Comments on: The Karate Kid campaign http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/ hopping along the corridors of power Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:46:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62720 Sapient Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:28:22 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62720 I agree with the boring and fun parts, but i dont see how facism neccacarily slots in there? I agree with the boring and fun parts, but i dont see how facism neccacarily slots in there?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: greenfly http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62671 greenfly Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:45:32 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62671 I read jh describing how he had "heard Professor Jim Flyn describe mono culutralism as “boring” biculturalism as “facism” and multi culturalism as “fun”. and wondered, 'what's his point?' I read jh describing how he had “heard Professor Jim Flyn describe mono culutralism as “boring”
biculturalism as “facism” and multi culturalism as “fun”.

and wondered, ‘what’s his point?’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: jh http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62668 jh Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:54:09 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62668 I heard Professor Jim Flyn describe mono culutralism as "boring" biculturalism as "facism" and multi culturalism as "fun". I heard Professor Jim Flyn describe mono culutralism as “boring”
biculturalism as “facism” and multi culturalism as “fun”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62611 Sapient Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:16:13 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62611 janine, yeah my spelling and such is no as good as it should be. well, idealy, how i would like to do things is have one single national government which in terms of law making is relatvly decentralised, allowing the regions a certain degree of autonomy. I would like to see the government allowing the formation of communities where by groups of individuals may purchase from the government complete land rights (eg; including mineral rights etc) and as such gain alludial title and bee free of land taxes; the communities would them be able to opperate by their own laws and do as they wish so long as they abide by the constitution of the nation and by U.N. agreements. I would also like to see an increased reliance on the community models of justice as is the maori tradition. of course that all could be hugly wasteful for a country as small as new zealand but i see it as an effective way of guaranting a degree of autonomy to maori and to any sufficently large community. janine,
yeah my spelling and such is no as good as it should be.
well, idealy, how i would like to do things is have one single national government which in terms of law making is relatvly decentralised, allowing the regions a certain degree of autonomy. I would like to see the government allowing the formation of communities where by groups of individuals may purchase from the government complete land rights (eg; including mineral rights etc) and as such gain alludial title and bee free of land taxes; the communities would them be able to opperate by their own laws and do as they wish so long as they abide by the constitution of the nation and by U.N. agreements. I would also like to see an increased reliance on the community models of justice as is the maori tradition. of course that all could be hugly wasteful for a country as small as new zealand but i see it as an effective way of guaranting a degree of autonomy to maori and to any sufficently large community.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Janine http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62569 Janine Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:57:19 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62569 I think we mostly agree about equality and some of the ways that might be expressed. One thing we seem to interpret differently is the word 'sovereignty' - it really does mean different things to different people, even in English. It's one of the reasons that the Green and Maori Parties prefer to refer to the Maori version: that is the one that Maori signed. 'Rangatiratanga' is not a direct translation as it comes from a different world-view, one in which the concept of private ownership of such things as foreshores and seabeds was unknown. This is the reason the Treaty/Tiriti is still a topic of discussion and why many Pakeha are so scared of 'Maori Sovereignty'. An old kuia friend of mine, deeply-versed in these things, once said to me that for her sovereignty was simply mutual respect; the ability for Maori to do things their own way, to participate in setting the process of decision-making at every level. It was not about separatism, but about inclusion in its truest form. That to me means that the systems and processes of governance we have need to change and adapt to include the Maori perspective and process as of right - graciously allowing is an attitude of superiority that should have gone out with the Victorians. It isn't difficult and it isn't scary - it might work better than the contentious model we have. BTW, you don't come across to me as a bigot so much as a kind of badly-spelt and punctuated text book -) - there are far worse things! I think we mostly agree about equality and some of the ways that might be expressed.

One thing we seem to interpret differently is the word ’sovereignty’ – it really does mean different things to different people, even in English. It’s one of the reasons that the Green and Maori Parties prefer to refer to the Maori version: that is the one that Maori signed. ‘Rangatiratanga’ is not a direct translation as it comes from a different world-view, one in which the concept of private ownership of such things as foreshores and seabeds was unknown. This is the reason the Treaty/Tiriti is still a topic of discussion and why many Pakeha are so scared of ‘Maori Sovereignty’.

