other costs your policies would impose.
There is no guarantee our overall costs would go down as a result of eco-taxing. There seems to be no logic connnecting the two. What will happen is our cost of living will rise, and competitiveness will drop, and we’ll have less income. Australia would look that much more inviting, and NZ would plummmet further down the OECD, with resulting social strife.
The last thing we need is a bunch of hippies in charge of the economy. Thankfully, there is no chance of it happening.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:12 am
How can we Greens withstand the withering, blistering attacks from these erudite and thoughtful rightwingers - and they’re correct you know, in every detail! How foolish we have been! How deluded! We must withdraw back into our delicate snaily shells and quiver fearfully til the big election is over. Only then will it be safe to emerge into a world that has been put right and all of our silly worries soothed. Thank you, clever men of the right - you came just
when we needed you!
October 4th, 2008 at 7:18 am
You could attempt to match your level of rhetoric with policy detail.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
BJ- have you cruised by the center for range voting ever? (http://rangevoting.org/) It’s a really nice system to deal with electorate-based systems like the US’ one without holding runoff elections. (or instantly simulating them based on preference lists, in the case of STV) I’d really like to see it go to use for our own electorates and especially multi-seat contests on local councils. Looks even better (and surprisingly, simpler, although mostly on the backend) than STV, although given that getting and keeping STV and beating back regressive referenda on the matter has been hard enough, that might be a long-term thing to think about. The thing that really convinced me is the exhaustive trials into bayesian regret, finding that even when people can’t tell with any degree of accuracy what they want from a candidate, they still tend to elect better ones under range voting, and at an improvement over FPP votes similar to that of democratic societies from hereditary rule. Cool stuff, if highly mathematical.
Greenfly- we shall beat them at their own self-important game, of course, except without the personal attacks an hyperbole, if possible. Why beat them when you can join them and clean them up at the same time?
October 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
BluePeter, you’re a ‘little picture’ man, forever wanting to argue the toss over tiddly details, quibble, quibble, quibble. Whenever someone ‘talks big’, gives an overview or expresses an opinion, you squeal, ’show me the policy detail, give me something to dissect and flay’. You lack real vision. You remind me of a Coronation Street nag, quibble and snipe.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Ari - ‘without the personal attacks’ - ooops!
October 4th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Well, it did start off as constructive criticism, I’ll credit you that
Come on though, we can hardly decry the adversarial, do-nothing politicians like Bob Clarkson if we’re willing to join in when people frustrate us, right? Principles are for always.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:45 am
bj
Saying that Bush 2 is the worst pres of all time is a huge call, even in my lifetime I can think of a few who were worse than him.
Johnson, Nixon, Carter (ha ha ha), Clinton and probably even Bush 1 were worse.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Hey BP, totally missed your post there somehow. “Taxes can be raised” refers ONLY to the polluter-pays taxes, I believe. So as we make pollution less and less acceptable, we continue to raise the charges in order to raise the stigma. We double-whammy the polluters, while trying as hard as we can to extend the tax cuts to people who’ve learned their lesson and joined the rest of us. As stated, we hope that in the long term a non-polluting society (and one that is energy-efficient, and socially responsible, and non-violent, and pays off its debts) is valuable and efficient enough to have significant gains beyond the current one and thus pay for the tax cuts permanently. If we’re being idealistic, then yes, that might be a situation where progressive tax increases that don’t raise the cumulative tax percentage aggregate too much (how’s THAT for an economic indicator?
) will assist us in continuing that trend. However, if that’s true, we’ll also have a lot of warning and may be able to prepare and offset the cost by finding other revenue sources.
Keep in mind too, that energy usage and resource consumption is taxed- so even a pollution-free society still regulates resource-intensiveness through the free market this way by charging overusers, and thus SOME tax cuts for all who can maintain green habits should be a guarantee.
But that’s just my personal reading here, and a very inexpert one at that. I honestly know a lot more about the free market economics I distrust than I do about the green economics that appeal so strongly to me.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Err, note that I mean idealistic in the negative sense there, ie. “if we’re ignoring practical reality”. I don’t think it’s an ideal to have to tax anyone more than is necessary to enact good policy- although that said, I think things like strategic foreign currency reserves to modulate the exchange rate and government slush funds to be paid out in emergencies, natural disasters, and recessions are “good fiscal policy” your footspeed may vary.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Err, note that I mean idealistic in the negative sense there, ie. “if we’re ignoring practical reality”. I don’t think it’s an ideal to have to tax anyone more than is necessary to enact good policy- although that said, I think things like strategic foreign currency reserves to modulate the exchange rate and government slush funds to be paid out in emergencies, natural disasters, and recessions are “good fiscal policy”, but, to corrupt a popular phrase, your footspeed may vary.
Hypothetical religious theories, I have been REALLY spoiled by edit functions.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:31 am
BB
What a straight line.
None of them lost 3 wars, two world trade centers, three jetliners, a chunk of the Pentagon, the city of New Orleansand the equivalent of the GNP of the United States…
Some of them were bad. Bush is bar-none the worst.
Understand that I have experienced what ALL of them were like (yeah I’m that old) were like and Johnson does give Bush a run for the money, but there’s no way he’s worse. The only real conclusion one can draw from the two of them is that there needs to be an amendment to the constitution that forever prohibits people from Texas from becoming President.
