Madness Part 3

June 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm by David Farrar

And the third and final part is just as good. Read this third post by Sue Kedgley. I like this part especially:

The President of one of the main Italian NGO’s, for example, Antonio Duovati, from the Committee for Food Sovereignty, explained that New Zealand is seen, thanks to our flag waving for free trade liberalization policies, as ‘an enemy of the third world’ and a slave of America and Europe.

Oh wow we get to be both an enemy of the third world, and a slave of America and Europe. Do you get badges to go with that?

You know what is really funny. All these people decrying the effort to alleviate the food crisis – I bet you very very few are from countries starving. Sue is quoting oh gosh an Italian NGO. I bet you they are starving. Now fo course you don’t have to be starving to have a view on food policies, but I reckon the views of Sue and her Italian mates that NZ is an enemy of the third world, is not shared by those in the actual third world.

Anyway to make up for all the irresistible bashing, I should point out that Frog has done a very good response to my post on trying to get an in Parliament, and is what I call a partial retreat. I still think they are on somewhat dangerous grounds talking about party votes for the Maori Party being wasted, because they are only wasted if there is . One you get past an situation, a party vote for one Party is just as valuable as a party vote for any other party which makes the threshold. But nice to have a thoughtful response.

Tags: , , , ,

22 Responses to “Madness Part 3”

  1. Tane W (51 comments) says:

    I agree with ZenTiger’s comment in that a vote is never wasted. Cast it where you see fit, and you never know what might happen.

    If votes are wasted, then anyone voting for a party out of government has wasted their votes more or less.

    Tane W

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    Madness Part 4; the greens asylum is planned on Utopia Island where they will share a fridge bong and various gongs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. peterwn (3,312 comments) says:

    NZ seems to have all sorts of malcontents who go whining off to international agencies, NGO’s in other countries or (so it seems even US congresspeople and senators).

    People in these organisation just love taking a pot at New Zealand because it diverts attention from their own patchy performance in similar matters, and Kiwi malcontents just love handing them the ammumition even though it is little more than like pop gun corks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Strutta (67 comments) says:

    Over on frogblog, one of the replies highlighted Malthus and how population would exceed food supply. Two points here for the greenies…

    1. As a country achieves parity with western technological society, the birth rate drops to maintenance levels.

    2. If you are so concerned with human over-population seriously damaging the environment, why are you campaigning to keep hundreds of thousands alive?

    P.S. ‘The Environment’ is that which we live in, not some green utopia of the balnace of nature brought about by self-sufficency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    As I understand, New Zealand is technically a third world country based on the proportion of our GDP that comes from agriculture – we just do being a third world country well enough, and make enough money from it, to get classed as a first world country by virtue of our wealth. The same issues that are good for NZ (better access for agricultural produce into currently restricted markets such as the EU and USA etc) are also good for other third world countries. New Zealand should therefore be considered a friend of the third world, provided the government is lobbying for international agreements that are good for us.

    However, the more the government supports international agreements and ideas that are bad for us and third world countries (Kyoto, biofuels etc), the more NZ could legitimately be called an enemy of the third world. If Ms Kedgley wishes us to be friends again, she could get the Greens out of parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    “the greens asylum is planned on Utopia Island where they will share a fridge bong and various gongs”

    why do they keep giving dad4 time on the computer inside the funny farm? It astounds me how liberal we have become towards the mentally insane, and their treatment within institutions. Next they’ll be opening up a lotto inside gamblers anonymous.

    David, seriously I’d love to have known your views on what the oldest and most conservative paper in the country with possibly the biggest rural scope, had to say about National’s patronising of the people rather than 3 posts in a row about the Greens.

    What’s with all of this looking over the shoulder stuff?

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/8883/national039s-vacuum

    again Ouch!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Grant Michael McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    At I asked for reasons for objecting to a special system of representation for the tangata whenua alone; then the Greens went and showed how the system can be corrupted by trying to organise that very corruption.
    I guess that there is a good reason to eliminate the seats. Ah well, I was wrong; live and learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Strutta (67 comments) says:

    Paul,

    And why do you feel compelled to denegrate d4j when the topic is the Greens and their stance on vital issues? He is entitled to his opinion, leave it at that and address the topic in a rational thoughtful manner. Thank you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    “why do they keep giving dad4 time on the computer inside the funny farm?”