An old kuia friend of mine, deeply-versed in these things, once said to me that for her sovereignty was simply mutual respect; the ability for Maori to do things their own way, to participate in setting the process of decision-making at every level. It was not about separatism, but about inclusion in its truest form.

That to me means that the systems and processes of governance we have need to change and adapt to include the Maori perspective and process as of right – graciously allowing is an attitude of superiority that should have gone out with the Victorians.

It isn’t difficult and it isn’t scary – it might work better than the contentious model we have.

BTW, you don’t come across to me as a bigot so much as a kind of badly-spelt and punctuated text book -) – there are far worse things!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62523 Sapient Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:56:14 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62523 janine, <blockquote> or graciously allow them to do things </blockquote> in the present day any maori soveregnty or actions must take place in the framework of the nations soveregnty, so yes "graciously allow" would be correct as it would be a decision of the nation as to if such soveregnty should even be allowed. janine,

or graciously allow them to do things

in the present day any maori soveregnty or actions must take place in the framework of the nations soveregnty, so yes “graciously allow” would be correct as it would be a decision of the nation as to if such soveregnty should even be allowed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62522 Sapient Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:52:49 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62522 Janine, just to clarify, by science i am refering to the pile of research conducted by psychologists into interpersonal relationshps, particuarly those between readily identifyable groups, both ethnic and sub-cultural. I seek no further debate as i am not exactly good at expressing my views and always come over as a bigot, lol, so i shall list my motivations and reasonings below so, if you so desire, you may pick away at them and modify the way i think. if you have a reasoned criticism of my conclusions i would, as always, be glad to hear it. I desire, as always, to maximise the social welfare of our society and it is my perception that within New Zealand ethnic cooperation is a vital part of progressing as a society. But both my intuition as a member of a social species and the science to which i make reference state, fairly clearly, that where ever there are groups that are divided from each other by some form of perceived inequality there will always arise strong tensions and those tensions, although good for group bonding, inevitably leed to a break down of intergroup cooperation and create strife; a situation which i do not beleive to be good for the social welfare of our society and as such i seek to avoid such an occurance. Our society can be divided into many groups, but most broadly, socialy and politicaly, it can be divided into tangata whenua and tangata tiriti and most people, i would expect, realise as much. there are already tensions between the two groups as is evidenced fairly reguarly by the likes of the maori party and the strong diversity of te tiriti opinions. In order to ensure a society where these two groups can cooperate we must both resolve the causes of the present strife and prevent further strife from arising. to this goal i am entirly for treaty setlements and the righting of past wrongs (though my foreshore stance is based on a opposistion to private ownership of beaches, rivers, and lakes). however in order to avoid future strife the two groups, as aforementioned, must be treated equally, atleast under the law, or inevitably strife will arise due to perceived injustices and inequality as one group feels victimised (most likley pakeha) and as such i hold that both groups should be equal under the law for our society to progress and being equal under the law includes having an equal voice, per head, in the government of the nation. If one forces equality apon a group it will not result in equality, it will result in strife, the choice must be made by the people whom it effects. in this far it must be the maori that decide when past wrongs have been suficently accounted for and it must be maori who decide that they will give up the maori seats, and it must be maori who decide that the treaty is unworkable and a new framework needs to be brought into the picture to ensure our society progresses. the maori must decide this, but at the same time they must do so in a way that does not agrivate further strife with pakeha or the social welfare is not served. the people must be equal or there will be no future, but it cannot be forced equality and anything but true equality will not suffice. That is not to say that maori cannot have a degree of sovereignty over their own actions but that sovereignty must apply only in maori holdings so as to not challange the sovereingty of the nation as a whole and pakeha two must have the facilities to exercise such sovereignty should they have the desire and resources to do so. else ceasation. Janine,
just to clarify, by science i am refering to the pile of research conducted by psychologists into interpersonal relationshps, particuarly those between readily identifyable groups, both ethnic and sub-cultural.
I seek no further debate as i am not exactly good at expressing my views and always come over as a bigot, lol, so i shall list my motivations and reasonings below so, if you so desire, you may pick away at them and modify the way i think. if you have a reasoned criticism of my conclusions i would, as always, be glad to hear it.