As for the rest of your list… they’re not even in the same league. Even Nixon, whom I despised, was unquestionably a better President.
This isn’t really a partisan judgment BB. I’ve got personal experience of the policies of ALL of them… and of the period of declining democracy in the country that culminated in Bush’s election.
The real problem in the USA is that the electoral process doesn’t just permit concentration of power in the hands of the economic “elite” it demands it. That it is bad (in the end) is clear from every financial headline on the planet these days.
respectfully
BJ
October 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Ari
I think I did some time ago. Not sure if you suggested it then. I can accept it… actually have little trouble with ANY alternative to FPP, some are better than others but all allow minority voices to be better heard.
To me it is more important to not go backwards. I am not fussy about what forward path progress takes in this arena.
respectfully
BJ
October 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Greenfly
The fact you see “how New Zealand is going to earn its keep” as a “tiddly detail” just shows how much of a small thinker you are.
You can’t keep tides of bludgers fed, and the countryside clean, if you’re not earning more that it cost to run the show.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
BJ
“None of them lost 3 wars, two world trade centers, three jetliners, a chunk of the Pentagon, the city of New Orleansand”
That is ridiculous, Clinton twice had the chance to get rid of Bin Laden and did not do so, he was far to busy lying to the people of USA to worry about a terrorist.
I find it laughable that you would blame Bush for a hurricane, but then the left do not often let facts get in the way of their bias.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:58 am
>>“Taxes can be raised” refers ONLY to the polluter-pays taxes, I believe.
Won’t work. The “polluter” passes the costs on. Secondly, we’re competing with other countries that don’t have this ball n chain. So we loose revenue. We loose revenue and we can’t pay for the level of services we have now, so what services are you going to cut?
>>we hope that in the long term a non-polluting society (and one that is energy-efficient, and socially responsible, and non-violent, and pays off its debts) is valuable and efficient enough to have significant gains beyond the current one and thus pay for the tax cuts permanently.
One does not follow the other.
It increases costs. We then have less revenue to spend on services. Few people are going to sit back and put up with such a cost structure when Australia beckons, so you’ll be losing a lot of skilled workers, too.
It’s a nice sounding idea, but it is painfully naive.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Heh “lose” not “loose”
October 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
And if we’re to believe any part of economic theory, passing those costs down is almost always going to reduce demand- if not immediately then sometime in the future. Secondly, while we will be competing with countries that don’t choose to behave ethically, fair trade and green branding has actually proven that people value ethical good in the past and are willing to pay premiums for goods they know are socially responsible. Sometimes economic consequences really do allow for social goods- you just have to play the cards for it from the start.
If you are right and our assumptions are wrong about taxing pollution, it would be evident during the phase-in period and leave us time to pull out, identify the problem and fix it, or find an equally acceptable alternative. You don’t implement a sweeping reform like this all at once.
Ah, but you are one of the ones who assures me that increases in costs are matched by attempts to become more efficient. While we may also have less revenue, by having to clean up or avoid a lot less waste we should ultimately be richer, as I pointed out, in the long run, remembering that for Greens that word can mean “beyond the time that you or I will live to see.” What use are windfall dairy profits when it costs us even more in potential cleanup for our rivers and lakes?
As for Australia beckoning- is percentage emigration up? Nope. Is the wage gap up? Nope. We’ve established a freeze on those problems since we voted out National. I’m not idealistic enough to suggest that moving to a different philosophy again will improve the situation once more, but frankly speaking, if it DID cost us in jobs to Australia, but made the difference to climate change and our lifestyle in New Zealand, I’d pay that cost. Maybe I’m just more patriotic than you give me credit for.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
And before you rap me about reduced demand for polluting and inefficient products, you should remember that this will raise demand for clean efficient green products, which should naturally become more profitable, and with their existing public-relations advantage should grow our export sector and make New Zealand workers more qualified and in demand as green technology and business sense becomes more demanded globally.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:51 am
BB
I was exercising some slight hyperbole of course but….
You are not looking at this in terms of the actual facts on the ground at the time.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
Clinton did have the opportunity to have a citizen of another country who had been convicted of no crime or offense against the USA killed.
He turned that down. Properly… he may in hindsight have regretted the decision but HINDSIGHT is always that way.
Perhaps you would like the sort of person who would have people killed because of what they MIGHT do to be in charge of the most powerful military on the planet. Oh, that’s right you DO like that sort of person having that sort of power… I cannot possibly imagine why.
The sin in New Orleans was in the matter of FEMA being guided towards the scap-heap by Bush for all the preceding years of his tenure. FEMA was a serious agency under Clinton. Bush wanted it gone. It showed. The results speak for themselves.
The hyperbole consists of course, in attributing any weaknesses in the levee system to Bush… the political corruption that led to those failures was local, profit oriented and had nothing to do with him.
I don’t knowingly let any fantasies inhabit my worldview BB.. right wing fantasies included. Bush is still worst of all Presidents in my lifetime and has damaged the USA more than Osama Bin Forgotten ever dreamed of doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud
If you list the goals that Osama Bin Laden espoused and the accomplishments of Dubya, you could easily come to the conclusion that Dubya is a secret agent of Al Quaeda. The destruction of the US as the dominant economic power in the world is well underway.
