by frog
There must be something more to talk about than celebrity deaths?
Published in THE GAME by frog on Sat, June 27th, 2009
Tags: general debate
General Debate, June 27, 2009
Published: June 27, 2009
Comment via Facebook
52 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
how about the guaranteed failure of the med-pot bill..
..and that down to..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
how about a well-reasoned/non-ideological moan about ‘bad manners’..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/american-jerk-be-civil-or-i%e2%80%99ll-beat-you-to-a-pulp/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(bj..q.e.d..?..re the 9.00 am recommendation..?..)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the latest greenweek is out..(the official publication from the green party)
..and guess what..?
not a murmer about the med-pot bill..
..that’s a ‘surprise’..
..eh..?
i think metiria/the greens are hoping this bill will be quietly defeated..and then ‘forgotten’..
..on wednesday..
..can i say..(just on behalf of myself/whoar)..’dream on!’..
..eh..?
..and i don’t think i will be alone..
..wednesday will be the final ‘shake’..
..of the p*ssing up against the wall..
..of this opportunity..
..eh..?
..and i think a few people will be somewhat incensed/engaged..
..by this (non)-turn of events..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does Nandor have a view on this issue? Calling Nandor! Come in!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
far be it from me to speak for him..
..but i do have a memory of him being on the record..
..and saying the green party mp’s/leadership made a conscious decision to not put any energy into med-pot/decriminalisation..
..nothing much seems to have changed since then..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i think ‘fear’ was their main motivator..
‘fear’ of noise/backlash from the vociferous minority of the 45% of nz’ers who have never tried pot..
..and as part of their deeply-flawed (yet still clung to)..
..somewhat desperate ‘need’..
..to be all things..
..to all people..
..a plan so deeply ‘flawed’..
..where to begin..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u Says:
June 27th, 2009 at 11:26 am
> ‘fear’ of noise/backlash from the vociferous minority of the 45% of nz’ers who have never tried pot..
there are plenty of people who haven’t tried marijuana but still support its medicinal use, and there are probably people who have tried it but don’t (I think they figure that they were young and rebellious when they tried it, so everyone who wants to use it must be young and rebellious).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i agree with yr finessing of that point/stat..
..my point is that the greens ‘fear’ that noisy minority..
..and that has/is what accounts for their failures..
..it seems to be a lack of political courage..
..makes you wish they’d get some political-backbone..
..and stand up and fight for what they know is right..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil – that ‘noisy minority’ is personified in the tantrumming Peter Dunne and his knee-capping behaviour at ‘coalition time’. The success he had in keeping the Greens out has perhaps been taken as a salutory lesson by the Party – it’s debilitating to be taken out over a minor issue (and despite your passion Phil, you’d have to agree the cannabis issue isn’t a top shelf issue)
From a personal point of view, being a gardener and lover of plants, I’m incensed (in a relaxed, cynical kind of way) that there are restrictions on growing any kind of plant in your own garden)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why did Michael Jackson die…
Farah dies and goes to the pearly gates. Peter says ‘You were good. You’re in, can I grant you a wish?’
She says ‘Keep the children safe’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s an inconvienient video for the AGW religion, and its only the first part!
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Hro-8qpB_vg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
peter dunhill..
..he has long been a tobacco industry tout/pimp…
..and that is why he opposes decrim/med-pot..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A puzzlement.
Most of the people moving into the countryside are keen gardeners, and many would be “organic” gardeners of one kind or another.
So I would have thought they would be a Green Party constituency.
However, Whangarei has just notified its plan change 92 which is a plan prepared by Beca Planning which commits the whole of Whangarei to Smart Growth.
As is usual with this destructive planning fad the plan claims that because there is considerable productive land around the city (actually I presume they mean fertile land around the city) this must be protected from urban sprawl and the city must be subject to intensification.
So farm land must be protected from gardeners.
The Green Party also opposed industrial agriculture as unsustainable.
So where does the Green party stand on this?
The party also stands for social justice. The sale of seeds has increased 20% since the recession started to bite and these are vegetable seeds.
So clearly people are turning to gardening to feed themselves. Also the advent of farmers markets all around Northland means that many of these gardens will supply “buy local” markets, which are also if favour with the Greens.
This of course confirms my argument that whatever Smart Growth may be it is certainly not a Green Policy.
Any comment?
