eredwen, jeeves, etc…

I’ve got to agree with jeeves regards Sue K’s take on vaccinations.
I voted Green despite Sue K’s take on immunizations.

The Greens say “oh those deniers of climate change are supporting oddball claims that oppose the current scientific consensus, ignore what the real experts on the area say, and they take seriously a grain of evidence for their view and ignoring the mountain of evidence that opposes them”.

Then, on immunization, the Greens do exactly the same: take oddball claims that oppose the current scientific consensus, ignore what the real experts in the area say, and take seriously the grain of evidence for their view while ignoring the mountain of evidence that opposes them.

Eredwen, I’ve READ that literature on the evils of the modern medical-industrial complex. There are areas where it’s dead right (look at the current US craze for diagnosing and drugging hundreds of thousands of kids to slow them down if they’re overactive or speed them up if they’re down- eek! medicine gone mad!). But that’s just not true about the vaccinations carried out in this country.

Vaccinations do have dangers, and risks. But they also have benefits. The only way to compare those two sets of risks is through careful statistical analysis. Sue K’s claims reflected a dismal lack of care in doing such analysis. While the maths and analysis is really boring, people’s lives will be ruined (or tragically ended) if you get it wrong.

The Greens combine a love of nature and the natural which is mystic, with a hard-headed scientific take on the world (this science underpins the cold hard logic of limited resources and unlimited demand). Both parts are needed: the problem is balance. Because if you drift to far in your suspicion of technology and the status quo, it can overflow into paranoia and conspiracy theory.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jeeves;
to back track slightly and repond to your comment about vaccinations;

if you were a teacher, a truancy officer, or a medical receptionist, you would know that illness this winter in the age-group that has been mass-vaccinated has been extremely high.

A lot of children, much higher than statistically predicted, have reacted to the vaccine, and a lot of parents have withdrawn consent after a violent reaction to the 1st or 2nd dose.

The reactions cover a wide range of symptoms, some of which are sub-clinical (ie: not onthe reporting documents given to children after vaccination) but still bad enough to prevent school or sports participation.

We have just participated as a nation in one of the bigggest drug trials in the Southern hemisphere, at public cost, for the benefit of the pharmaceutical company; whether it will show to have benefited the susceptable, targetable communities is the evaluation that needs to be done, and done publicly.

Susceptable individuals will continue to get Meningococcal disease, simply because the vaccine does not address the conditions of poverty and overcrowding, poor diet and overwork that flourish in the communities which have most been struck by this illness – lower socio-economic groups, pacific/polynesian ethnic groups, and university students trying to hold down jobs as well as study. The vaccine addresses none of these problems, and never will.
Might as well invest in lucky string, it would be as effective.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen

bloggers probably visit this arena because it is thoughtful, tries to be fair, is constantly updated and is well written. You don’t have to agree with every thing frog posts to appreciate that. I certainly followed it with interest during the election, as a non-participant.

Constructive criticism is always harder than points scoring. For example, the words you put in quotes are not my words. The truth is that at the last election I could not bring myself to vote Green as I have done in the past. I guess I would like the party to hear my reasons which were not to do with tactical voting (hardly possible with the party vote, IMO). If the Greens chose to disagree with my points that is absolutely their right but I don’t want to be like those who don’t vote and then spend three years complaining about the Government.

P.S. On the points scoring front, can anyone explain why the self appointed leader of the “business community”, Kerr, seems to have such a tenuous grasp of basic economics? The man has no idea how GDP is calculated, scary thought if he represents the future of NZ business.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

yeah sorry eredwen..i was piss-taking…sorta..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Bruce T :

Wow! that makes sense … and that is why I couldn’t think of its “plural” !

I thought it might be Latin ending “a” singular to “ae” plural … as did one other blogger.

We both know better now. THANKS!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

To Eredwen,
arena is a plural, I think it means sand as in lots of … not a grain ….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

All going on at sucha rate before I havent even have had a word in ….

I couldn’t possibly read all this stuff in one night so after reading a few at the top I went with Alastair’s :
” Abused spouses rarely get much credit for staying submissive.”

You are so correct, and as one who has tried quite bit of Samaritan stuff in my time, rule one is:
“If you do not make a stand, nobody can help you.”

