Friday January 25th, 2008. 7:41 am by frog
Here’s a kiwi blog that’s not kiwiblog, that’s well worth a look. Climate Kiwi is a collection of news and snippets about climate change here and around the world. This week’s link to Climate denial car adverts is great as is this youtube clip on peak oil:
Of course none of this is as funny as the new Kiwi Party. It’s judeo christian, I hear.
Posted in Environment & Resource Management | by frog | Fri, January 25th, 2008 |
This entry was posted
on Friday, January 25th, 2008 at 7:41 am and is filed under Environment & Resource Management.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article.
You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The grammar on that page is atrocious. “Referendum’s” and “kiwi’s” are not good examples of how to pluralise words. Perhaps they should be campaigning for better primary school funding? o_O
January 25th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Ari, I think the poor grammar may be a reflection of the academic achievements of the Party founders. Apart from Larry Baldock, one of the leading lights in this new Party is Bernie Ogilvie.
This is the guy who introduced himself as a United Future candidate to the country in 2002 as Dr Bernard Ogilvie.
Shortly after the election, at which he was elected on the UF Party list, it was revealed that his PhD was one of the mail order variety. I suspect this is indicative of the lengths that loopy “spare the rod and spoil the child” fundie Christians will descent to in order to try to achieve electoral credibility.
Incidentally, another initially elected UF candidate at the 2002 election, Kelly Chal, was subsequently revealed to not be a NZ Citizen, and therefore ineligible to sit in Parliament, and was replaced by another fundie Christian on their Party list, Paul Adams.
Funny how these God-fearing Christians choose to ignore the rules - although I suppose to them it is only “God’s rules ” as they percieve them to be that count in the end, and that any public deception to gain power is to them justified.
“Larry the Aerial Spanker” got a figurative thrashing (albeit by a single figure vote differential) in the Environment Bay of Plenty Regional Council election last year - by Green Party member Karen Summerhays.
Let’s try to keep him and his ilk out of political power to avoid many more vulnerable young New Zealanders getting an actual thrashing.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Well, personally speaking, I don’t object to allowing people who aren’t citizens to be MPs if they’ve been residents for a long time, but yeah… definitely… “interesting” on the “Kiwi Party’s” credentials. (incidentally, I wish parties would stop trying to use nationalist names, it’s not inventive)
As for the whole direct democracy thing- human rights are not appropriately decided by referenda. I couldn’t agree more about not electing them.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Monty Python, now we’re talking. “ I hate the Romans as much as anybody.�
Could it be the chicken or the egg to blame ?
January 25th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Ari said: As for the whole direct democracy thing- human rights are not appropriately decided by referenda.
Couldn’t agree more Ari. Citizen’s Initiated Referenda are a recipe for the institutionalisation of bigotry - majorrity rules, and stuff the minorities!
d4j said: “I hate the Romans as much as anybody.â€?
Is this the Roman who regularly posts on this blog? I can’t recall him featuring in Monty Python. He might on occasion post an intolerant right-wing comment (as you do d4j), but God still commands us to love thine enemy. So Luv U Guys!
January 26th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Toad “majorrity rules, and stuff the minorities!” I’ve always thought that was the basic flaw with democracy. A simple majority always beats a well informed thinking minority.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Everyone,
I can see your points about referenda and minorities potentially losing out. However, which is better: majority rules and stuff the minority, or minority rules and stuff the majority? The reality is that in our day to day lives, we accept the rule of the minority without question. I mean, who determines what we do at work (at least for most workers), who controls most of the economy etc? It is certainly not the majority, but a rather small minority.
I realise that parties such as the one linked to probably don’t want to readress economic inequalities with referenda, but are more interested in issues such as legislation on smacking. No doubt they would also love to have referenda on abortion, homosexuality etc.
I’m still of two minds on the issue of referenda. I can see their weaknesses, but then again anything which swings the balance of power away (however slightly) from the small minority who effectively control our day to day lives also appeals to me.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:05 am
ps. Has anyone else looked at the blog which is the main subject of this thread. The guy has put a lot of effort gathering together all sorts of interesting articles.
January 26th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
The Kiwi Party claims that it’s committed to: “…honor the Judeo-Christian ethic in democracy; that each person has the right to be heard and affect the issues that affect them”
I thought that was the democratic ethic in democracy.
January 26th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Haha!
Im sure its more of a ref to referenda though
January 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I thought that was the democratic ethic in democracy.
Yes, but one much derided at Frogblog. (Just read the above comments).
January 26th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Engage with the issue then! Though it would probably end up being a repeat of the ‘citizen’s forum’/direct democracy thread of a while ago re: the EFB
January 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Perhaps it is lack of education, but I wonder just how Kiwi the “Kiwi Party” is.
Its advocate here should learn to spell “honour” with a “u” (unlike the Americans).
January 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
hmmm, the judeo-christian ethic? i seem to remmeber the christian church doing everything they could to insure that the plebs could not have any influence, particualy in ensuring that they couldint read the bible from which they supposedly obtained their laws and from which the king and church gained their supremicy, i seem to remmeber that they did everything they could to kill all the heratics who tryed to write and distribute an english version of the origional latin bible? including burning thousands of their own ‘holy book’ :P, i dont recall there being anything about democracy in the bible or torah or any of the monotheistic holy texts
when it comes to human rights they must be able to be altered but at the same time they must be safeguarded from infringement from groups seeking to disadvantage others, i would support a requirement of supermajority in the house of representitives and comparison to the entrencehed constitutional documents, does sound abit like the american system though.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Sapient Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
> hmmm, the judeo-christian ethic? i seem to remmeber the christian church doing everything they could to insure that the plebs could not have any influence, particualy in ensuring that they couldint read the bible from which they supposedly obtained their laws and from which the king and church gained their supremicy, i seem to remmeber that they did everything they could to kill all the heratics who tryed to write and distribute an english version of the origional latin bible?