I am preparing submissions against this dreadful policy, but it would be nice to have a few allies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen
If there were a link to the policy it would be good.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry, meant to paste it in but got distracted by the dogs.
http://www.wdc.govt.nz/xml/ps.aspx?fn=/resources/13222/notice-of-plan-change-92.html
Then go to the bottom of the page to view the documents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting riff on why the Japanese economy is different from everyone elses.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/06/particularity-of-japan-from-economic.html
Phil – I just plain forgot. My Daughter demanded pancakes for breakfast and SHE doesn’t know how to make them … yet.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Keith Locke’s support for the Iranian opposition assumes a lot. He assumes that the Iranian “Green” opposition is “democratic”, which is simply not the case if the opposition were attempting to overturn the result of a democratic election fairly won by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As I have pointed out, there are parallels between the Green opposition in Iran and the Yellow opposition in Thailand (the “Peoples Alliance for Democracy”) which last year brought down a democratically elected government through exactly the same kind of street protests that we have seen on the streets of Tehran.
It seems that Keith has thrown in his lot with those who want to misrepresent events in Iran for their own purposes. There has been no credible evidence to support the claims of systematic electoral fraud. And Keith should know that the violence was not initiated by either the government or the workers militia (the basij) but by the Greens themselves, when they launched a series of unprovoked attacks upon the basij.
The media handling of the “shooting of Neda Soltani by a government sniper” is so reminiscent of the “Jessica Lynch affair” during the Iraq war that I am surprised that any intelligent observer could fail to regard it with a profound degree of scepticism.
One is left wondering whether Keith’s press statement is the Green Party’s payback for Russell’s US State Department sponsored Washington junket.
(Click on my name to see the republican’s comment on the Iranian election and the Neda Soltani assassination claims or go to www republican co nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think Keith has been pretty reserved in his response to this situation, reflecting the difficulty we have knowing what’s going on there. He has stopped way short of drawing a conclusion on the election result, only asking for an “impartial examination” of the results.
He does assume the reports of the cause of the violence are correct. I have seen no reports other than your own to the contrary, including about Neda Soltani, so would you please post a few links to where this has been reported overseas. Given that Jessica Lynch was “rescued” rather than killed, I find the comparison unusual, but let’s see what you’ve got.
I’ll assume your joke about Keith and Russel being grossly corrupt is just that, but one is left wondering why you’d risk coming across as a conspiracy theorist in a piece you’d like others to take seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It isn’t always societies fault (sometimes it’s the individuals):
Vancouver Mayor’s quick fix for homeless a long-term nuisance
“The “low-barrier” shelters are intended for the hardest-to-home. Those who use them are allowed to bring their shopping carts and pets in with them. Drug users aren’t turned away the way they are in other shelters. While no one argues the need for these kinds of accommodations as temporary measures, the problem is the type of individuals they attract if open for long. Drug addicts attract drug suppliers. Drug suppliers attract young boys to run their drugs. Consequently, there are emerging gangs of young kids – drug mules – congregating in the area and intimidating residents.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quick-fix-for-homeless-a-long-term-nuisance/article1195903/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I am preparing submissions against this dreadful policy, but it would be nice to have a few allies.”
Well, I am certainly willing to be allied. Like you, I am generally opposed to policies which unnecessarily drive up the price of housing and serve to lock out a generation of people from home ownership.
I am of the view that if people want higher density housing, then sure, let them live in higher density dwellings – but don’t drive up the price of houses at the same time. I also note that house prices aren’t likely to fall by much in New Zealand, where they really need to fall back by about 40% not only to get back into the affordable range, but to also get back to the long term trend line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That sounds like an excellent plan change. I may make a supporting submission if i have the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury, but then again, let us not forget that you have suggested making crime ridden cesspools of our cities. I remembered an article about how one undesirable person moved into a suburb, and how within ten years, the entire area had gone downwards. You find that areas tend to gravitate toward the lowest common denominator.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Please explain how I have suggested “making crime ridden cesspools of our cities”? From memory you abandoned our discussion on intensification v sprawl.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“There has been no credible evidence to support the claims of systematic electoral fraud”
ALLEGATIONS that Iran’s presidential election on 12 June was rigged are being followed up by statisticians in the US and elsewhere who are studying published voting figures for signs of irregularities. They say they have found “moderately strong” evidence that the figures are not genuine, though all are careful to emphasise that maths alone can’t prove fraud.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227144.000-statistics-hint-at-fraud-in-iranian-election.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen McShane Says:
A puzzlement.
Most of the people moving into the countryside are keen gardeners, and many would be “organic” gardeners of one kind or another.
So I would have thought they would be a Green Party constituency.
However, Whangarei has just notified its plan change 92 which is a plan prepared by Beca Planning which commits the whole of Whangarei to Smart Growth.
As is usual with this destructive planning fad the plan claims that because there is considerable productive land around the city (actually I presume they mean fertile land around the city) this must be protected from urban sprawl and the city must be subject to intensification.