I am more interested in the next election. I don’t care about Bush… he is out of it no matter what happens. The nightmare he started however, is only just begun.
respectfully
BJ
October 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am
>> green branding has actually proven that people value ethical good in the past and are willing to pay premiums for goods they know are socially responsible.
Maybe amongst your tiny peer group, but consumers don’t behave that way.
>>passing those costs down is almost always going to reduce demand
Not so. Depends if the good or service is elastic or inelastic.
>>If you are right and our assumptions are wrong
Your assumptions are unfounded. There is no proven model. If we’re to adopt an eco-economy, then you’re going to need to come up with some hard numbers first. My guess is that the horse wouldn’t even get out of the starting gate, because those numbers will fail.
>>f it DID cost us in jobs to Australia, but made the difference to climate change and our lifestyle in New Zealand, I’d pay that cost.
That cost might be a descent into third world conditions, and there will certainly be no money to look after the environment. The environmental quality in poor nations is dire. Also pray you don’t need expensive medical treatment….
October 4th, 2008 at 11:29 am
>>public-relations advantage should grow our export sector and make New Zealand workers more qualified and in demand as green technology and business sense becomes more demanded globally.
See, that *sounds* good, but business does not work that way. What consumers actually do with their cash is the thing you need to watch, not what they say they might do.
Green purchases worldwide are niche. Demand is growing in some sub-sections of the middle class because it’s trendy. Such an approach misses a lot of the market. The majority buy on value and price, not politics, and always will.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“Saying that Bush 2 is the worst pres of all time is a huge call, even in my lifetime I can think of a few who were worse than him.”
big bro, I agree that past presidents have a huge amount to answer for. George often only looks worse, because of the hubris with which his administration went about their work. Clinton, for instance, has about as much blood on his hands in Iraq as Bush, but his was via internationally supported (for a time) sanctions, so doesn’t usually get recognised as such. But none have come close to trashing the Constitution the way King George has, from the end of habeaus corpus to the unitary executive and more. That alone makes him the worst of a very sad lot.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
The problem is that anyone who aspires to be President should be automatically disqualified!
October 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
No! Some fine people stand in every election which the corporate media studiously ignores. This time there was Dennis Kucinich and of course Green candidate Cynthia McKinney.
October 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The funny thing about lefties hatred of the USA is they can’t really seem to qualify it.
Is it cause they are the most succesful nation of all time?
Is it cause they have made mistakes ocasionally?
Is it cause they have a military that is actually capable of winning a war?
No its just because.
I dare you guys to say 3 nice things about the states and mean it.
One I will offer is when the USA had the power to totally dominate the world they didn’t, due to their entrenched beliefs on freedom and liberty.
Sad thing is the rest of the world seems to have a very short memory.
October 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Yeah, so much hate here, I can barely type. I think you’re making the classical ‘people don’t like a particular President…so they must hate America’ mistake. Yawn
October 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Bloody Romans, what have they ever done for us?
October 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
3 nice things about the States:
They treated their indigenous people with gracious respect
They revered their soils, forests and lakes as if it were their mother
They welcomed their brothers and sisters from Africa with open arms and open hearts
I could go on and on .. such a proud history of tolerance and enlightened action
God Bless the big A
Now Shundra, three nice things about the Greens?
October 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I sure don’t hate the USA, where I lived for many years. I love the friendliness of most people, the ability to do pretty much as one wants and to connect with communities of interest no matter how obscure. The food and culture are fantastic. There is more to do than I can talk about.
I do despise US foreign policy however, which is the problem most have and that you misrepresent as hatred. What a naive post. I particularly like this bit:
“One I will offer is when the USA had the power to totally dominate the world they didn’t, due to their entrenched beliefs on freedom and liberty.”
That you know so little about how the US dominates says it all. To name just a few, what about:
- WTO
- World Bank
- IMF
- 800 military bases overseas
The most that can be said is that the US has a slight preference for democracy overseas, so long as it is aligned with US policy. Where it isn’t aligned, the US has never hesitated to replace it with something repressive. There are so many examples.
All empires are dangerous and dominate as they are able, just the means change. There’s a famous quote from early last century that I can’t find at the moment about how the US wouldn’t make the mistake of occupying countries, as it was so wasteful of resources. Instead they would simply own them. Of course, the US tries to do both these days.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
3 more:
Magilla Gorilla
Peewee Herman
The Little Rascals
October 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Greenfly, the problems you have identified are legitamate but certainly not limited to the USA alone. It is too easy to look at the little picture to justify any pre concieved conclusion about just about anything.
Anti americanism is the necessary default position of those that hold certain ideological beliefs and some may hide this reality by limiting criticism to certain presidents but the reality is a much deeper prejudice.
America has displayed traits in its history that can actually give hope to the human race, all I asked for is for greenies to list 3 of them.
“Now Shundra, three nice things about the Greens?”
OK here goes:
#1 A genuine concern for social justice (application is the issue)
#2 A devotion to living in harmony within the environment around us.
#3 A desire to combat excessive greed in the capitalist system (once again application the issue)
Now 3 nice things about The USA by ANY of the greenies out there.
Have a nice day ya’ alll!
October 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
>>Now Shundra, three nice things about the Greens?
1. They bravely keep the red flag flying.
2. They remind us all what it is like to think as children do.
3. They keep Labour honest. Oh, wait a minute….
October 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Valis
You may think I am naive, but from my study of history, the US invented nuclear weapons first and most definately had the capacity to militarily take over the world, something every previous empire has tried to achieve.