With respect, that was the catholic church. This ‘Kiwi Party’ seems to have been founded by protestant fundamentalists, who trace their lineage to the people who rebelled against the Catholic church by publishing the bible in English (and German). Protestant Fundamentalists all read the bible, and believe that god has granted to them and them alone the power to decide which bits are to be followed and which are to be ignored, which are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively, based solely on which parts of the bible happen to back up their prejudices.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
toad Says:
January 25th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
> Incidentally, another initially elected UF candidate at the 2002 election, Kelly Chal, was subsequently revealed to not be a NZ Citizen, and therefore ineligible to sit in Parliament, and was replaced by another fundie Christian on their Party list, Paul Adams.
whereas Kelly Chal was a member of Destiny Church, which is definitely not fundamentalist
January 27th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Can’t be all THAT bright whoever they are… I don’t often run foul of spelling rules around these parts.
Of course as fond of spelling things with extra vowels as Kiwis appear to be the fact that they only ever use one when they’re actually speaking does get a mite confusing.
respectfully
BJ
[[ hurriedly donning flame-resistant underwear ]]
January 28th, 2008 at 3:13 am
bj,
Didn’t you know that written consonants and vowels are like buses and police officers? Always in pairs. Not sure if it’s because they get lonely and need the company or if it’s just safer that way. And consonants and vowels are like cops and robbers, they don’t really like each other so you can’t safely pair a vowel with a consonant, each has to have another of its own kind to be happy.
Perhaps kiwis are to busy thinking about more important things (like rugby, racing and beer) to worry about complex the rules about silent letters. So to be on the safe side we just treat every second letter as a silent one.
Or there again maybe we’re just lazy.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
samiuela- The rule of the minority? How so? We’re not anything like Iraq under Saddam. We’re not ruled by some powerful minority elite. We’re ruled by a combination of large and small parts of our society, based on which parties can form a majority of parliament while still agreeing with each other on policy.
While minorities can certainly boss us around, (in exchange for money and good working conditions) they’re not in charge of us in a significant sense, and the law protects us if they try to abuse that position.
The alternative to a majority-rules situation is a return to oppression by elite minorities. The alternative is balancing multiple distinct interests and negotiation, which is exactly what MMP has brought us.
As for referenda in a wider sense, they certainly have their place! I wasn’t trying to say never use them.
They’re usually great for determining how to restructure our government, for instance. That said, I would not support wider policy being determined by direct democracy, at least not yet. I live in hope for the day when people are educated and wise enough for that to happen though.
Zentiger- if by democracy you mean always letting any majority of the population make any decisions it wants, then yes, we’re not being democratic. But then again, neither were the founders of the independent United States, who had similar views about the danger of putting decisions too directly in the hands of the people. *shrug* This isn’t some leftist conspiracy to oppress you all, it’s a legitimate worry that people can be oppressed if you give over too much of the decision-making power to majority interests. It’s long been a principle of democratic decision-making to distribute power among multiple groups that decide things differently and accountably. If we take away power from parliament with binding referenda, who keeps the power of the voters in check?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Ari,
When I say we are ruled (in a large part of our lives) by a minority, I mean this: Look at who controls the economy. To a first degree approximation, you can simply look at how wealth of society is divided up to see who controls the levers of the economy.
People with a lot of money don’t just sit around driving luxury cars etc (although they do this as well), they invest it into businesses. This is how a capitalist society works (and I’m not saying whether this is bad or good, just making an observation).
Now imagine a hypothetical situation where a government elected by the majority decided to nationalise large portions of the economy; or maybe workers decided to collectively take control of the factories. What would happen? Would the previous owners just sit down and do nothing? Of course not. In all liklihood, a government would find itself overthrown in a coup, and if workers tried to take control of their workplaces, they would be met by armed resistance.
It is when the interests of the ruling minority are threatened that it becomes clear who really pulls the strings in our society. The rest of the time, the minority are quite happy to stay out of sight (at least in countries such as New Zealand).
Some people will argue that most people in New Zealand are in a sense “mini-capitalists”, because they have money invested in superannuation etc. While this may be true in a sense, just look at who controls most of the money. In the last few decades in New Zealand, the divide between those with lots of wealth and those with not much has been growing, not getting smaller.
So while I’ll agree that we are not ruled by a dictatorial minority in the sense of Stalinist Russia or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, I am arguing that fundamental parts of our society are in fact controlled by a small minority. Most of the time most people are unaware of this, or simply choose to ignore it.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Quickly- good to see you understood me despite that “is” that was meant to be an “isn’t”
Ah well, in that sense I agree with you, mostly. The wealthy in this country do have too much influence, and they’re left to acquire more wealth even though they don’t really use it for anything but acquiring more wealth and power with it. But they don’t control things absolutely. If they did, the Electoral Finance Act would never had made it through parliament. (although their spirited attempt to defeat it shows exactly how timely it was)
That said… I do not object in principle to people owning a lot of property. I’m not even sure it’s practical to object to them using it to invest and generate more wealth. I only object when they think this gives them the right to control- control, not influence- society outside of the workplaces they own, or when they think it lets them trespass on human rights. Neither of these are acceptable.
This is also a big part of why I don’t want to see policy issues, rather than government issues, put to referendum- I worry that it would be too easy to influence people with arguments like “look, if this referendum doesn’t favour me, I’m going to have to close your workplace due to economic fallout.”