So farm land must be protected from gardeners.
……………..
As with Christchurch people are saying they want things to stay as they are (ie they don’t want growth). The developers want growth as they buy land at farm prices and sell it at urban prices so they benefit as do the associated trades and services, but as one person put it “next time you wait in a queue to get onto the freeway, do you ever wonder “did anyone ask me if I want to share my town with all these extra people”"
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Land tax would shift the incentives that see developers paying off councils and paying for policy from government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Denis Welch noted the obvious on National Radio today. First, that the news media has failed to provide impartial reporting the Iranian election and its aftermath, and secondly that given the popularity of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad within Iran, it should have come as no surprise that he would win the election by a good margin. Welch pointed out that Iran extends beyond the affluent neighbourhoods of North Tehran, and that the rural poor, and the working classes of south Tehran, are solidly in support of Ahmadinejad. He also made some trenchant comment on the Neda Soltani story.
So what have New Zealand’s mass media organisations delivered to their public? The fiction of a “stolen election” and of a young woman “killed by a government sniper”. Reminiscent, respectively, of the fictional claims of “weapons of mass destruction” which provided the pretext for war against Iraq, and the fictional story of the “rescue of Jessica Lynch” which was a deliberate and crude defamation of the Iraqi people by western mass media organisations.
Perhaps someone would like to post the full text of Keith Locke’s press statement here. I am sure that it would make interesting reading.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/21400
Nothing there you haven’t mentioned already.
And the links I asked for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How many countries have a Diversity Action Program? The idea suggests pro-activity (ie) is this about making diverse cultures feel at home or not liking our own culture? The far left seem to be most opposed to the status quo (that’s why they’re the “far left”, “fifth column” or “enemy within”).
Note the program is underlain by The Treaty of Waitangi which guarantees tino rangitiratanga (biculturalism etc etc )
http://tinyurl.com/l3uhof
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Geoff
Short of invading them to inspect the ballot boxes, there will NEVER be any way to credibly provide evidence. I reckon that to be a rather extreme version of Dubya’s invasion excuse in Iraq… and an incorrect response.
It is LIKEWISE incorrect to simply accept on face value, results that do not make sense with respect to regional demographics.
Having seen the means by which electoral fraud can be perpetrated in the USA, I am not particularly trusting of the people who do the counting.
Particularly when things appear in the numbers that don’t make sense. It doesn’t rise to the level of your “credible evidence” and it is not difficult for ME at least to see how the winner might be announced before the polls close… I am after all, from the USA. However, when strongly partisan regions for one side are reportedly strongly siding with the other, the results have to be investigated properly.
Not by the interested parties.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Remember that Smart Growth began as a means of pricing blacks and hispanics out of white enclaves after the civil rights legislation of the sixties made it illegal to zone them out.
When those residents of Christchurch say they do not want any more people living there they are now pricing young people out of their housing market – the selfish generation is at work. It eventually backfires because the aged folk who drive these campaigns then find they need young people as nurses and tradespeople.
Just as the people in the white enclaves of California found they needed blacks and hispanics to do the housework and mow the lawns etc. So they had this brilliant idea of building high density housing around the railroad stations so they could stack them up in there.
It worked and that is when Growth Management became Smart Growth.
I was there and watched it happen. You won’t find many blacks and hispanics suporting Smart Growth. Or Maori or Pacific Islanders. They get priced out of the house market more than anyone else.
Smart Growth is not a Green planning policy – it is redneck.
Go figure. And read what Thomas Sowell has to say if you want a second opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“From memory you abandoned our discussion on intensification v sprawl.”
I temporarily put it on hold. You should know that it will come up again at some stage; I am just wanting to get all my bits and pieces all in order.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I look forward to it john-ston. If there’s one thing I’m confident in my argument about, it is the need to stop sprawl.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Every democratic sovereign state places the responsibility for conducting elections in the hands of an impartial authority which is at the same time an institution of the state. Normally there is a procedure for appealing the decisions of the electoral authority to the judiciary. Iran is no exception to this rule.
It is also the case that no sovereign state would willingly allow another state to interfere in the electoral process. To do so would be to effectively surrender sovereignty. It is particularly ironic that those states (namely Britain and the United States of America) which conspired to destroy the nascent Iranian democracy in 1953 should now be demanding the right to sit in judgement on the Iranian electoral process.
Britain and the US don’t like the result of last month’s presidential election in Iran. But times have changed. They no longer have the power to overthrow an elected Iranian government which happens to displease them. Ahmadinejad is determined that he is not going to go the way of Mossadeq, and most Iranians share that determination.
