Tumeke Blunders

Although a consistent reader of that emphatic critic Martin "Bomber" Bradbury's blog Tumeke, it is with great surprise and sadness that I read Tim Selwyn's ill-thought through response to a post on FrogBlog.

The Green party blog attempted an - I admit somewhat silly - argument on how 1.5billion invested into ultra-fast internet would be wasted money. They argue this on the grounds that: 1. There is no need for such fast speeds. 2. Attention should not be taken away from those consumers who only need the very basics of broadband 3. the economic benefits are uncertain and 4. international bandwidth is the bottleneck.

Selwyn utterly discredited himself with his response:

the Greens are proving once again that they are at their core nothing more than modern day 'Flat Earthers' and that they will use any argument at all (even if it is internally incoherent) in order to align everything to their mantra of stasis

Such knee-jerk reactions are usually loathed on Tumeke. But he gets even worse. In response to the Greens claim

We tend to think that more of a good thing is better and that the things which worked well for us in the past will continue to work well in the future. I see ‘ultra fast broadband’ as a small part of that pattern, along with SUVs, iPads (with $30/mo 3G connection!) transmission gully and Airbus A320s. I see blindness about infinite economic growth on a finite planet (with it’s side effects of climate change and peak oil) as part of that too.

Sometimes, more is just not necessary and simply becomes an extra burden to carry

...Selwyn comments...

This is so moronic it is no wonder the four arguments put up to support the proposition were so flawed. Do they deserve to be in parliament? It is one thing to claim that sometimes more of a good thing isn't better - it's just a burden (we may agree this could apply to chocolate, cocaine, fossil fuel devouring engines and so on); but to claim that this applies to the speed of the internet - the flow of communications and the means of displacing wasteful alternatives (eg. having to commute to work) - is possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever heard from a political party.

I do not presume to defend FrogBlog's argument. And in part I agree with Selwyn: the communication of information is now one of the major crutches of the developed world. Business especially hinges their success on their tele-communication abilities.

What I have trouble with is the "moronic" nature of Selwyn's response. He has jumped straight onto the old bandwagon of painting the Green party as out-of-touch lunatics, putting no thought into what the backdrop to their argument is.

It is always difficult to play the prophet, but the Green party correctly understand the trap that is technology - even technology that seems such a blessing. Whether they are correct in their specific suspicion of the pursuit for greater, and faster internet is questionable. But they can see how the world can no longer sustain itself on the amazing technologies that have offered little except short-term consumer satisfaction and greater Co2 levels in the atmosphere. Their place in parliament is to push the reality than we can no longer think of "more, bigger, faster, better" in terms that are parallel or synonymous with prosperity and happiness. We don't know how much of a trap our evolving tele-communications technology can be, just as the early architects of industrialism couldn't see the dangers that lay in the assembly line, or the factory. But - even if they are wrong - the Green party is still trying to look through the darkness, to offer something constructive.

And for that, Tim Selwyn, they deserve more respect. I expect better from Tumeke.

Kick er in the guts, it'll kick back.

No. Despite what those at the top - like yourself (and a certain Mr. Henry) - tend to believe, New Zealander's are not stupid Mr. Farrar.

Things are not as they seem. New Zealanders are hanging onto National by a thread. They're not clinging to the right-wing party they voted in, they're clinging to the hope inherit in the image National painted. And National better deliver.

I hope that our government shows more concern for democracy and the wellbeing of our citizenry than you do. You have openly endorsed a government to follow radical policies on which they were not elected. Policies which New Zealanders are tired of, which have proven to be destructive, and which would ultimately just make you richer.

You attempt to legitimize your position by saying "I don't mean do stuff you (National) said you would not do". Unfortunately that still leaves pretty much everything on the table, including what David Cunliffe calls 'p' word: privatization. National's pre-election policies were a lolly scramble of "er, well yes, we'll get to that when we get to that. But hey, economic growth!". By not saying what they would do, there is nothing National said they would not do. As far as privatization is concerned, the rhetoric from Key has been "I have never said I am philosophically opposed to asset sales. It does not form a part of the government agenda for this term."

The reality is that should John Key at any time even snore "privatisation" in his sleep, he would drop dramatically in the polls. New Zealanders are not stupid.