That is not a sermon, but a law of humanity.

The Greens have become parliamentary wimps, and the best that will be said of them will be “Nice guys come last.”

We know Dunn, Peters (and do not forget Anderton in this little plot) have given their pledge on condition that the Greens are rejected publicly.

Helen Clark will go down in history as a prime minister of very superior political management and strategic skills, whose controlling personality seemed to prefer deals with the pragmatic and had difficulty with issues of personal loyalty.

The Maori Party and the Greens have a clear message.
The mission over three years is to oppose on all points of difference and to put resources into organising support.
The single aim is to ensure an increase of representation at the next election.
It they fail in this mission they will be reduced to mere footnotes in the country’s history.
If both parties succeed, their combined force of a dozen or more m.p.s
will hold the balance of power for the next decade.
Those two parties look to me the proper initiators of change over that period.
To achieve their goal the Greens must:
Replace at least one of the co-leaders with the most vital and charismatic and likely to be successful member high in the candidate list.
Because of the gender equality policy this means Jeanette is much more likely to be the one to step down.
Simply because I cannot see a man of charism, and the necessary passion and energy, putting his hand up.
On the woman’s side there is a heap of justifiable options.
I would personally think Meht should be part of a new leadership that has to be put in place quite soon.
She solves the South Island issue in a single blow.
So we go looking for a sympathetic North Island public figure, preferably a bity blokeish, more Greenpeace than Values would be good.
I reckon that fellow who goes in for public nudity would be a possibility, what’s his name?
That’s right Mark Ellis.
Well you get the idea anyway …..

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jeeves

Of course Greens will always be at the margins – only when it has successfully realised critical mass in the centre, will it leave right wing parties little choice but to come on board.

Resistance to responsible long term policy comes from those who favour the unfettered free market and an amoral lack of concern for others – workers, the poor, future generations AND the environment.

So its no surprise that there is no successful neither left or right “apolitical” Green party anywhere. Some right wing parties have very small blue green cells which make the points you do, but they don’t effect their party policy.

Movements are formed around concerned activism. Where the left, can place concern for the poor in the here and now alongside the long term environment cause, they can work with Greens.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

phil:

I thought so … Thanks!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jeeves:

I agree about the Greens leaving the Alliance (I rejoined the Green Party at that time, having formerly been an early Values Party member.)

I hear what you say. However, I hope you recognise that it takes a lot of time and effort for a small Party to get an ambitiously comprehensive dossier together as the Greens are doing … and even longer to get every document to the highest standard.

It would be great if people with the knowledge/expertise would point out errors, offer constructive criticism, or recommend changes, or indeed replacement documents, rather than scoring points off Green “incompetence?” “gullibility?” “lack of veracity?”… whatever.

But I guess that is not why bloggers visit this site!

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The carbon tax is one of the best steps the NZ government has taken in a long time. It would be a tragedy if NZF and UFO endangered that progress. Instead of being reviewed the carbon tax should be implemented post haste and we should continue pushing it further. Building environmental costs directly into our economic models may be the one thing that saves us from ourselves by automatically using market forces for good rather than world-eating.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen..arenae..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

apologies for my lack of proof reading in all posts…

BJ, your beef with Telecom is spot on, the comments I was quoting from were simply “anti” business for the sake of it, not for any specific reason. I picked the SK example to back my case, I am not sure how else to illustrate my views other than with pertinent examples. The point is that these examples are easy to find and this shows me that the Greens need to be *more* disciplined, better briefed and on a sounder scientific and economic footing than other parties – due to the desire of so many people to misrepresent their cause. They did this well with the energy policy but the same standard needs to be applied across the board.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen

Your allow me to rest my case. SK is not above using dubious and unscientific data to make her case, which in turn casts doubt on the veracity of all the *good* policy has been well researched and developed. There is stacks of the latter but the tendency to highlight the former along with terrible positioning has totally undermined the message (all IMHO, of course).

Politically, the best thing the Greens did in the last 6 years was remove themselves from the Alliance, they now need to firmly remove themselves from the left/right debate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jeeves – The Telecom monopoly position of extracting every last cent available from the public for second-rate broadband services has a LOT to do with what makes some business long for foreign shores. There’s a lot not to like there, and there’s a lot that BUSINESS doesn’t like there… Greens notice because most greens are shepherds not sheeple.