The only reason the USA didn’t was because of their beliefs regarding individual freedom.
Can you honestly say that had the Nazi’s or Soviets been first they would have done the same?
You seem to think that the americans should have sorted out Europe’s problems and never had an influence on world events again, that seems a little naive to me.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
BJ
I did appreciate your “restrained” and very informative post!!
… (having returned home from the Christchurch Greens’ Campaign Launch, where local Green Party Candidates, and local Green Supporters were driven around to the various “Saturday Markets” in a magnificently (and suitably) painted ECan (Environment Canterbury) NEW (biofuel) diesel bus, complete with easy access bike racks front and back.
The day finished up at the Christchurch Arts Centre for serious speeches from local candidates including: Kevin Hague #7 (WestCoast,Tasman), Kennedy Graham #9 (Ilam), and Mojo Mathers #13(ChCh East) all of whom will make excellent Green MPs.
e
October 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Shunda
There was this other little place on the planet… what was it? … Hammer and Sickle insignia on the flag… ? Oh yeah,,, RUSSIA… that’s it…
The US at the VERY end of WWII (the window of opportunity you refer to was about 4 years in length) was quite sick of war, thank you very much.
There were some Generals who wanted to take on the Red Army… there were not a lot of nuclear weapons in the inventory though, the war would have gone on a LONG time and a lot more people would have been killed. Ours as well as theirs. It was NOT a zero cost option. In fact the cost would have been quite damnably high.
The USA was a very different place than it is now. I liked living there THEN, but the failure to keep the egalitarian principles that were in place at the end of that war led to an ever increasing GINI index and increasing social problems. It led to the Kleptocracy that controls it now.
The window closed as the Soviet Union closed the gap and the Cold War ensued. The idea that the US could have “taken over militarily” is so bizarre (given the balance of forces available to both sides at the time) as to be laughable. Just what military college teaches such nonsense anyway?
I don’t know how anyone can pack so many mistakes into so few words.
BJ
October 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“You may think I am naive, but from my study of history, the US invented nuclear weapons first and most definitely had the capacity to militarily take over the world, something every previous empire has tried to achieve.”
Well I have no problem accepting that as a good thing, though see paraphrase of quote in my previous post. There is more than one way to dominate others.
“The only reason the USA didn’t was because of their beliefs regarding individual freedom.”
Absurd if you’re talking about the US government alone. Public opinion would have played a huge part in preventing such a move and for the reasons you say. That governments do often act against the principles people espouse goes without saying.
“Can you honestly say that had the Nazi’s or Soviets been first they would have done the same?”
Of course not, though that is irrelevant. That you even assume this might be the case belies your own ideological blinders. You’re assuming that as I am against one form of oppression, another I might find OK. I would speak out against them all.
“You seem to think that the americans should have sorted out Europe’s problems and never had an influence on world events again, that seems a little naive to me.”
No, I’m simply saying be wary of all great powers. Empires will do what they have always done, which is act in their own interests, to the bloody detriment of others as needed. This is true no matter what their underlying claims to legitimacy, be it divine right, socialist utopia or people’s mandate. And it does not preclude their doing good things too!
The US is little different to other great powers and that it does what it does should not surprise us in the least. Power corrupts as they say and what I find naive is the belief that the US is somehow not subject to this rule because of the principles it espouses.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Freedom and Liberty is long dead in the USA, the only way the American people can take back the USA is through force of arms. The big question i ask is would the US army fire on US citizens. Though it doesn’t matter since the US government has done deals with both the Canadian government and the Mexican government to supply troops in the case of “civil” unrest in the US.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
turnip 28 writes:
“the US government has done deals with both the Canadian government and the Mexican government to supply troops in the case of “civil” unrest in the US.”
Could we have your original references to this?
As one who lived and worked in Canada for years, including at a Canadian Armed Services Base, I find the idea of a “cut and dried” deal of this nature very hard to believe.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Sorry to ruffle your feathers guys but you seem to be very selective in your study of history.
You may believe other country’s would have filled the power vacum after WW2 better than the USA but I don’t. Infact you need to work out how the US got into this situation in the first place, namely stopping another country’s ambition for world domination.
With the loss of life that the US suffered to sort out the rest of the worlds problems, I kind of understand why the US wants a finger in every pie.
May be this is why the liberal agenda in our education system is conveniently ignoring the fact that world war 2 even happened cause it makes america look nice and evil.
Its this sort of limited understanding of how the modern world came to be that is sending the world back to the same environment as before WW2.
America has made mistakes but what is remarkable is that they haven’t made more than they have.
You guys may believe the US is the cause of the worlds problems but I think that is a very foolish position to hold.
Power abhors a vacum and the downfall of the USA would only herald the rise of another world power to take its place.
America is not the great satan you make it out to be it has problems to be sure, but there are aspects that have made them the great nation they are that we could all learn from, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Where my “tiny peer group” means “wealthy people in wellington that I live near but philosophically share very little with”, then perhaps. Try less demeaning and assumptive, please?
No it doesn’t, it happens either way- the inelastic good just adjusts more slowly. The only time demand increases as prices goes up is “giffin goods”, which are a very rare case and practically speaking doesn’t occur.
Excuse me? You do not demand this standard from National or Labour, and they try MANY unfounded new ideas.