I used to think they were, to be honest. But I have been proven wrong. They think hard about issues. They are a decent, hopeful, and faithful people. They are not a nation of people who - as you presume - simply do not listen to the opposition ("the public is not listening to [Labour]"). We cannot assume New Zealanders are so ignorant to not listen to the opposition. They are listening, but Labour is not being heard. Instead of blaming the public perhaps we should - for once - hold those whose job it is to be the communicators and interpreters responsible.

New Zealanders are not stupid. They are waiting to see if National delivers on the change it promised and, more importantly the change they believed they were voting for. They are waiting for Phil Goff to "come out of his shell" and "develop". The vote is not weighing to National at the moment because they're doing such a standup job. It is stuck in a holding pattern: status quo until we see how this lot turn out.

So, Mr Farrar, you have given your endorsement for a democratically elected government to exploit the votes and faith of the people and follow a radical agenda. If this is what you long for, fuck off to Zimbabwe.

Actually, you know what? Let National follow these radical policies you are so eager for, let them test the intelligence and sensibilities of the nation. Go on, "rev it up, and take it out for a spin". Let's see how long they last when private companies begin drilling in Fiordland. Let us see if your audacity is sustainable then. I, unlike you, understand that everything - wealth, the environment, the economy - is temporary. There is nothing you can accomplish from this other than gifting National a very short spell in office.

So let them off the leash and privatize away. Make your money my friend... I'll enjoy watching the shit fall from a great height.

Battle for MMP: Complacency

The Standard Marty G's brief and limp-wristed sneer towards Simon Powers' MMP Referendum Announcement is probably intended to be no more than a "oh.. shit is about to get heavy around he'a" piece. I can understand this. But nonetheless its geeky and powerless targeting of National distracts Marty from the realities at play, and he ultimately fails to say anything productive or convincing about the electoral system he (behind a poor attempt at neutrality) supports.

I will state right now that I favor MMP, and for me, this is no time for complacency. Marty says "I can see MMP winning at the first stage although there will certainly be a massive campaign from big business and National for FPP's step-brother SM" That is right, there will be. It will be a shitstorm. All the momentum, in the media, in society, is flowing to the right and when big business is mobilised it performs blitzkrieg surgery on the polls. Those of us who support MMP cannot in any way afford to presume its success. Because this is not a small issue. It's not just another political issue to raise the nations temperature. It is democracy. It is constitutional. We shouldn't be lulling MMP supporters to sleep with "I can see MMP winning at the first stage". We need them to vote!

So from now until the referendum, I don't one more 'left' blog conclude with "It's going to be up to the left to remind people of why we chose MMP, and expose the interests of the people who want to get rid of it."

Marty, screw saying it. Supporters of MMP need to start right now, and - building on my presumption - you should too. Come out with guns firing. Remind people. Goddamn it, bloggers are already reminding people, bloggers who have an infinitely smaller readership that yourself. You have the power to change peoples minds. In the words of Bill Hicks 'this is not the time to get coy'.

And I would caution the approach that MMP supporters should both protect MMP and attack the interests of the right at the same time. The latter seems futile, and will only confuse the message with "well, um, this is what the right wants.. and uh.. they have ties to big business and, er, but .. MMP means that we have .. um". No. Keep it short, and keep it simple: "more democracy". More democracy. The focus should not only be on retaining MMP, but enhancing it.

I mean, let's be realists here. What is a more intelligent, realistic option: overhauling our entire electoral system again, dragging kiwis through the strife of learning to vote again, Finding out all the horrible little parliamentary quirks and flaws of an entirely new system for another sixteen years; or, keeping the system we voted in, and improving it? That is the message that will sell. The government will put forward the question, and that is the realistic, pragmatic answer.

So to Marty, and all others, instead of looking to close the doors in the face of monsters that appear - the monsters of ignorance and self-interest - open new doors instead. Show New Zealanders their options instead of merely stating "well, durr Mr. Powers, of course it will be the same as in 1992, geez, whats wrong with ya, we all know what's going to happen, sheesh!" That might soothe your frustration in the short term, but is ultimately unproductive.

I don't know how anyone can see MMP winning through the first round. I can't see past next week in this issue. All I can see is a hell of a battle coming, this is no time to be complacent.

Fantail's Blog (also linked above) provides one excellent example of how MMP supporters can build a productive and constructive argument for MMP.