I desire, as always, to maximise the social welfare of our society and it is my perception that within New Zealand ethnic cooperation is a vital part of progressing as a society. But both my intuition as a member of a social species and the science to which i make reference state, fairly clearly, that where ever there are groups that are divided from each other by some form of perceived inequality there will always arise strong tensions and those tensions, although good for group bonding, inevitably leed to a break down of intergroup cooperation and create strife; a situation which i do not beleive to be good for the social welfare of our society and as such i seek to avoid such an occurance.
Our society can be divided into many groups, but most broadly, socialy and politicaly, it can be divided into tangata whenua and tangata tiriti and most people, i would expect, realise as much. there are already tensions between the two groups as is evidenced fairly reguarly by the likes of the maori party and the strong diversity of te tiriti opinions. In order to ensure a society where these two groups can cooperate we must both resolve the causes of the present strife and prevent further strife from arising. to this goal i am entirly for treaty setlements and the righting of past wrongs (though my foreshore stance is based on a opposistion to private ownership of beaches, rivers, and lakes). however in order to avoid future strife the two groups, as aforementioned, must be treated equally, atleast under the law, or inevitably strife will arise due to perceived injustices and inequality as one group feels victimised (most likley pakeha) and as such i hold that both groups should be equal under the law for our society to progress and being equal under the law includes having an equal voice, per head, in the government of the nation.
If one forces equality apon a group it will not result in equality, it will result in strife, the choice must be made by the people whom it effects. in this far it must be the maori that decide when past wrongs have been suficently accounted for and it must be maori who decide that they will give up the maori seats, and it must be maori who decide that the treaty is unworkable and a new framework needs to be brought into the picture to ensure our society progresses. the maori must decide this, but at the same time they must do so in a way that does not agrivate further strife with pakeha or the social welfare is not served.
the people must be equal or there will be no future, but it cannot be forced equality and anything but true equality will not suffice. That is not to say that maori cannot have a degree of sovereignty over their own actions but that sovereignty must apply only in maori holdings so as to not challange the sovereingty of the nation as a whole and pakeha two must have the facilities to exercise such sovereignty should they have the desire and resources to do so. else ceasation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Janine http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62511 Janine Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:17:23 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62511 I was talking about relationships, which is what the whole bicultural dialogue is about - relationships that are based on mutual respect, not 'science' whatever you mean by that. There are a lot of assumptions made about what Maori think or believe - like anyone else there is a wide range of opinion, some of it difficult for individualistic Pakeha to accept. In the end though, you can set all the conditions you like, but if both are not willing to trust the process then there is still work to do. So far, those who want to do stuff to Maori, or graciously allow them to do things - the usual attitudes - are not particularly trusted. Not surprising really. I was talking about relationships, which is what the whole bicultural dialogue is about – relationships that are based on mutual respect, not ’science’ whatever you mean by that.

