Politics and Prose

New Zealand First has released a statement on the recent raid that deflated one of the rubber balloons protecting spy ariels at the Waihopai spy base.  I must warn, it might make readers feel dazed, sick or worse.

Firstly, the title “Zaoui’s Mates In Sy Base Fiasco” isn’t even correct spelling.  I don’t know what a sy base is, but it sure sounds sinister.

Then: New Zealand First says the raid on Waihopai spy base by a Dominican friar who sheltered Algerian fugitive Ahmed Zaoui should send shivers up the spine of every security conscious New Zealander.

In other words: old people (who, and let’s be honest, are fearful of everything for no apparent reason).

Law and order spokesperson Ron Mark says there appears to be a “fifth column” of New Zealand activists who should take a long hard look at themselves and where their strange set of values fit into the society they live in.

Again with the “them” versus “us” platform.  And what is a “fifth column” of NZ activists?  In fact, what the first, second, third and fourth columns?  Is this parliamentary lingo or NZ First babble?  I think the latter…

“We wonder if the people who stupidly broke into the base, causing a lot of expensive damage, maintain their links with Mr Zaoui and his ilk. Will the courts give them more terrorist suspects to look after?

Someone aught to remind Ron Mark (who takes any opportunity to stand on his populist soapbox) that Zaoui is no longer a terrorist suspect (he never really was).  And who exactly are Zaoui’s ilk?  Or did he mean elk?

This is another example of NZ First using fear tactics to gain traction.  NZ is one of the safest places on earth, there really isn’t much to be afraid of.  One is left wondering if NZ First have caught up with the trend of the political polls which clearly puts them at odds with the general New Zealand public.  I’m yet to stumble across anyone who thinks NZ First is representative of their world view.

The Uncertainty of Climate Change

Why hasn’t there been a poll on climate change? If opinions are so divided, then how come there appears to be no data on the population base for those for and against climate change? I meet people everyday who despise the very concept of climate change and yet if one looks just to the media and politicians, one could very much think that all Kiwis are in agreement on climate change…which is obviously not the case at all.

Maybe its time, someone (anyone…) took the initiative and began asking ordinary New Zealanders what they actually think. The response, I think, would be surprising.

What have we got to lose?

New Zealand First is back to its old tricks on race relations.

As if the New Zealand public hasn’t learnt already the lesson of politics: that is, that if you make a statement that is notoriously offensive/discrimintating, then you’re bound to generate attention.  

So the whole media psych-up over Brown’s comment on Asian immigrants is not only typical, but charactistic of a party who is failing to make the 5% threshold. But to his credit, the remarks (which I utterly disagree with) have sparked a huge amount of attention and publicity resulting in the only interview NZF has had with Campbell Live, numerous press releases from other parties and NGOs, in Brown making the news, papers, and radio. The result: exposure to the New Zealand public. In politics, any publicity is good publicity – especially when that publicity covers all mediums and all walks of life, from across the political spectrum.

In our indignant outrage, we [the unwitting electorate) just all been conned by NZF into being messengers for their own (arguably vile) message.

Its not like Brown’s point is going to deter voters - any one who votes for NZF will support this message - so what’s the point of chasing it around all incensend and undignified? Want my advice? Ignore him and his party.

It’s like those biddy-biddy things that stick to people’s clothes or leeches even. Everyone hates them, but if they just patiently removed all of them without causing such a fuss then they’d die. Which is what we all want NZF to do…

So in a message to the New Zealand public and media: enough of this fuss about New Zealand First and its racial policies.

In promoting out outrage, we are stirring the publicity pot. And NZ First desperately needs publicity; even if it’s bad. We’re feeding the fire, and its time we took a bit of  a chill pill and ignored it.

I’m sure this will have been covered by most other blogs, however the recent overkill by Guyon Espiner on TVNZ’s One News coverage last night (1 April 08) shows signs of the New Zealand media more out of touch with New Zealand thought, than it does on the political (and tactical) prowess of its journos.

The TVNZ story (and video) is linked here, however, a brief overture is that two National MP’s have been sowing their discontent on the universal acceptance of Climate Change in public meetings (i.e. they’ve been claiming Climate Change is all a total farce) – despite their Leader John Key and party collectively accepting Climate Change and supporting moves to fulfil Kyoto requirements.

This (surprise, surprise) has sparked outrage by anti-National propagandists

Sam Dixon at the Standard even links the difference of opinion in Climate Change to those who deny the Nazi Holocaust.

First of all, you can’t call sceptics of Climate Change “deniers” when they don’t agree with you, and then link such ‘denial’ to the Nazi Holocaust.

It’s sad and pathetic.

Furthermore, it’s a total and purposeful effort to shut down debate on a topic which has not been decided, nor universally proven to be true. Just because you can decide for yourselves that Climate Change has happened, it does not mean that we have a universal consensus on Climate Change – consensus on Climate Change among scientists, politicians and (heaven forbid) celebrities is not certainty, in fact it’s the opposite. There is a direct contrast between the two pools of thought. Just because you herald to belong to one of them does not make what you say to be true, and all who disagree with you “deniers”. This is Climate Change, not the belief in God.

Whilst there are undoubtedly some scientists (and celebrities) who claim that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring, but there are also scientists who claim it’s not true. So, what’s your point?

Just because someone has decided to agree in Climate Change does not mean the rest of the world has to follow suit. In fact, purely because there is disagreement in the scientific community means that we should be careful about how we proceed.

And putting aside the fact that both Smith and Williamson are Nats, whose opinion should the New Zealand public trust more in Parliament, in regards to Climate Change: the Member who is an ex-academic (in art and law); or the Member who graduated with a PhD in agricultural science (whose very doctorate paper was on the carbon cycle)?

I know who I’d trust more. But then, how could I possibly decide that? After all, as far as the Standard are concerned, it’s far more important to score a political point on their sanctimonious blog than to pursue and ratify the truth.

Besides, what Smith and Williamson said to Espiner was exactly what all politicians should say – “I tow the party line”. In this case, the party line is the acceptance of Climate Change and a proactive effort to counter it.

Regardless, according to the Gospel of “The Standard”, politics will always trump the truth.