Our guess is that it’s worth trying and that it would have positivie social and economic consequences. Ideology gaps do this, but at least the promise that we won’t drive ahead if it’s clearly not working is a lot more than you ever get from our larger friends.
I’ve already seen the costs worst-cased in regards to addressing climate change in a global sense and they are nowhere near that bad. Let me see if I can remember where I found them. Basically you’re assuming the economy would collapse because of an extra tax burden when evidence shows it only slows down at worst, and if spending is efficient it can actually speed up. We’ll try for efficient spending. It might not be on things you agree with, but thus is the way that political parties work.
Again, you assume you know better than me what the market will do. The reality is that neither of us will know and that we both have anecdotal experience of people both demonstrating and not-demonstrating this phenomenon. The market is not uniform- different people with different values and means will make different decisions. We can actually BOTH be right and green economics could still be viable. You’ve not dismissed my argument, you’ve just acknowledged that you’re not open-minded enough to consider it. Different things.
Green is certainly not the only option. But it becoming increasingly popular, even among the skeptical. Even people who think we’ve got it completely wrong about the lightbulbs love our insulation plans or take the bus, and plenty of other small encroachments into green principles. I have no doubt that economic incentives would dramatically increase those trends.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
When you dictate the topic of conversation, of course it’s going to turn to things WE don’t like about the USA- because most people have mixed feelings about everything. We DO like the USA, but we like different things about it than you do.
I like the USA for founding one of the first independent democracies of the world.
I like the USA for its commitment to excellence.
I like the USA because Americans don’t give up hope, they keep battling and trying and trying.
I like the USA because it’s a giant marketplace of ideas and thoughts, even if the republicans want to quash down the ones that aren’t commercial-democratic.
I like the USA because they care about the rural towns, and the little people, and they know that you don’t always need an education to build something good.
I like the USA because of the inspiring black americans who gave so much- and who continue the fight- in their struggle for human rights to be brought to and maintained at the level of equality.
I like the USA because of the gay, lesbian, transgender, and otherwise queer americans fighting on the front lines of the battle against bigotry, and not giving in even in the heart of evangelical America.
I like the USA because they actually get that deregulating power to local governments is important- even the conservatives.
I like the USA because of their staunch independence.
I like the USA because of my very dear friends there.
I like the USA, because like me, many of their citizens hold the integrity government so close to their hearts it’s more like a religion than a civic duty.
I think eleven should be enough, right?
October 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Here you go
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8ce f-902a1d14879d&k=14984
October 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Hey Shunda - thanks for the green-praise. You seem a reasonable bloke, but your assumption that green thinkers are anti America is really faulty. My guess is that any activities that fail to make the ‘green mark’ are regarded poorly by greens, no matter which person or country might be involved. America claims our attention constantly (they’re kinda in our face) and so you’d expect criticism to come from alert thinkers. Minor potentates in obscure prefectures don’t demand the same scrutiny, though they may be doing worse things.
BluePeter, master of the cliched slur, tell me this, if you can answer straight, you like to use the red/green, watermelon image freely, but what colour do you expect the greens to be on the inside, given that ‘beneath the skin’ represents ’social conscience’? If you say, ‘green’ then tell me what you believe a green view to be on, say, education or justice. One little sensible example would be enough for me to know if you have any real thoughts and are not just pot-shotting. If you think another colour goes better with a green skin, please expand. We (I at least) yearn to learn your thoughts. It clearly bothers you.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Shunda and others,
Getting back to the theme of this thread “Peace, Justice, Truth and Hip Hop” (and following on from bj’s post) … a few comments:
Remember Napoleon?
His “greatest Army on Earth” (at that time) was defeated … by the vast distances, and the Russian winter.
Hitler tried similar tactics … and, as one young adult German told me in the 1960’s, “Thank goodness Hitler didn’t win WW2″, or he and all other young males of military age would have been out there still … “policing the joint”!
Now we humans have another very dangerous “enemy” that we urgently need to concentrate upon, and (at least) reach a “truce” with, and that is *Anthropogenic Global Warming. (*anthropogenic = human induced)
Hopefully THIS battle will draw us all closer together …
However, without BIG attitudinal changes, somehow I doubt it!
(For example, it would be a good start if some of our visitors to frogblog, could get rid of their belligerence and “one up” attitudes …
The question is will they at least try to do this ?)
eredwen
October 4th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Shunda barunda Says:
October 4th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
> With the loss of life that the US suffered to sort out the rest of the worlds problems, I kind of understand why the US wants a finger in every pie.
This would be about 400 000 deaths in World War 2, which is slightly fewer than the number of lives lost by Britain, a much smaller country. You might argue that Britain was under attack, but they weren’t for the first few years of the war. Germany offered a non-agression pact with Britain, but Britain didn’t wait to see if they meant it, but instead fought from the start to protect countries like Poland, France and the Netherlands, with the loss of 4 times as many soldiers per capita as the USA.
But that pales beside China and the USSR, both of which lost more than 20 million people in the fight against the Axis powers - that’s fifty times as many as the USA. But did we therefore say we support the governments of China and the USSR, we love them, we’ll do anything they want? No, of course not. We didn’t ally ourselves with them, because there were certain aspects of their policies and methods that we found distasteful. And I’m sure you would agree that we were right not to ally ourselves with them postwar for that reason. Yet you suggest that, sixty years later, we owe support to US government policies because of the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in the fight against the Axis powers (which was only 2% of the number of Russians or Chinese killed)?