There are a lot of assumptions made about what Maori think or believe – like anyone else there is a wide range of opinion, some of it difficult for individualistic Pakeha to accept. In the end though, you can set all the conditions you like, but if both are not willing to trust the process then there is still work to do. So far, those who want to do stuff to Maori, or graciously allow them to do things – the usual attitudes – are not particularly trusted. Not surprising really.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62475 Sapient Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:02:20 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62475 Im going to stop digging myself a hole now, but even if my diplomatic skills leave alot to be desired my point is that all the science is on my side where as all of your claims lack any basis, one might say you build your house on the sand. Im going to stop digging myself a hole now, but even if my diplomatic skills leave alot to be desired my point is that all the science is on my side where as all of your claims lack any basis, one might say you build your house on the sand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62468 Sapient Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:14:53 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62468 Janine, glad you have been reading along. I have not been to a marae since I became a tertiary student, i havint had the time, but before that i went semi-reguarly and I am perfectly aware of the nature of discusion and the processes of justice within marae and the maori system. My 'sweeping generalisation' is founded, the generalisation that many do know and understand the treaty is however nothing more than an idealistic delusion, our schooling system does not adequetly teach about any part of New Zealand history and especially not about the treaty, it would seem most people dont even know that there were multiple versions. I expect that the extent of knowledge held by many is "its how they shafted us", that and whatever drivel is shouted out from the likes of tariana turia. While there is plenty or ways inwhich i would be willing to compromise, my bottom line is that all people should be equal under the law, i am entirly for the reclaimation of land and I am for self determination so long as it does not mean that the vote of one is more valuable than the vote of another in our legislative body. I would not force anything on any of the Iwi, although i have certainly not made it seem this way in the present dialouge i would engage in consoltation with the iwi over how they thought things should play out and what they saw as resonable compromises in the founding of a new New Zealand and the constitution there of. If individuals or iwi do not agree then they would have the oportunity to propose modifications or to vote against it when the changes go up for approval by maori voters; if the measures are not passed then they get what they want and further discusion can take place, if the measures pass then a new New Zealand can be founded and based of ethnic equality rather than devisiveness. atleast that is what i was trying to express in my origional post, then the arguements put me into a more antagonist role, lol. Janine,
glad you have been reading along. I have not been to a marae since I became a tertiary student, i havint had the time, but before that i went semi-reguarly and I am perfectly aware of the nature of discusion and the processes of justice within marae and the maori system.
My ’sweeping generalisation’ is founded, the generalisation that many do know and understand the treaty is however nothing more than an idealistic delusion, our schooling system does not adequetly teach about any part of New Zealand history and especially not about the treaty, it would seem most people dont even know that there were multiple versions. I expect that the extent of knowledge held by many is “its how they shafted us”, that and whatever drivel is shouted out from the likes of tariana turia.
While there is plenty or ways inwhich i would be willing to compromise, my bottom line is that all people should be equal under the law, i am entirly for the reclaimation of land and I am for self determination so long as it does not mean that the vote of one is more valuable than the vote of another in our legislative body. I would not force anything on any of the Iwi, although i have certainly not made it seem this way in the present dialouge i would engage in consoltation with the iwi over how they thought things should play out and what they saw as resonable compromises in the founding of a new New Zealand and the constitution there of. If individuals or iwi do not agree then they would have the oportunity to propose modifications or to vote against it when the changes go up for approval by maori voters; if the measures are not passed then they get what they want and further discusion can take place, if the measures pass then a new New Zealand can be founded and based of ethnic equality rather than devisiveness. atleast that is what i was trying to express in my origional post, then the arguements put me into a more antagonist role, lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Janine http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62448 Janine Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:00:54 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62448 Sounds like you want to set all the terms and processes of discussion too. How often have you been on a marae where the discussion takes the time it takes and goes in all the directions the participants want it to? Process is what defines product in the end and if you have a bad process you will not have an outcome that people want to live with. That has been the problem all along. Many of your other sweeping generalisations (most Maori don't know about te Tiriti etc) are so unfounded they are not worth commenting on. Sounds like you want to set all the terms and processes of discussion too. How often have you been on a marae where the discussion takes the time it takes and goes in all the directions the participants want it to? Process is what defines product in the end and if you have a bad process you will not have an outcome that people want to live with. That has been the problem all along.

Many of your other sweeping generalisations (most Maori don’t know about te Tiriti etc) are so unfounded they are not worth commenting on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62420 Sapient Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:19:23 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62420 greenfly, its called placing ones cards on the table, atleast im honest enough to turn them face up. greenfly,
its called placing ones cards on the table, atleast im honest enough to turn them face up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Valis http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62386 Valis Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:41:28 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62386 Sapient says: "..me negotiating is more likley to result in ethnic war than peace." His subsequent posts provide plenty of reasons to believe him, so perhaps there is little more to argue with him about. Sapient says: “..me negotiating is more likley to result in ethnic war than peace.”