The obvious solution to the problem of public distrust of electoral systems anywhere and everywhere in the world is the abolition of the secret ballot. I know that idea will not go down well with the denizens of frogblog, who treasure their anonymity, but if you want to have a truly transparent democratic process, whether you are talking about New Zealand, Iran, or the United States of America, that is the only way to do it.
I suggest that Valis does his own research, and finds his own links. If he comes up with anything pertinent to the case – for example evidence to support the claims of electoral fraud, or evidence that the Iranian government conspired to murder Neda Soltani – then let him publish it to the benefit of us all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Geoff, it doesn’t work that way. First, I haven’t questioned your claims about Iran, just the silly stuff about Keith and Russel doing deals with the US. Second, what I want to read is YOUR sources. I’ve genuinely assumed you have some good ones, the alternative being that you made it all up, which I’ve no reason to believe (though I must admit, that silly stuff about Keith and Russel does cast doubts on your credibility). As I’m very doubtful the mainstream media reports on Iran are reliable, I’m very prepared to believe you and I’d like to see what has convinced you. So I ask again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis is provoked by my reference to Russell’s State Department sponsored visit to Washington in relation to Keith’s press statement on the Iranian presidential election.
Let’s be clear about this. The US State Department gives all-expenses-paid trips to Washington for those who are sympathetic to the national interests (one could say imperial ambitions) of the United States of America. For those less sympathetic it provides all-expenses-paid trips to Guantanamo Bay. Russell Norman, as the Co-Leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa, is clearly in the former category. It is only natural that the Green Party of Aotearoa, being a party of honorable men and women, and having accepted the favour of the State Department of the United States of America, will show understanding of, and sympathy for, the political aspirations of the United States in Iran, Afghanistan, and other nations of the Middle East and Central Asia. So therefore Keith Locke’s Green Party press statement on Iran should come as no surprise to anyone.
There is a widespread conviction among western liberals, including many in the Green Party of Aotearoa, that Barack Obama can succeed where George W Bush failed. But that is wishful thinking. Obama may be more articulate and more intelligent than Bush, but no amount of presidential eloquence or intelligence will make the imperial designs of the United States acceptable to the peoples of the Muslim world. US Middle East policy, and by implication the Green Party Middle East policy, is doomed to fail. Russell gets a free trip to the US, and Keith gets to issue a press statement, but at the end of the day they are both just bit players in an unwinnable war.
Valis resents my alluding to this situation. Well he might, but it does not do to ignore the fact that the US distributes its political largesse in the same way that it distributes its bombs, i.e. so as to extend the power and influence of the United States of America around the world.
Valis also demands that I reveal all my “sources”. Does Valis want me to name every Iranian I have ever spoken with? Supporters and opponents of the regime, liberals and conservatives, Muslim, Christian and Zoroastrian, clerics, artists, industrialists, scientists, farmers and workers? What good purpose would be served thereby? If Valis wants to disagree with my analysis he is free to do so. If he wants verification of a fact, he is free to ask for it. But for Valis, under cover of anonymity, to demand a list of all my sources, is rather too much like a self-parody of a police state. My answer is a categorical “No”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The New Zealand Parliament today joined other nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union in supporting Iranian citizens calling for an impartial examination of their recent election.
Green Party MP Keith Locke’s Notice of Motion supporting the rights of Iranian citizens to peacefully protest was passed unanimously in the New Zealand Parliament just prior to Question Time.
The crackdown by Iranian police and militia groups who are loyal to the regime has seen widespread violence on the streets of Iran that has shocked the world.
“It is good to see our Parliament joining other nations in condemning the crackdown on the democratic movement in Iran,” said Green Party Foreign Affairs spokesperson Keith Locke.
“The shocking footage of a young female student, Neda Soltani, gunned down while peacefully attending a protest has brought home to everyone just how committed to a free and democratic society are those Iranians who continue to risk their lives protesting.
“New Zealand today sends those brave protestors a message that we support their call for a fair and impartial investigation of the recent Iranian presidential elections,” said Mr Locke.
Keith Locke’s Notice of Motion passed 24 June 2009 by the New Zealand Parliament:
That this House expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who strive for a free and democratic society; asks the Iranian government not to use force against peaceful demonstrators; calls for an end to government restrictions on the media; and supports an impartial examination of the recent Iranian election result in the light of widespread concerns.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have posted above Keith Locke’s statement on the Iranian election.
I note that Keith enthuses about “how committed to a free and democratic society” the Iranian protesters are, and praises them for their bravery. Their bravery and commitment is not in question. But Keith Locke’s most certainly is. The man who cravenly caved in to the New Zealand state’s demand that he pledge allegiance to the hereditary monarch of the colonial power is now pontificating about “bravery” and “commitment to freedom and democracy”
Sheer hypocrisy Keith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“They no longer have the power to overthrow an elected Iranian government which happens to displease them. Ahmadinejad is determined that he is not going to go the way of Mossadeq, and most Iranians share that determination.”