October 4th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Shunda says:
“Power abhors a vacuum and the downfall of the USA would only herald the rise of another world power to take its place.”
I reply:
“History teaches that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
1. Don’t underestimate the part of the World that seems to have learned from its (repeated) mistakes and now has reached a maturity, and an ability to cooperate, that appears to be “second to none” …
Its name is “EUROPE”.
2. With our ability to communicate with each other, all around the World, now, surely we can make the changes needed to eliminate armed conflict.
Our concepts of “we” and “they” used to apply to the next village …
Then it grew to the next fortified castle …
Then to the next small country …
Now with the internet we can have conversations and swap images almost immediately with people from very far away.
This MUST have an influence on our Youth that we have always relied upon to “go out and kill “them”.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Shunda,
just as an aside:
My only sibling (and his family) have lived and worked in California USA for decades now. They are all Citizens of the USA. They are all Greens.
The USAan Greens think very much like the Aotearoa/NZ Greens. Does that make them “disloyal to their country” in your eyes ?
October 4th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Shunda
I suggest that you take a hike over to Moscow and examine the war memorial there, study the war from THEIR point of view. You think it was America that beat Germany??? You think America suffered a lot? Kindly learn a little MORE history.
As for the likelihood that China will take over as the USA falters, I reckon it a better than even chance if everything stays the same.
It won’t. As warming progresses the Chinese will be in strife to feed their billions. The stable progression from one empire to the next may well be disrupted. So I can’t even guess the odds. Surely they will figure importantly in what is to happen in the next century.
BJ
October 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Incidentally …
apparently because of the attitudes and behaviour of the current President and his Adminstration, many Californians are now referring to their State as “Baja Canada” !!
October 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Wow really stirred up a hornets nest this time.
bjchip said
“I suggest that you take a hike over to Moscow and examine the war memorial there, study the war from THEIR point of view.”
What, the point of view of colaborating with nazi Germany to carve up Poland? the soviets could have ended the war before it begun if they weren’t thinking of what was in it for them, then again they were already very efficient at killing their own by that time so you could hardly expect a “moral response”, my understanding of history is just fine. And I never said China was going to take over the world, thats your idea.
Eredwen its great you think Europe has matured to “world leader” status, but quite frankly they couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag. Islam is quietly finally taking over Europe now, actually some people believe that France already ceases to fully function as an independant state due to the consessions they have made to radical islam.
Europe would be about the dimest its ever been as far as leadership potential goes, the reason they don’t fight is cause they don’t believe in anything anymore.
Ari some great comments there about the good ol US.
However you did display your ignorance on those evangelical christians, which is common on this blogg. The bigotry and misunderstanding shown to this group of Americans is astounding, people seem to lap up all the lies and misinformation from extreme left wing media without the slightest hint that maybe they have an agenda to push.
You would probably be suprised to hear that a good (and growing) proportion of “evangelicals” are leading the charge of the green movement in the US but you won’t hear that from the PC brigade.
Give the Christians a break and stop trying to stuff them in the closet.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Ok Shunda, give us the gen on the green evangelicals. What are they doing? Give us a link or a real example, I’m sure we are all keen to see if there is substance to your claims.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Greenfly here is a link to the details of a conferance I was invited to last week while I was in the states.
http://www.eastern.edu/campus/student_activities/Renewal%20Summit.html
I will find some other links if people are interested, I could even post some articals if people really want to know the true nature of the evangelical church, some greenies would be quite suprized I am sure!
October 4th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Shunda,
I find your post rather confusing
Am I correct in assuming that you are an advocate of fighting as a way to sort out problems?
Does this “fighting” include the use of the increasingly appalling weapons now available (or being developed)?
How does this “death and destruction” fit with your apparent evangelical Christian faith?
(What would Jesus have thought about this approach I wonder.)
October 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
eredwen
I have had an interest in studying war for some time now and I most certainly do not see fighting as the best way to resolve problems.
Due to the incredible destruction to life and property that war causes we should avoid it as much as possible.
The problem is humanity in all history has never been free from warfare so any belief on how to live in peace is all theoretical.
What I have learned is when war becomes inevitable it needs to be done as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to save lives.
The tradgedy of WW2 is that it could have been over in weeks if the UK and France had of attacked instead of waiting during the “phoney war” giving Hitler the time he needed. Millions of lives would have been saved with the strategic use of force.
My faith does not support warfare against people of any race or religion but rather the principles that lead to divisions among people.
My understanding of the faith I hold is that humanity left to its own devices will tend to destroy itself through a number of different ways, but destroying people is never a way to bring about positive change.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Greenfly I posted a link for you but it hasn’t appeared for some reason, it will probably turn up soon.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Shunda
What happened with Poland had nothing to do with the end result except that it gave the Russians a little time to prepare.
Maybe you think that that preliminary to the war means that they didn’t fight? They fought. They got hurt. A lot more than the USA got hurt.
Stalin knew ( it takes one to know one ) that he was dealing with one of the worst dictators in history. He made mistakes, he managed to get a lot of his people killed unnecessarily (The Russian side of this is one horrible and fascinating study). Stalin knew however, that what he had at the start wasn’t enough to fight Hitler with, and that part at least, he got right.