From Frogblog

I wish to quote a post from Frogblog in full:

A few Quotes from John Key - Pre Election
“National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad – bad for the world and bad for our economy. We will have policy that encourages ‘climate friendly’ choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for ‘climate unfriendly’ behaviours, like burning coal”

“Any political party with an eye to New Zealand’s future success must pursue policies that protect and promote our environmental assets.”

“National will provide Kiwis with good signals about the cars that are the best for the environment. We will do this by ensuring our emission and noise standards for new vehicles keep up with international standards and practices and by introducing more sophisticated emissions and noise testing for existing vehicles. If Kiwis have a highly polluting or excessively noisy car, we think they should know about it and have an incentive to do something about it”

“National proudly shares many of your values: like you, we want to protect our unique native species. We want our children and grandchildren to be able to swim in our rivers and lakes. We believe in sound environmental science. We are committed to high environmental standards”

“Government policy decisions over the next few years will have consequences that keep reverberating not just for the next 10 or 20 years but for the next 50 and beyond. So it’s vital we get them right.”

and lastly:

“We should always measure a government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record”

Thanks to Forest and Bird for pulling these together.

So how are those nice words stacking up? Well, so far National has:

• Announced ETS Review to find out if climate change is real
• Repealed Biofuel Bill, including sustainability standard
• Scrapped “Love NZ” public place recycling
• Scrapped $1bn insulation fund
• Introduced the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act, which, amongst other things, prohibits councils from making general rules about trimming or felling trees.
• Hiked the fee for commencing appeal or inquiry proceedings in the Environment Court from $55 to $500, so community groups can’t afford to file against environmentally damaging projects.
• Cut funding to Enviroschools
• Cut funding to the Department of Conservation, including natural heritage management
• Cut funding to the Ministry for the Environment
• Cut funding for fisheries sustainability, biosecurity
• Refused to stop the import of palm kernel, despite overwhelming evidence and public outcry
• Opposed (and killed) Marine Animals Bill
• Introduced terrible ETS Bill
• Budget for environmental education: cancelled.
• Renewable electricity preference: cancelled.
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy: cancelled
• Fuel economy standards for cars entering New Zealand: cancelled
• Minimum energy performance standards for appliances: seriously delayed
• DoC’s budget: cut by $13.5m/year
• Plans to mine in National Parks

I’m seeing a wee disconnect here. Are you?

Confessions of a Pollster

Without saying too much, I will state now that polls are extremely easy to bias towards any party or individual in a way that is veiled when the results are viewed on the six o'clock news. For now, I have three insights:

1) Questions based on policy to receive a desired answer

Many questions are designed to receive an obvious answer. That is, the citizen stating a Party or individual in response to the question, regardless of whether or not they would vote for them. Many of these questions are focussed around party policy. For example, let's pretend in a hypothetical poll that somebody is asked 'who do you trust to lower tax rates?'. Based purely on policy the answer is always going to be John Key and National (or ACT, but people tend to focus on the major parties in polls), even if the individual had not voted for National in 2008 and had no intention to 2011. Yet, their answer counts towards John Key and his poll numbers look happier on the news. I would find this phenomenon much more fascinating should I encounter the question "who do you think is more likely to sell off state assets to foreign and private organizations?" You tell me what the difference is.

2) Polls veil hesitancy

In my experience a great number of 'pollees' have displayed enormous hesitancy when answering questions where a choice was offered between Labour and National - except of course if the question is designed in a manner similar to point 1. There is greater public doubt towards the Government than polls are portraying, at least enough to begin to balance the weight of incompetence placed on Goff. It is often expressed that one really cannot tell at the moment, and would have to wait and see if Goff matures as a leader before they decide their vote. This is a very warming display by the New Zealand public. Yet once pushed into a choice they go with the fuzzy newly elected PM they've seen on Letterman, and hesistantly 'well... if I had to make a choice... National.' Another point for National at Six O'clock.

3) Polls can be racially unbalanced

This is down to the person conducting the poll. It is easier to phone a sheet of 'Brown's, 'Gough's, and 'Anderson's than 'Ogbonmwan's, 'Dhambizao's, and 'Venkatarama's. That is just the way it is. You are unsure whether the person answering will be able to speak much English, and the fear of struggling with culture differences over the phone can force one to move on to a more Anglo-Saxon list. This is, sadly, the way it is.