Geoff, Mossadeq probably participated in ballot stuffing as well. Certainly, he wasn’t the harmless dude that everyone in the left portrays him as; he had proceeded with some economically idiotic policies (he nationalised the agricultural sector in Iran), and things were getting so bad that Iran was rapidly falling into the Soviet sphere. That coup was probably needed to stop the Commies from getting warm water ports and thus probably winning the Cold War.
If you really want to see how scary Mossadeq was, just read this
http://web.archive.org/web/20060908203818/www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/montage.htm
Once back in power, Mossadeq openly declared himself to be a communist and moved to implement a series of foolish nationalization schemes that threw out western investment and badly crippled Iran’s economy, creating tripple-digit inflation. As time went on, Mossadeq began to greatly consolidate his power, ramming a bill through Parliament that granted himself dictatorial powers, and forcing the Shah to grant him full control over the armed forces. He proceeded to hold a blatantly rigged referendum to “ratify” his actions, and claimed he had obtained victory with 98% of the vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My quote tags didn’t seem to work, so just to let you the comment beneath the URL was a quote from that page.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen McShane Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
When those residents of Christchurch say they do not want any more people living there they are now pricing young people out of their housing market – the selfish generation is at work. It eventually backfires because the aged folk who drive these campaigns then find they need young people as nurses and tradespeople.
…………………
What about the real estate industry which activley seeks out buyers offshore (for example Harcourts Shanghai branch)? Sumner is now jokingly referred to as “Pomna” and there is many a Korean Taxi driver living in “Asianhead”, Pegasus Town (the largest subdivision in the Southern hemisphere) has been heavily marketed in Singapore and you developers complain about compliance costs.
owning a house is a lifetime affair for most people and while most Kiwis see their incomes eroded the NZ Property Council lobbies for more migration to feed it’s members businesses. Federated farmers are saying we need to stick to what we are good at; selling out the kiwi lifestyle is unsustainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
um..!..frog..!
..housekeeping..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“NZ urged to stop trying to be the Switzerland of the South Pacific”: Federated Farmers conference. What about the South Is reaching one million people being a “great achievement” (UDS economist Robert Clements).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil u Says:
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
um..!..frog..!
..housekeeping..?
……..
censorship?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no..overlapping pic..now fixed..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s be clear about this. The US State Department gives all-expenses-paid trips to Washington for those who are sympathetic to the national interests (one could say imperial ambitions) of the United States of America. For those less sympathetic it provides all-expenses-paid trips to Guantanamo Bay.
That’s it? Nothing in between? Either total imperial sell out or off to G’Bay? It’s absurd Geoff. While the US does both of the things you say, that’s not the end of it. The US spends a lot of effort trying to make people like it and/or trying to corrupt them. It brings people in for trips from every embassy in the world and doesn’t choose who is invited based solely on their prior capitulation to imperialism. Why would they limit their options for influence in that way?
Russell Norman, as the Co-Leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa, is clearly in the former category.
Clearly? Your argument is essentially this: I accept only one possible argument for why Russel would accept the trip. Therefore, by definition, he is an imperialist and by implication, he’s been lying about the Green Party’s policy and intentions. This does not withstand even the most basic of logic tests.
It is only natural that the Green Party of Aotearoa, being a party of honorable men and women, and having accepted the favour of the State Department of the United States of America, will show understanding of, and sympathy for, the political aspirations of the United States in Iran, Afghanistan, and other nations of the Middle East and Central Asia. So therefore Keith Locke’s Green Party press statement on Iran should come as no surprise to anyone.
No, it is not natural to simply assume that ANYONE would automatically ditch all their principles just because they accepted a trip to the US. There are other possible explanations that are more obvious and more plausible. Can you not think of a single one?
There is a widespread conviction among western liberals, including many in the Green Party of Aotearoa, that Barack Obama can succeed where George W Bush failed. But that is wishful thinking. Obama may be more articulate and more intelligent than Bush, but no amount of presidential eloquence or intelligence will make the imperial designs of the United States acceptable to the peoples of the Muslim world.
I agree entirely.
US Middle East policy, and by implication the Green Party Middle East policy, is doomed to fail.
You’re grave error comes in linking the two so casually.
Russell gets a free trip to the US, and Keith gets to issue a press statement, but at the end of the day they are both just bit players in an unwinnable war.
Absolute fantasy.
Valis resents my alluding to this situation.