All *I* said was that the Russians bore the brunt of the war for a long time. The Allied invasion that opened a second front didn’t happen until 1944. Russia was where the fighting was fiercest, the Russian front was where the German army was actually beaten and broken.
I never said that Stalin was good. Just that Russian suffering exceeded US suffering by a substantial margin, You aren’t giving full credit to that part of history.
***********
What you said was that power abhors a vacuum and that is true.
Someone else will step in when the US falls, and that is also true.
The idea that it will be China that steps in is a natural follow-through,
though Russia may well give it a run. I don’t care…
My point was that there may not be that clean a transition. The world will be seeing serious environmental consequences over the next 4 decades… and this may confuse the result. The “power” may not exist to fill the vacuum.
As for the US Evangelical movement… it is one of my primary reasons for leaving the country. Creationism. Anti-Science…. Willful-Ignorance… and support for illegal wars, as long as the enemy combatants are largely of the Islamic faith. The fact that some of them have finally recognized that the planet is in danger on account of us does not in any measure excuse them in my eyes, for their unwillingness to think for themselves or allow anyone ELSE to think for themselves.
There are large parts of the USA where if it were known that I am an atheist my life, the lives of my family and all my possessions would be at risk. That’s a hell of a lot of intolerance and closed-mindedness.
BJ
You have a “funny” point of view and your understanding of history seems to have some distinct discontinuities.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Shunda
Chances are that the link will appear in the morning when someone gets to checking the posts the automated filters catch. Links often (but not always, and the heuristic is obscure) trigger the filters. We have all been caught out by the filters, but we don’t get a lot of spam in the blog.
respectfully
BJ
October 5th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Shunda: If that’s true, good for them. I know there are certainly some religious groups who have picked up environmental responsibility as a religious duty, and I applaud them for their good morals. That said, many religious groups believe in things that conflict with green philosophy, so I hope I’m welcome to keep my reservations about, say, the catholic church’s views on birth control
My two primary objections to evangelical groups in America are rather straightforward: They persecute LGBT americans under the veil of “defending traditional marriage”, and they think that the state can mandate general religiousness, or “judeo-christian values”, (including the “creationist” pseudoscience BJ mentions that isn’t even a falsifiable scientific theory. As science teachers have become fond of saying, it’s “not even wrong”) on those it governs without breaching the separation of church and state. Both of which are ignorant and prejudicial views of their fellow americans who work hard and just ask to be free to live their lives without the government mandating a straight judeo-christian society to them.
Don’t even get me started on the weird attitude they have that the bible mandates an aggressive defense of Israel or else the world will end…
October 5th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Ari,
>>Where my “tiny peer group” means “wealthy people in wellington
Green consumerism is limited to a small sector of the middle class. I’ve undertaken work for a firm targeting this market.
The point is, this consumer group is niche. You’d need to demonstrate that New Zealand could effectively target this market AND we earn enough income from it to replace our existing markets. I don’t think the numbers are there, but if you have data that demonstrates this, I’d like to see it.
>>Excuse me? You do not demand this standard from National or Labour, and they try MANY unfounded new ideas.
Yes, I do.
>>The reality is that neither of us will know and that we both have anecdotal experience of people both demonstrating and not-demonstrating this phenomenon
It’s not that difficult to measure what people actually do, compared to what they say they might do.
>>you’re not open-minded enough to consider it
I do consider it.
I’ve yet to see any numbers that would indicate that NZ could have an eco-driven fiscal policy and retain our standard of living.
NZ makes money by growing things more efficently and cheaper than others. The farmers, who might be exaggerating, say they would need to cut herd sizes by 70% to meet projected emissions standards. Farming may fast become uneconomic. What do you replace that income with? Or do we remove agriculture from Kyoto? I suspect we’ll be doing the latter.
NZ should be developing an IP export culture, but I see little evidence of this occurring. We’d need to be much more pro-business and pro-R&D for this to occur. We don’t, though, because New Zealanders are in love with socialism.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:34 am
The Standard posted the following NZ rankings this week, which I believe come from think tanks in the States and Europe. They include:
Economic freedom - 3rd in the world
Low compliance costs - 1st in the world
Corruption (govt) - 1st in the world
How much more pro-business do we need to be? This has led to the “dairy till we die” trajectory we’re currently on. Will you be satisfied when there’s NO clean water left in the country? What kind of crash will that cause? There has to be a middle ground that doesn’t require us to trash our assets on the way to getting there. You like to talk about cost. Well these costs are just too high.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Starting a business here is easy. Maintaining one is a different story. It’s very difficult to compare across markets, but my basis for comparison is NZ vs, as I have experience operating in both markets.
The UK is far more business-friendly. 20% tax rates, a host of write-offs, and it’s much easier to maintain cashflow.
Ask yourself why businesses aren’t relocating to NZ. Are they all that stupid? Or perhaps they find conditions much more palatable in their own neck of the woods.
>>Will you be satisfied when there’s NO clean water left in the country?
Amateur dramatics makes you less credible, not more.
>>Well these costs are just too high.
The quality of our waterways is certainly an issue. But one does need to consider the big picture.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Typo:
NZ vs UK
October 5th, 2008 at 10:19 am
“>>Will you be satisfied when there’s NO clean water left in the country?