His subsequent posts provide plenty of reasons to believe him, so perhaps there is little more to argue with him about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: greenfly http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62376 greenfly Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:04:32 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62376 sapient - the operative word here was 'dialogue'. It's not a matter of formulating a policy independently then declaring your concreted position. Dialogue means discussion back and forth, by my reckoning. The result of the discussion (ongoing) should be an evolving relationship that suits all parties. sapient – the operative word here was ‘dialogue’. It’s not a matter of formulating a policy independently then declaring your concreted position. Dialogue means discussion back and forth, by my reckoning. The result of the discussion (ongoing) should be an evolving relationship that suits all parties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62366 Sapient Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:44:32 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62366 greenfly, I to desire "open and honest dialogue", let me display a sample of such dialouge; "foreshore and seabed; Kiwi not iwi", "lands claimed by government and then onsold or not used as per purpose of aquisition; iwi not kiwi", "lakes and rivers; kiwi not iwi", "nation; cultural mixing pot, not segrigation", "state; underwhich all are equal regardless of traits they have no influence over" ,"equality before the law", "one nation; one law; many peoples", "sovereignty of iwi over their own affairs within their own lands between their own peoples", "alludial title to iwi lands", "a new framework where by iwi and pakeha cancommunicate and co-exist <i> in equality</i>"; fair and honest; if you state the parties intentions so honestly what do you get? "idiotic post-colonist sentiment which treats maori as one homogolous group and places them up on a pedistal and attributes to them all the things which we think would be great whilst ignoring the fact that we create these delusions and want these changes just so we can get over the guilt that we feel since we see ourselves as colonist scum and since we have no understanding of how the world works", lets sum my goals up in the same manner; "I want an egalitarian society free from the strifes that come about through the formation of strong ingroup and outgroup relationships that inevitably form where two groups are unequal in rights or entitlements". and i ment bosnia, not bolivia. lol greenfly,
I to desire “open and honest dialogue”, let me display a sample of such dialouge; “foreshore and seabed; Kiwi not iwi”, “lands claimed by government and then onsold or not used as per purpose of aquisition; iwi not kiwi”, “lakes and rivers; kiwi not iwi”, “nation; cultural mixing pot, not segrigation”, “state; underwhich all are equal regardless of traits they have no influence over” ,”equality before the law”, “one nation; one law; many peoples”, “sovereignty of iwi over their own affairs within their own lands between their own peoples”, “alludial title to iwi lands”, “a new framework where by iwi and pakeha cancommunicate and co-exist in equality“; fair and honest; if you state the parties intentions so honestly what do you get? “idiotic post-colonist sentiment which treats maori as one homogolous group and places them up on a pedistal and attributes to them all the things which we think would be great whilst ignoring the fact that we create these delusions and want these changes just so we can get over the guilt that we feel since we see ourselves as colonist scum and since we have no understanding of how the world works”, lets sum my goals up in the same manner; “I want an egalitarian society free from the strifes that come about through the formation of strong ingroup and outgroup relationships that inevitably form where two groups are unequal in rights or entitlements”.

and i ment bosnia, not bolivia. lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: The Optimist http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62339 The Optimist Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:25:47 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62339 The media is pretty-much campaigning for the environmentalists this time, more so than I previously remember. Just in normal articles in the paper the reporter always seems to find out the environmentalist point of view, and devotes sometimes 1/3 of the space to that. Perhaps that is because the reporters are environmentalists? In any case it has given the impression that environmentalists are a major party group, and these sorts of things tend to become self-fulfilling. The environmentalist bandwagon has been taking up by central and local politicians. We have a ministry for the environment which is spending money like water. We have DOC which owns 1/3 of the country and is continuing to buy more. We have the Canterbury Regional Council renaming itself to Environment Canterbury in a branding exercise to allow it to massively increase spending. We have stories about water shortages, global warming, and even peak oil sometimes. All of this has given credence to the environmentalists' beliefs in the minds of many people. Labour has been discredited in many eyes by its scandals and things like the smacking bill (oddly an environmentalist policy) and electoral finance act. However, people who naturally vote Labour can reasonably vote for the environmentalists instead, knowing that they go together. I don't for a minute think any of this is a good thing. Environmentalists lack basic knowledge which would allow them to make informed and sensible decisions (economics, markets, incentives, even cause and effect in some cases). The result is a bit like the blind leading the blind, and the effects will be widespread and unnecessary human suffering. Anyway, given all the attention given to environmentalist concerns, what is surprising is that environmentalists are not at 30% in the polls. The reason for that, is that most environmentalists are left wing and (unlike what many people say) you can't have one without the other. If environmentalists want to really raise their vote, I suggest they work to destroy the unions. This is the last bastion of left-ness which is more interested in Labour than environmentalism. It contributes a massive amount of Labour's support, and without it, Labour might fade in favour of the greens. In the meantime, I suggest environmentalists continue their campaign to capture the machinery of the state, including things like DOC, MOE, Education, local councils, etc. However there has already been huge success here and it is probably into diminishing returns now. The other big spenders are health and welfare - how about spending some time thinking about how to take those over? The media is pretty-much campaigning for the environmentalists this time, more so than I previously remember. Just in normal articles in the paper the reporter always seems to find out the environmentalist point of view, and devotes sometimes 1/3 of the space to that. Perhaps that is because the reporters are environmentalists? In any case it has given the impression that environmentalists are a major party group, and these sorts of things tend to become self-fulfilling.