Of course I resent a claim that Russel, Keith and the Green Party are corrupt US stooges. If it could be substantiated I’d have to look at the evidence, but you offer only your predetermined definitions of how things must work. This is not evidence at all.
Well he might, but it does not do to ignore the fact that the US distributes its political largesse in the same way that it distributes its bombs, i.e. so as to extend the power and influence of the United States of America around the world.
Got no problem with that, except that it does so with more creativity than you seem to be able to imagine.
Valis also demands that I reveal all my “sources”.
Just as nowhere do I say “all”, you wouldn’t provide even one.
Does Valis want me to name every Iranian I have ever spoken with? Supporters and opponents of the regime, liberals and conservatives, Muslim, Christian and Zoroastrian, clerics, artists, industrialists, scientists, farmers and workers?
Of course not, as you must know. What I clearly asked for was some links, meaning articles posted in the public domain that you considered credible. My exact words were “would you please post a few links to where this has been reported overseas”. What in the hell is wrong with that? Why discredit yourself when the evidence against what you claim is right on the same page? It is not rational behaviour.
What good purpose would be served thereby?
Posting a few links that back up your version of events might give you some of the credibility you sorely need in this arena. Or it might not. That’s what I’d hoped to judge in a considered manner. Instead we get unsubstantiated fantasy about the Green Party and no corroborating links regarding Iran. And if all your sources are private, why not just say so and not make up demands I haven’t made.
If Valis wants to disagree with my analysis he is free to do so.
That’s the irony of course. As I said before, I’m extremely open to your views on Iran. I have no doubt we don’t have the real story! But there’s no way to know when what you say is valid and you seem determined not to assist.
But for Valis, under cover of anonymity, to demand a list of all my sources, is rather too much like a self-parody of a police state.
You’re a good one to talk about self parody.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh, one of the largest growing centres in the United States was Atlanta. Altanta’s house prices never went through the roof, and Mr McShane can tell you why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1) “Valis” says (in relation to why Russell accepted a US State Department trip to Washington). “There are other possible explanations that are more obvious and more plausible. Can you not think of a single one?”. “Valis” wants me to join in a guessing game. I will not. Simple solution: Let Russell tell us “why he accepted the trip” as a favour from the nation which gave the world Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, Fallujah, extraordinary rendition, and the ruthless aerial bombing of peoples all around the world, from Vietnam to Afghanistan…
2) “Valis” puts words into my mouth. “Corrupt US stooges…” and “lying about the Green Party’s policy and intentions” etc. That is not the way to conduct an argument.
3) “Valis” wants me to post (world wide web) links. But I don’t work off “links”. I work off personal contacts. So I can’t oblige him.
4) The Green Party, and the New Zealand Parliament, and the regime as a whole have a version of events in Iran which is that an election was “stolen”, peaceful protesters were attacked by the basij, and an innocent young woman was shot by a government sniper. The Iranian regime has denied this version of events. And I have questioned the credibility of the GPA version. It is really up to the GPA to provide the evidence, because the GPA is making the claims.
5) I did claim that protesters had made “an unprovoked attack on the workers militia”. My initial source was a Radio New Zealand report on the shooting of protesters as they attempted to seize control of a basij building in Tehran at an early stage in the post-election turbulence. I withdraw that claim, pending further information.
6) But most of what I have said consists of questions about the GPA case that remain unanswered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1) “Valis” wants me to join in a guessing game.
No, what I really want is for you to stop your guessing game. Its even worse than a guessing game in that you don’t even claim to be guessing, but that you already know Russel’s motivations (and Keith’s and that they were intimately connected), despite offering no more evidence than an incredibly thin “just so” story.
Simple solution: Let Russell tell us “why he accepted the trip” as a favour from the nation which gave the world Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, Fallujah, extraordinary rendition, and the ruthless aerial bombing of peoples all around the world, from Vietnam to Afghanistan…
Nothing wrong with that proposal. Try starting with it next time instead of parading your pet conclusions as fact.
.
2) “Valis” puts words into my mouth. “Corrupt US stooges…” and “lying about the Green Party’s policy and intentions” etc. That is not the way to conduct an argument.
LOL, I’ll say its no way to conduct an argument. Wait, I did say pretty much that. Where was it? Oh yes, just a few lines above!
“My exact words were “would you please post a few links to where this has been reported overseas”. … Why discredit yourself when the evidence against what you claim is right on the same page? It is not rational behaviour.” and
“And if all your sources are private, why not just say so and not make up demands I haven’t made.”