Amateur dramatics makes you less credible, not more.
>>Well these costs are just too high.
The quality of our waterways is certainly an issue. But one does need to consider the big picture.”
I read that new water allocations will be exhausted by 2012 which is essentially tomorrow. Water IS part of the big picture in this country and in much of the world. You’ll have more credibility in this blog when you begin to factor in these sort of costs to your equations.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
New Zealand water quality is high by world standards. tinyurl.com/53hrlg
I generally agree with efforts to clean up out waterways, but the Greens, as usual, take the worst case scenario, then go beyond it into fantasyland.
A sense of perspective is needed.
On the flip-side, 23% of New Zealand’s total export income comes from dairy, let alone other agricultural endevour. You have to be very careful about loading these area with costs.
Less income from these areas means less money available for, say, public hospitals, education and social welfare.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
bjchip,
You seem to be implying that Stalin’s deal with Hitler was in reality a cunning plan to buy time to prepare for an inevitable conflict. This is quite incorrect: Stalin believed absolutely he had avoided war, and enslaved half of Poland into the bargain. It was only later that the myth was propagated that the deal was a clever subterfuge.
Valis,
- “Economic freedom - 3rd in the world
Low compliance costs - 1st in the world
Corruption (govt) - 1st in the world
How much more pro-business do we need to be? ”
“Economic freedom” does not equate to “pro-business.” Quite the reverse in fact, because a free market favours the consumer rather than the producer.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
BluePeter - did I miss your response to the question of colour? I’m hanging out to hear what you think a green ’should be underneath’. You’d like the Greens to be, like an avocado, green through and through, so tell me, what do you think a green education policy, or justice or trade policy looks like?
October 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Wat
Whatever was going through Stalin’s excuse for a mind neither of us, nor my Russian wife, are actually going to know. The Russians had a long history of hating the Poles (given the Polish treatment of Russia even further back). I’ve read several versions of that history and the clear problem that he did not trust his military leaders and had many of the best of them shot, is manifest. Whether he was cagey enough to play cards with Adolph is merely a debatable speculation. I think he was crazy like a fox and that he did…. but I don’t think that it matters.
My point was and is, that Russians fought and died to defeat Hitler’s Army to a far greater extent than Americans or British. Neither the US nor Britain received an invasion on their own soil. No matter WHAT Stalin thought or didn’t think, those are OBJECTIVE truths that cannot be denied and should not be ignored to the extent that Shunda apparently does ignore it. It is entirely likely that the Russians would have rolled into Berlin without any invasion on our part, just another year or so later.
It is also entirely likely that they would not have stopped in Berlin if the Allied armies had not been in place in western Europe.
respectfully
BJ
October 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am
What do I “think a green ’should be underneath’”?
I’m not interested in “being Green”, because “being Green” appears to me to be a hi-jacking of environmental causes to give a palatable front to the far-left.
The desire for a good environment cuts across all political persuasions. An environmental party should be just at home with ACT as it would be with Labour as the end game should be about raising environmental standards.
But you’ve made your bed. Your social agenda is more important to you, and you’re aligned with Labour.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Blue Peter - given that Greens hold the Environment as their main platform, where all other parties do not, you’d expect that the foundations of their environmental views would be consistent and shape their policies in other areas (eg Education). And they do. You call them ‘red’ but you are mistaken. I’d like you say what you believe a green party should put foward in any of these other areas. You can do it. You’ve been very vocal expressing your disdain, now show that you are a thinker.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
>>hold the Environment as their main platform
Really?
>>foundations of their environmental views would be consistent and shape their policies in other areas
Smacking has nothing to do with the environment. It is not related in the slightest. It’s about parenting and rights.
>>And they do. You call them ‘red’ but you are mistaken.
Some might be fooled, but I’m not.
>>I’d like you say what you believe a green party should put foward
A Green Party should put forward a far left agenda. I see that have no problems doing that.
An environmental party, on the other hand….
>>now show that you are a thinker.
Cute!
What do you think of fast tracking renewable energy projects through the RMA? Encouraging tree planting? Boost R&D in agriculture to find new mays of managing runoff and emissions? Resource use based on sustainability? Exempting ethanol and biofuel from road user charges? Exemption of electric cars from road user charges?
October 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
My post just got quarantined….
October 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I can certainly see BP, that you’re not interested in ‘being Green’, but that’s not what I’m asking. You’ve inferred that the Greens are not consistent, that they are running two ’stories’ a green and a red. To make matters worse, you say that the ‘green face’ is false and is masking a ideology of a different colour. We hear your subplot in your every post, so please don’t repeat ad nauseum. Have a go at answering the question. You are forever demanding detail from the Green posters here - how about some from you?
October 5th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I tried, but the thought police have ruled my views are not to be heard, in this instance
Not very liberal, really….
October 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Yeah right. Try again without the slurs perhaps? Try reasoned and reasonable argument.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Greenfly, I replied to you, but my post got quarantined. I don’t know how to dumb it down any further? It won’t show up in this thread until Frog releases it.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I await with bated breath
nice little slur slipped in there BP
October 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
bjchip,
I don’t think there is much in the way of evidence to support the later Soviet propaganda that Stalin was cleverly delaying an inevitable attack on Russia. He was caught completely by surprise, after having dismissed explicit warnings from spies in Germany.
And whilst it’s true th