The environmentalist bandwagon has been taking up by central and local politicians. We have a ministry for the environment which is spending money like water. We have DOC which owns 1/3 of the country and is continuing to buy more. We have the Canterbury Regional Council renaming itself to Environment Canterbury in a branding exercise to allow it to massively increase spending. We have stories about water shortages, global warming, and even peak oil sometimes.

All of this has given credence to the environmentalists’ beliefs in the minds of many people. Labour has been discredited in many eyes by its scandals and things like the smacking bill (oddly an environmentalist policy) and electoral finance act. However, people who naturally vote Labour can reasonably vote for the environmentalists instead, knowing that they go together.

I don’t for a minute think any of this is a good thing. Environmentalists lack basic knowledge which would allow them to make informed and sensible decisions (economics, markets, incentives, even cause and effect in some cases). The result is a bit like the blind leading the blind, and the effects will be widespread and unnecessary human suffering.

Anyway, given all the attention given to environmentalist concerns, what is surprising is that environmentalists are not at 30% in the polls. The reason for that, is that most environmentalists are left wing and (unlike what many people say) you can’t have one without the other.

If environmentalists want to really raise their vote, I suggest they work to destroy the unions. This is the last bastion of left-ness which is more interested in Labour than environmentalism. It contributes a massive amount of Labour’s support, and without it, Labour might fade in favour of the greens.

In the meantime, I suggest environmentalists continue their campaign to capture the machinery of the state, including things like DOC, MOE, Education, local councils, etc. However there has already been huge success here and it is probably into diminishing returns now. The other big spenders are health and welfare – how about spending some time thinking about how to take those over?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: greenfly http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62333 greenfly Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:40:22 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62333 jh - couldn't describe your explanation as 'wishy washy' - more 'paranoid'. jh – couldn’t describe your explanation as ‘wishy washy’ – more ‘paranoid’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: jh http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62331 jh Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:58:48 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62331 I prefer my explanation as it doesn't hide behind anything wishy washy. I prefer my explanation as it doesn’t hide behind anything wishy washy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: greenfly http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62328 greenfly Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:18:43 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62328 jh - the better explanation is that the Greens favour open and honest dialogue and would like to be involved with tangata whenua in that. jh – the better explanation is that the Greens favour open and honest dialogue and would like to be involved with tangata whenua in that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]> By: jh http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62327 jh Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:59:03 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/26/the-karate-kid-campaign/#comment-62327 OutinFront Says: "there are many reasons, but I think one of the main ones if that the Green message is being heard by more and more people. " The Green message is a mixed one; hopefully the pragmatists will come to the fore. Interesting post Sapient: "dangers of strong outgroup". It isn't so much that the te Tirriti Greens want to right a wrong as that they see their new order as desirable. The non indigenous colonisers must be brought into line (as the beast driving that group is capitalism)..... unless someone has a better explanation. OutinFront Says:
“there are many reasons, but I think one of the main ones if that the Green message is being heard by more and more people. ”

The Green message is a mixed one; hopefully the pragmatists will come to the fore.

Interesting post Sapient: “dangers of strong outgroup”. It isn’t so much that the te Tirriti Greens want to right a wrong as that they see their new order as desirable. The non indigenous colonisers must be brought into line (as the beast driving that group is capitalism)….. unless someone has a better explanation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

]]>