What was that about parody? But let’s look at your gripe. The Green Party is explicitly anti-imperialist in its policy and many public statements, particularly with regard to US adventurism in the Middle East (Keith so much so that he’s often accused of being a “US hater” by those who can’t tell the difference between a country and its foreign policy). Yet you claim the opposite, that:
It is only natural that the Green Party of Aotearoa, being a party of honorable men and women, and having accepted the favour of the State Department of the United States of America, will show understanding of, and sympathy for, the political aspirations of the United States in Iran, Afghanistan, and other nations of the Middle East and Central Asia.
Now both of these things can’t be true. If Russel and Keith are imperialists, then its hard to see how their advocating for Green policy wouldn’t be lying. What would you call it? Likewise, if Greens “show understanding of, and sympathy for, the political aspirations of the United States”, that seems like being their stooge to me. You may not like the exact words I chose to describe the implications of what you said, but they are accurate, unlike the words you put in my mouth. Maybe you didn’t mean to imply such things? Then I’ll apologise when you do, and counsel you to choose your words more carefully next time.
3) “Valis” wants me to post (world wide web) links. But I don’t work off “links”. I work off personal contacts. So I can’t oblige him.
Again, great to finally have a straight answer instead of accusations. I’ll know in future not to ask.
It does leave you with the problem, though, that your methods are therefore not really suited to a two-way blog conversation. What’s the first thing that happens when someone posts a claim on a blog? People challenge it and ask for proof. That you can offer no source materials on your subject makes it rather hard for people to come around to your position, even when they are sympathetic, as I am on Iran. And that your habit is to make claims of Green corruption on the Green Party blog, means you’ll face such challenges even more than most. Now frankly, as you’ve probably noticed, most people here just ignore what you write. This is because you come across as a bit loopy, sorry. But I’m unable to let grossly unsubstantiated claims just go by without comment. Call it a personality flaw.
4) The Green Party, and the New Zealand Parliament, and the regime as a whole have a version of events in Iran which is that an election was “stolen”, peaceful protesters were attacked by the basij, and an innocent young woman was shot by a government sniper. The Iranian regime has denied this version of events. And I have questioned the credibility of the GPA version. It is really up to the GPA to provide the evidence, because the GPA is making the claims.
Both sides are making claims. You can’t demand of the Greens what you don’t want to do yourself. And it may not be fair, but the person questioning the standard story should at least be prepared to put up some evidence first if only to make the point that people should invest in looking closer. Most people don’t have a problem with doing just that.
5) I did claim that protesters had made “an unprovoked attack on the workers militia”. My initial source was a Radio New Zealand report on the shooting of protesters as they attempted to seize control of a basij building in Tehran at an early stage in the post-election turbulence. I withdraw that claim, pending further information.
Very even-handed of you.
6) But most of what I have said consists of questions about the GPA case that remain unanswered.
Its really not “the GPA case”. Seems to me Keith has just repeated what he’s heard, and he didn’t draw any conclusions about the election, though he did accept how the violence supposedly occurred. That may be lazy and not laudable, but its not corruption either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1. So “Valis” and I are agreed that it is for Russell to explain why he accepted a trip to Washington and elsewhere at the expense of the US government.
An explanation from Russell will be of double benefit. Firstly, because it will make his own position clear, and secondly it will dispel the impression that while Green MPs respond to questioning from the media organisations, for some reason they tend not to respond to questions in this particular Green Party public forum.
2. The Green Party may claim to be an anti-imperialist party, but does it not support the presence of New Zealand troops in Afghanistan, at least to the extent of having said that “they are doing a good job”? Have not the Green Party MPs sworn solemn allegiance to Queen Elizabeth who is the Commander-in-Chief of the British military forces? I do not accuse the Green Party members of “lying”. I have not accused them of corruption. I take them at their word. I believe that their allegiance is to the Commander-in-Chief of British military forces in accordance with their solemn oath. As does the New Zealand state, and the government of the United States.
3. To “show understanding of, and sympathy for, the political aspirations of the United States” (my words) is not the same as being “their stooge” (Valis’s words). If my argument was really objectionable, Valis would be happy to debate exactly what I said, instead of introducing his own terms such as “corruption”, “lying” and “stooge”.
4. “Valis” says “And it may not be fair, but the person questioning the standard story should at least be prepared to put up some evidence first if only to make the point that people should invest in looking closer”. Of course it is not fair, it is not right, and if that principle was followed in law then few accused people would ever be acquitted of any crime. Valis is requiring that the Iranian regime prove its innocence of the allegations being made by Keith. That is not “fair”, but it is reflective of the political reality in the west, and the regime in Iran will just have to accept that is the way it is.
5. “Valis” says “You can’t demand of the Greens what you don’t want to do yourself.” Very true. That is why I have withdrawn the one claim which I cannot at this stage substantiate. I invite Keith to do the same with any of the allegations which he may be unable to substantiate.