Eredwen, accepting that he characterized an overall position based on a single issue and was wrong to do it, Sue Kedgley doesn’t earn any bonus points for discouraging vaccinations. Some things the medical establishment does DO work, and she’s gone for the baby as well as the bathwater with this one. I am quite on her side with respect to supplements and other areas but the meningococcal vaccine looks like a success story in spite of her… which makes her look a bit odd-person-out.

Carbon taxes are the simple act of making users of the commons pay for their use. This is what Kyoto is all about. It is what the market needs in order to know how to govern itself… EMITTING CARBON IS NOT FREE! Using up fresh air isn’t free… or pure clean water or energy…

When we apply the market to the use of the commons “Business Leaders” cry foul and say we’re dangerous. THEY are simply freeloaders. Freeloaders who refuse to accept the discipline of the market they so adore in order to get the system to move to a more natural balance.

They have few good things to say about freeloaders, and they need that name applied as it is one insult that they MAY just understand. The folks at National and ACT too, need to be told exactly what they are..

At the same time there is this to be said for their position. It is impossible for businesses to compete with good success against companies in countries that do not force market forces to apply to the commons. The fact that those countries are consuming their (our) future is clear to all of us, and the ultimate disintegration of their economies is inevitable, but a business lives in a CURRENT profit/loss environment and will need some real consideration given to survival. That’s something that scares them, and fair enough if it does. It is a real fear.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jeeves:
and … please use your imagination!

You quote:
“Where the Greens should get TOUGH are in things like [ …] attacking corporations, viciously attack TELECOM and VODAPHONE — or any companies that are inefficient.�

and comment
“I mean, for God’s sake, where are people of New Zealand supposed to work to earn money to put on the table, DOC?”

My answer:
They can earn money by lighting signal fires and mining slates for writing on of course! … Seriously though. Not every visitor to this site is a Green, nor is every point of view Official Green Policy.

Happy reading

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jeeves:

If you read the literature … “Sue Kedgley’s somewhat bizarre positions on health (vaccinations anyone?)” … are a reflection of a growing concern about accepted medical practices not always being as safe and effecatious as we tend to assume they are. In many areas there are alternatives which, while still considered flakey by some are attracting the attention of researchers and the mainstream … Not just “an individual’s petty agenda”
… and, as you will know, if you follow the news, THAT is only one of Sue’s many areas of interest. She has a high profile in some usually fairly conservative arena/s (What is the plural of arena?)

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

fastbike. To be fair to Icehawk I did quote from a comment I regarded typical of the “shock horror” responses to the formation of the government. I do realise the comment does not represent “official” policy but there were lots in that thread in a similar vein.

I stand by my position that the Greens presented themselves as a lefter than Labour alternative, with a strong distrust of business and markets.

Check out Frog’s post here:

http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/10/12/in-black-and-white-green-and-red-seem-the-same/#comments

I could pick Sue Kedgley’s somewhat bizarre positions on health (vaccinations anyone?) as another example of the party’s ability to have an individual’s petty agendas side-track it from the main topic at hand. You and Icehawk correctly point to an excellent energy policy but a lack of discipline and a misalignment with the “left” creates unwarranted noise and distraction.

Anyway, I seem to have turned into a bit of a troll here, which was not my intention, but Frog is asking for feedback and so here it is

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Icehawk,

Jeeves was quoting no-one except himself. Don’t let him put words into anyone’s mouth – hence my quote and hyperlink to our policy above.

Regards

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“The NZ Green party stands for a more interventionist approach through setting rules and regulations rather than attempting to harness market forces to achieve a more sustainable result.”

But you need to set regulations up to harness market forces. They are the harness. Look at Kyoto. Look at carbon taxes. Look at emissions taxes. They’re not a matter of walking away from the market and saying “oh, the market will take care of it” – they’re a matter of getting in, providing some incentives via carrot or stick, and then letting the market take notice of them.

But if you think quoting one Green members views (which you disagree with) suffices to show what the Greens policies are like then may I suggest that you read the policies instead?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)