Politics and Prose

Dear, oh dear.  The Greens have released their Maori policyand while this policy would not ordinarily intrigue me, I want to draw attention to it to make a wider point.

Maori Affairs spokesperson Metiria Turei released the policy saying:

“At a time when the Maori voice in Parliament is threatened by National for political purposes, the Green Party says we must entrench the seats, and give them the same status as the general seats.”

Poor Metiria, she fails to see that by entrenching the Maori seats, she will not “give the same status as the general seats” but rather she will concrete their inequality for a long while.

In contrast, the Maori Party (who’s very political existence depends on the Maori seats) say differently.  Pita Sharples has said that his party is more than happy for the Maori seats to go – as long as Maori say so.

For me, this policy epitomises the Green’s ideology on any and every issue: We know best.  Their policy fundamentally neglects to understand what the Maori seats are for – Maori.  Not the Greens.  Any person or political party that honestly believes the Maori seats should stay, even if a referendum amongst Maori overly declares they should go, should question their motives. 

Like most that comes out of the Greens’ research team, this policy is more about attacking National then it is about the Maori seats or Maoridom in general.  It’s neither about Maori or about giving Maoridom a voice, it’s about the Greens and how they know what’s best for you.  And if you disagree, it’s because you don’t understand how things work and soon you’ll come around.

The policy goes onto say:

“We need to focus on building our education system now, to ensure all our children access their right to learn their tikanga and reo, for free, as enshrined in te Tiriti o Waitangi.  Having to pay exorbitant tertiary fees to learn the Reo is a disgrace.”

There is no where in the Treaty that says anything about the entrenched rights of children to read and write in Te Reo Maori.  Its not that I’m against Maori and non-Maori children having access to such education, but it’s misleading to claim it was somehow written in a 160-year old document and therefore it’s an intrinsic right.

Thank goodness that this policy stems from the Greens, and not a major party – I’m sure we can all be relieved that it won’t ever come into effect.  No doubt we’ll see more policy along these lines. 

Remember: Greens know best.

Here’s a scoop from the Beehive wesbite:

Justice Minister Annette King says a Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question — “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in
New Zealand?” — will be held between Friday 31 July 2009 and Friday 21 August 2009.

The Chief Electoral Office will run the postal referendum, the first held under the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000.

The legislation requires a three week voting period for a postal referendum.

Ms King says the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act was enacted “to provide a simple and cost effective means of conducting referenda”.

“The postal referendum will be held after the Chief Electoral Office has completed the conduct of the 2008 General Election. The Chief Electoral Officer has recommended to the Government that the referendum be held between 31 July and 21 August 2009, with that timing reflecting the need to finish work on the 2008 election and complete the logistics needed to run a postal referendum.”

Whilst, politically I can understand why King or the PM doesn’t want such a controversial referendum next to the polling papers, there is no credible reason for such a referendum not to happen.  Political inconvenience is no excuse.

What’s more, postal referendums are incredible expensive so once more the taxpayer is forced to shunt the bill for Labour’s politicking.

“Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America…”

Well, despite the terrible lack of full-stops, Brad Pitt may be on to something.  It’s a shame he’s talking about gay marriage and not the right to life.

Pitt (who has a political and philanthropist advisor – what the hell is that?) is advocating against what is commonly referred to as “Proposition 8″ – the law that allows homosexuals to get married in California, US.  The really pity (excuse the pun) is that Brad Pitt will support the right for a living person to choose their lifestyle, but won’t allow the unborn child the right to choose whether they live or die.

Worse still, the Jolie-Pitt foundation (which admittedly does a lot of good – particularly for the gossip industry), no doubt on advice from his political/philanthropist advisor, has donated USD2 million to HIV/AIDS relief in Ethiopia.  The question remains: how many condoms does that buy, and what fat lot of use is that going to do?

I’m not one who is often called politically correct, but I do find this cartoon from Emmerson to be a little bit tasteless - considering the anniversary of Sept 11 attacks is tomorrow.  Too soon.

A great piece today from Garth George (probably the Herald’s sole conservative opinion writer) on 8 reasons why PM Clark should be booted out of office.  You may not agree with what George says but you have to give him credit for the way he writes.

The reasons, in no particular order, are:

1. The ETS bill (passed last night 63-57).
2. Labour’s appointment of board members within the conventional 3-month pre-election timeframe
3. 400 people dying each year from a shortage of hospital beds (who knew it was this high)
4. The fact that parents last year had to cough up well over half a billion dollars in fees and donations to keep our schools running
5. The damning defence report which revealed out totally inadiquate defence forces
6. The shoddy works of the Police Commissioner and decision to deprive policemen of the right to stand for local authorities
7. Labour’s move for state funding for political parties
8. The continued insistence that the Government “and its Green component in particular” knows best what is good for us and how we should live our lives 

I could add thirty more reasons but I’ll leave it there.  George never mentioned the EFA, the anti-smacking bill, or any other of the highly controversial acts of this Government. Another would be her total lack of credibility in the Peters saga, of which she has completely failed to respond to.