6. “Valis” says Keith “didn’t draw any conclusions about the election”. Well, I have posted Keith’s press statement here, and it seems designed to support the opposition claims of a “stolen election”. At the very least, Keith is suggesting that the election might have been rigged. That in itself is “a conclusion”. Why else ask for “an impartial examination”? If Keith was not trying to create that impression, then I invite him to state whether he now accepts the “impartial examination” of the Council of Guardians, and if not, why not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Geoff
By number 2 are you implying that the UN is somehow an “Imperialist” organization?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/sc1386.pdf
We didn’t send anyone nor does Green Defense policy support sending anyone anywhere, on account of requests by the Queen of England.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
An explanation from Russell will be of double benefit. Firstly, because it will make his own position clear, and secondly it will dispel the impression that while Green MPs respond to questioning from the media organisations, for some reason they tend not to respond to questions in this particular Green Party public forum.
While I think Green MPs blog more than any others, I know of no MP that prioritises blogging above more traditional forms of media and communication, including written letters. So you shouldn’t be surprised. And Geoff, even if Russel did see your request, he’ll also see the rest of our ridiculous conversation. Once he’s aware of your “style” of debate, I seriously doubt he’ll waste his time. You might have better luck with a letter.
2. The Green Party may claim to be an anti-imperialist party, but does it not support the presence of New Zealand troops in Afghanistan, at least to the extent of having said that “they are doing a good job”?
The Green Party only supports sending troops overseas on peacekeeping or physical rebuilding missions and not in support of any type of combat mission. That this has not always been clear in Afghanistan has resulted in many statements and questions in the House from Keith.
Have not the Green Party MPs sworn solemn allegiance to Queen Elizabeth who is the Commander-in-Chief of the British military forces? I do not accuse the Green Party members of “lying”. I have not accused them of corruption. I take them at their word. I believe that their allegiance is to the Commander-in-Chief of British military forces in accordance with their solemn oath. As does the New Zealand state, and the government of the United States.
Their oath is to the Queen of NZ. That she has other responsibilities does not mean NZ MPs do as well. Keith likes this situation no more than you and has a member’s bill in every ballot to remove the Queen as head of state.
3. To “show understanding of, and sympathy for, the political aspirations of the United States” (my words) is not the same as being “their stooge” (Valis’s words). If my argument was really objectionable, Valis would be happy to debate exactly what I said, instead of introducing his own terms such as “corruption”, “lying” and “stooge”.
That’s crap. I have answered almost every point you’ve raised, not cheery picked as you have mine. In this case, I gave details why I thought my assessment was accurate. Instead of responding (debating), you say I refuse to do so. We have very different understandings of what words mean, Geoff.
4. “Valis” says “And it may not be fair, but the person questioning the standard story should at least be prepared to put up some evidence first if only to make the point that people should invest in looking closer”. Of course it is not fair, it is not right, and if that principle was followed in law then few accused people would ever be acquitted of any crime.
This analogy is false. You can’t expect media, in this case used in the widest possible sense, to operate like a court. My point is that whether you like that or not doesn’t matter, you still have to deal with it. If I wish to dispute the standard version of events, I need to provide a reason for people take what I say seriously. Otherwise I will be ignored. Just making unsubstantiated claims is not enough. Too bad.
Valis is requiring that the Iranian regime prove its innocence of the allegations being made by Keith. That is not “fair”, but it is reflective of the political reality in the west, and the regime in Iran will just have to accept that is the way it is.
Geoff, Geoff, Geoff. All this talk we’ve had about putting words in mouths and you do it again? Kindly point out where you think I said that. Almost my entire debate with you has been about what YOU have said, not about what Iran or anyone else has said. I asked YOU to provide some evidence for your claims, not Iran. You explained that you couldn’t provide links and I said fine. I then explained how that puts you at a disadvantage in a blog debate. Instead of responding to any of this, you pretend that I was talking about the Iranian regime instead of you. Am I being clear enough Geoff?
6. “Valis” says Keith “didn’t draw any conclusions about the election”. Well, I have posted Keith’s press statement here, and it seems designed to support the opposition claims of a “stolen election”. At the very least, Keith is suggesting that the election might have been rigged. That in itself is “a conclusion”. Why else ask for “an impartial examination”?
By “conclusion”, I said very clearly that I meant coming to a position on whether there had been a election fraud or not. It seems to me he supports an impartial examination to get to the bottom of it. Before you go claiming otherwise, I’m not saying I accept his version of events as correct. I remain very open to your version of events. But if this is how you engage with people trying to see your side of it, I’d hate to see you argue with someone implacably opposed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)