We still have eyes

John Key is certainly not saving himself - or his family - any personal pride in his attempts to snuggly concrete his image as a 'peoples-man'. We can look at these efforts in much the same way we can look at New Zealand's environmental efforts: secure the brand of being 'clean and green', and once everyone believes it, just do whatever you want. I'm sure that once Key has his adorably simple face has finished creating warm fuzzies for the public, he will be more liberated to follow an agenda that he will get away with.

Why else would he become a gauffing seal on the Letterman show, or par take in events such as this? Why, because it is all part of the blind-folding of course. One endearing act at a time, as long as he keeps showing us what a modest, good-keen-kiwi he is, he believes we will eventually be blind.

Well, I'm sorry John, but you're just looking like a douche. If you want to lower yourself and perform tricks to charm the public, at least have some class and style about it, like your desperate Conservative reflection in Canada.

PR for Canada

I've been spending a fair bit of personal energy advocating Canadian electoral reform. Currently Canada is still burdened with the archaic First Past the Post electoral system, which New Zealand scrapped in 1993.

Canada has a multiplicity of ethnic and migrant voices which are simply not being represented under the current system. There is a substantial concentration of indigenous population in the the Western and Northern provinces, an enormous Ukrainian settlement in Edmonton and rural Alberta which has been there for around 100 years, but is constantly pushed aside by the Conservative vote, and the most multicultural city in the world, Toronto.

Numerous parliaments have collapsed in recent years. The FPP system is struggling to function as coalition governments are pieced together - something the system is not designed for. The Canadian vote is demanding fair representation, the current system is no longer working, and Canada now faces the prospect of a potential fourth general election in five years. Canada is to benefit from Proportional Representation.

If you're keen to support Canadian's in their struggle to get their votes heard, a simple start would be to join the Fair Vote Canada facebook group, and visit their website.

Climate Change Panel

Tonight I attended a student organised panel discussion at Vic on Climate Change Economics. On the panel was Russel Norman, Ganesh Nana, and Vic ENVI lecturers Sean Weaver and Ralph Chapman.

The turn out was really good, all seats being occupied. But I took little away from the discussion that I didn't already know, and I had a similar feeling for those around me. Really, for the knowledge to be gained from that discussion which ranged from (start to finish) NZs 2020 Emissions Reduction Target to investment in a green economy, the wrong crowd turned up. That is it did not attract the audience that needs to hear about climate change economics, but instead one that is already passionate about fighting global warming... which I suppose is to be expected.

We have students working hard to organise these events and get the voices heard which the media is so skilled at muting. If you see Just Action or 10-20% Pure New Zealand posters or events around Wellington, please go to them. The $0 entry fee is really worth the knowledge gained.

Kia Ora Helen

In a great piece of propaganda, Liberian officials have glowing things to say about the work UNDP Helen Clark is doing on her first visit to their nation:

It's refreshing to hear positive things about Clark after her months of bashing by New Zealand media during her final term as Prime Minister. Unsure about the dramatic music though.

Grr John, Grr.

I just read this utterly hilarious press release from the Libertarianz party:

"John Key's official holiday in Niue has so far included dancing, feasts and drinking kava. When Michael Jones described Noni juice as leaving 'a bad taste, despite being good for you', Key apparently said this was 'A bit like raising taxes,' according to The Dominion Post.

"Hopefully that was just the kava talking, John. Raising taxes isn't good for anybody but the Government! If raising taxes really was "good for you", then we could just hike taxes to 95% and all be that much better off. But the reality is, individuals are much smarter at spending their own money than any government department could be.

"In fact, if we were allowed to keep our hard-earned cash, we might be enjoying ourselves in Niue ourselves right now, rather than reading about John doing so on the taxpayers' tab...

"... Regardless, John, I wish you all the best for the rest of your South Pacific holiday. In fact, stay as long as you can - the less time you spend in Parliament passing laws regulating bread and lightbulbs, the better off we'll be."

While I enjoy reading most criticism of Mr. Key, I'm sure the Libertarianz are actually just having a bit of a laugh. It has to be the only explanation. Even the Bill & Ben party couldn't write material this golden.

A System Fighting Itself?

In the United States seven Democrats have written a letter to the Director of the C.I.A, Leon Panetta accusing the agency of knowingly 'deceiving' Congress (on classified matters) since 2001 until June 2009. If true, this wouldn't be surprising.