On the ETS “rammed through the House in the dying days of this Administration”, he goes on to say:

This is one of the biggest rorts ever perpetrated on mankind because, as hundreds of eminent meteorological, environmental and geological scientists have pointed out lately, for the past three years satellite-measured average global temperatures have been declining.

They say that is leading to increasing scepticism that the call to sacrifice living standards to “save the planet” is just political spin designed to persuade the public to accept green taxes.

Given the record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, they say, the hypothesis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of dangerous, human-caused global warming has become unsustainable.

Because the only people who will suffer as a result of this legislation are the long-suffering public who will pay more for everything from petrol to bread as carbon credit traders, governments among them, rip us off for millions.

I know that 60 per cent of all statistics are made up, but I read a report from the University of California that said that about 70 per cent of people who believe in Climate Change have developed their opinion through media reports, and haven’t personally investigated it themselves.  So that’s 70 per cent of all Climate Change “believers” who don’t actually understand what it is they believe.  

Good for the environmental activists, not so good for the rest of us.
 

Roll on November.

A great article by Brian Saint-Paul, on why Barack Obama isn’t doing better in the polls…

It covers a question many people are asking.  Obama is certainly an eloquent speaker and having heavily defeated
Clinton in the primaries, I think a lot of people expected him to do the same for McCain (and a whole lot sooner).  It appears he is struggling however.  And with Joe Biden on his ticket, his ratings were expected to improve…

Why isn’t Barack Obama doing better?

We know why John McCain hasn’t broken out in the polls — he’s running in the shadow of an unpopular president and an unpopular war, with an economy in shambles. All things considered, his numbers are about as good as they could be.

Not so for Obama.

Consider the situation: Barack Obama is a fresh and exciting new face, who is also the most stirring American political orator in recent memory. He just completed a blistering world tour wherein he looked downright presidential — all the while, managing to catch a crypto endorsement from the Prime Minister of Iraq, warm welcomes from other world leaders, and huge crowds. It was a trip made for TV — the perfect cap to a campaign that has been built almost wholly on imagery.

And yet, what came of it? Obama received a small bounce — a 9 point lead was the high water mark — and then dropped below the pre-trip numbers. The race is now closer than it was last week. In fact, Monday’s USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters has McCain ahead by 4.

At this same point in 2004, Democrat John Kerry had a lead of 5 percent– without the charisma, press adulation, and anti-GOP climate that Obama enjoys. And we know how that race turned out.

This is true.  Despite being hailed as the next JFK, Obama has failed to make the leap in the polls.  His oratory skills are impressive, but is that all there is to him? 

So what is Obama’s campaign doing wrong? It isn’t enough to say they have the wrong candidate — Barack Obama has gifts most political aspirants would kill for. And besides, every candidate brings deficiencies to the table; a campaign’s job is to spin those away. They obviously haven’t done that, which is why the race continues to be so close.

We’re told he’s running a disciplined campaign, with an effective and growing organization and ample fundraising. If that’s the case, he’s in trouble.

And this was written before McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate.  The GOP has gained significant coverage in the media and increased in the polls.  God only knows how Obama is going to cope with that…
 

This is the last paragraph from a story on Scoopabout Owen Glenn/Winston Peters:

 Ironically, the Peters testimony tonight will be taking place just as scientists in
Switzerland will be turning on the giant Hadron Collider particle accelerator. Some people have been worried that this event could create an artificial black hole, into which the entire planet will be sucked. Well, the giant sucking sound you hear tonight before the privileges committee is more likely to be the sound of Peters’ political career disappearing down to a tiny point of darkness, of unutterable density.

I love it. 

A press release from the Labour Party:

“A report saying that 22 percent of New Zealand children are living in unacceptable poverty still highlights the path the Labour Government is on is the right one.  But there is still a lot to do,” says Labour Candidate for Te Tai Tokerau Kelvin Davis.”

So, Labour is on the right path, despite child poverty increasing in the last decade to a despicable 22 per cent.  Makes you wonder about the aims of the Labour Party – are they aiming higher? 

But it gets worse.

“One way to lift Maori children out of poverty is to raise their educational achievement.”

And Labour is “on the right path” by spending $56 000 printing 70 000 bades to promite Maori education in schools, including such messages as “Wassup” and “Niiiiiice”.

“If the next generation of Maori parents work in high-skilled, stable employment poverty would cease to be an issue for Maori.”

Now this is a Labour candidate who is onto something – get people into employment, and they will be out of poverty.  Duh.

Many might not know this, but in light of recent accusation about secret donations, it might be enlightening to know that the Rt Hon Winston Peters voted against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in 1990.

In fact, there were only 35 votes for it, 30 votes against and 32 absence votes (including Phil Goff, Jim Anderton, Annette King and Peter Dunne being absent from the vote). 

Here is a reall good site for checking up on what MPs voted on what conscience votes: CommoNZ Parliamentary Database.

Dick Cheny wasn’t on this hunting trip by any chance?