My knowledge of American Politics is limited, but I can say this much:

The Post-Bush American bureaucracy is vast, enormous in fact with the C.I.A. and Department for Homeland Security two of it's biggest institutions/departments. There are so many institutions now within the American bureaucratic machine struggling and fighting for stronger political influence that it is to be expected by a cynic (such as myself) that agencies act autonomously against others.

This has been used as a bit of a gag in pop culture. For instance, how many Hollywood cop movies have we seen where the likeable but hard-nosed detective curses the F.B.I. for overtaking his crime scene, before the F.B.I. curse the C.I.A. for confiscating the case off them? How many war films where the Army has scoffed at the Navy's authority? Institutional conflict and autonomy can be a fun tool for entertainment, but it's somewhat darker when applied to real life... when the C.I.A. uses its autonomy to deceive Congress.

I think the matter is a valuable opportunity to ask some questions about the American bureaucracy, the shape of which has changed little since Obama became President in January:

• Is this what the American forefathers intended as 'checks and balances' in the system?

• If government agencies can willfully withold information from the legislature for eight years, how can we believe that - for example - the leader of the executive has the power to influence government institutions to act according to the agenda of the administration, if that insitution is a) as powerful as the C.I.A. and b) has interests that conflict with those of the administrations?
  
  
• To boil it down: With these two questions in mind, is the American bureaucracy efficient and - more importantly - cooperative enough to be trusted to act in a consistently responsible and Democratic manner?
  

If the seven Democrats who are so adament that the C.I.A. has been shamelessly lying to Congress for practically the entire two terms of the Bush Administration are indeed correct, it seems the answer to these questions are cynical.

And the consequences are real life... An agency that supposedly allows Waterboarding of Terror Suspects without Congressional consent comes to mind.

Two Interesting Ideas

I have finally got around to watching two of the most discussed documentaries of recent times: Ross Kemp on Gangs: New Zealand, and Loose Change: An American Coup.

Some quick conclusions :

Ross Kemp

Kemp provides a valuable introduction and mild insights into gang (namely Mongrel Mob) culture in New Zealand. But I couldn't help but conclude that his personal approach contained all of the character of TV3's Money Man. The fact that the documentary was made with an eye on the *gasp* factor for it's British audience was horribly transparent. Kemp does well in his investigations, but is too uneducated in both New Zealand and Maori culture and history to ever really venture beyond the 'introduction' stage. And I very much disliked his conclusion, during which he describes his shock at 'discovering pockets of such savagery in such a civilised nation' (to paraphrase). It seems some discourse doesn't even change in four hundred years. However, having said this he manages to handle the subject with integrity and from an appropriate and (for the most part) objective angle. I would like to see the same subject approached similarly from a New Zealand journalist with an education on New Zealand and Maori culture, for a New Zealand public. The documentary had real merit.

Loose Change

A believable bundle of ideas delivered in an unconvincing package. The documentary attempts to argue that the US Government has lied about all the events of September 11th, 2001, and it was infact the Government which planned and executed the attacks on the WTC, Pentagon, and the 'crash' of Flight 93. The documantry provides evidence that both the North and South Towers of the WTC were brough down from explosions originating in the basement; the Pentagon was struck not by a plane, but by a cruise missile; and that Flight 93 never crashed but landed safetly in Cleveland. It does so with media analysis, scientific invesitgation, and exploiting inconsistencies with supposedly hard evidence that the attacks were executed by terrorists. Once such example of this is an argument that phone calls made from passengers on all four aeroplanes to their loved ones were faked, and constructed by the government using voice-morphing technology.

As I said, much of this evidence is believable. But it is thrown together in such a rag-tag way that it looks as though the producers were glossing over noticable holes in their arguments. Namely, they don't take into consideration any alternatives, which is highly detrimental to the credibility of their argument. The compilation of evidence for their argument consisted of practically anything and everything they could find thrown together, sometimes without explanation for it's inclusion in the debate. So much time is spent trying to draw links between the events and the government, that they never focus enough on what they're actually talking about to concrete their arguments, and thus making the arguments appear silly. Perhaps the filmmakers fell victim for their passion about the subject. Overall, I would suggest this documentary for anyone who has a spare 120 minutes and can't be bothered doing their own research.

My Political Views

My Political Views

I am a left moderate social libertarian
Left: 6.47, Libertarian: 2.58

Foreign Policy:

I scored: -5.51

Culture:
I scored: -8.3

No alarms and no surprises. Take the quiz here.