    What a twisted coward you are Paul.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    Red Russell was just on the news showing his extensive business knowledge and grasp of operations management theory by suggesting Tiwai Point matching production to lake levels.

    As the boss of Tiwai pointed out the smelter is a peak efficiency from a power and emissions perspective when it is operating at a set capacity.

    So the Greens want to save the environment by making the smelter less efficient and thus a bigger polluter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “It astounds me how liberal we have become towards the mentally insane, and their treatment within institutions.”

    Really Paul, maybe we should make them all wear Pink Vests with “RETARD” emblazoned across the back?
    You would have to be the biggest self-righteous dick head

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    Strutta

    I would love to know what Dad’s opinion is, but if any were in “the greens asylum is planned on Utopia Island where they will share a fridge bong and various gongs” is opinion, I’ll eat my hat.

    you’re right though, it is repetitive of me to attack the poor bugger. But I would imagine that if I was to add a comment along the lines of “neo-con nutteers eat the poor for breakfast” or something equally insane, then I would hopefully get attacked too.

    The guy is incapable of constructing an opinion let alone engage in political discourse.

    “What a twisted coward you are Paul”

    You are the one who once again, like a school wimp jumping up and down from the back row behind the hoods, calling names. The only one who is a coward is one who is unwilling to engage in any form of meaningful dialogue. I mean really are these the thoughts going through your brain, or is there an actual opinion in there? Because bugger me sunshine, that isn’t anything resembling criticism, satire, argument or considered thought. It’s insane vitriol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dad4justice (8,313 comments) says:

    Paul are you the unstable hinamanu, as your obsession is both toxic and creepy !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    Sue is an excellent example of the general level of honesty and morality amongst green politicians. In the face of conclusive evidence that in fact the sort of agricultural policies that she promotes have caused the deliberate deaths of many, many millions of people, she insists on imposing these sort of solutions on more of the world’s poorest. One can only assume that death and destruction to the many whilst enriching the despotic few that run such schemes is indeed Sue’s real intent. A more twisted, nasty, manipulative, and ethically vacuous person one is unlikely to meet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. libertyscott (359 comments) says:

    I posted (but the damned UAE firewall blocked me for some reason) that she is either stupid, mentally deranged or lying and manipulative to somehow think European and US agricultural policies are “free trade liberalisation”.

    I don’t know which one is it. Is she stupid? Well, I don’t really know, it’s the answer I wish WAS true. Deranged? Possibly, much of what she puts out in press releases and expresses is hysteria. Manipulative and lying? Well somehow who rallies against cars then hops in a Mitsubishi Magna to do the drive from the Opera House to home certainly makes one cynical, just like she attends the National Land Transport Programme launch to speak at the protest for the photo op, but when the cameras go she’s off and doesn’t bother supporting the protest or even listening to the speeches from the Minister and CEOs so she might understand more of what is going on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    I had the privilege of listening to Lord Winston (Child of our Time presenter) a few months back in Auckland. A very smart man that would rip any Green MP to pieces.

    He said the cheapest and simplest solution to world hunger is GE and there is no risk. They can make rice plants that use 10% of the normal water requirements, maize that is drought resistant etc.

    If anyone is responsible for people starving it is not the great right wing conspiracy, but Greenpeace, the Green Party and the rest of the rabib left wing mob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    “GE and there is no risk”

    You have the proof. You know that after 20 years of field testing that this stuff is 100% risk free, or are we going to have to deal with GE attributed health issues in the future. They called asbestos safe, seriously they thought it was the greatest thing in the world, would save us from so many problems.

    “If anyone is responsible for people starving it is not the great right wing conspiracy, but Greenpeace, the Green Party and the rest of the rabib left wing mob.”

    Believe your ideologically driven hatred all you like, it is of course wrong and I will tell you why.

    Apart from the fact that 6 months ago the world was producing commodities at the usual rate (within the usual seasonal fluctuations), why aren’t you all willing to accept that as long as we trade food under the laws and rules of commodities on the free market (as perhaps we should), the market will dictate the price. It’s not about production, it’s about demand. I’ve heard some wacko ‘beat a green’ reasons why the price of oil has gone through the roof, when the simple fact of the matter is that it’s a market reaction to market forces. Massive hedge fund investment in oil futures was one of the major contributing factors for the weekend spike in oil, not green lack of exploration. That and a weak US dollar (not the fault of the greens), oh and a signal from Israel that they would strike Iranian sites that they don’t like (massively illegal act of aggression). Where in those three forces that saw the spike in the dollar, did the greens affect the price of oil?

    Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa, providing massive crops for the entire region (not to mention livelihoods and stable economies. Mugabawe has systematically destroyed the ability of that nation to provide crops, a political act, not a the fault of the greens.

    To assume that technology and GE will be the elixir of world hunger, is just too simplistic an accusation against the anti GE groups.

    I agree Lord Winston is a stunning mind and has some valid points. However his arguments are taken in isolation and without any relation to the other forces that are possibly greater than draught or pests, the pressure of economics and politics.

    Take an example (similar that which we are experiencing in NZ), the rise of biofuels and land conversion. How can it be the fault of the greens that land is being consumed at almost incomprehensible rates and used for the production of corn to appease the US consumption of biofuels. An announcement by the US Agricultural Secretary that their policy on this agricultural shift will not change, saw the immediate and rapid rise of the stocks of the biofuel companies – literally as he spoke. How is this born out in real terms, this from the Gurardian;

    “This means one in 20 of all cereal grains produced in the world this year will end up in the petrol tank of US cars”

    Quite literally without the US demand for biofuels, world production of grains would exceed demand, as it has more or less every year in modern times until this year. But this isn’t just diverting grain away from the tables of the poor, it’s also driving up the price through simple market forces, up 70% in the past year. This isn’t the consequence of a green ‘lock down’, it’s a car driven market factor.

    Add to that the changing diets of the worlds large populations. the consumption of meat in China has more than doubled in 10 years, and unlike NZ, the majority of that beef is fed grain. The same grain that is being bought and sold on the open commodity markets, competing with ethanol conversion refineries in the US.

    But go on beat a greenie up, when the price of fertiliser has increased 70% in the last year, not to mention a 30% increase in fuel to run farms. Add to that massive speculative trading in agricultural commodities has grown dramatically. Four years ago $10-15billion USD was speculated on the worlds agricultural markets, this year that has increased to $150bn.

    But no no, beat up a greenie and plant your GE crops, all of these political and economic forces won’t change. I’d love to see converstaion with Lord Winston and the IMF who put most of this data together, he still won’t be able to control these forces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    One of the major problems with biofuel demand is it being artificially manipulated by the application of subsidies. One notes that subsidies in general go against the concepts of free trade and if anything would tend to fit into the green party’s set of policy implementation tools. Much of the displacement of food crops with biofuel crops has resulted from various governments subsidising biofuel.

    The implementation of these subsidies also underscores another reason for condemning them in favour of a more traditional free trade approch – many of them are being targeted at the wrong crops. There are, for example, currently large subsidies available for corn being used for ethanol production; however corn has a rather poor energy yield compared to other crops available. Essentially what has happened is that politicians who did not understand the market have decided they know best and tried to interfere with it. The net result (as always) is lost production efficiency, which in this case has led to starvation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    “You know that after 20 years of field testing that this stuff is 100% risk free,”

    As soon as you ask for this, you lose all credibility.

    90% safe is not good enough, 99% safe is an insult. It has to be 100% safe or you will never support it. Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% safe, and it is childish to demand it. It is obvious all you are doing is trying to appear open to change but the reality is you will never accept it.

    If we wait until we are sure that GE is 100% safe, then it will never be a viable option. That is why people dont bother listening to the “100% safe” nutjobs. If we listened to them, nothing would ever get done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Matt (227 comments) says:

    ” “GE and there is no risk”

    You have the proof. You know that after 20 years of field testing that this stuff is 100% risk free, or are we going to have to deal with GE attributed health issues in the future. They called asbestos safe, seriously they thought it was the greatest thing in the world, would save us from so many problems. ”

    The Wright Flier wasn’t exactly 100% safe either. Hell, neither is a 747. Doesn’t stop millions of people using them safely…

    ” Apart from the fact that 6 months ago the world was producing commodities at the usual rate (within the usual seasonal fluctuations), why aren’t you all willing to accept that as long as we trade food under the laws and rules of commodities on the free market (as perhaps we should), the market will dictate the price. It’s not about production, it’s about demand. I’ve heard some wacko ‘beat a green’ reasons why the price of oil has gone through the roof, when the simple fact of the matter is that it’s a market reaction to market forces. Massive hedge fund investment in oil futures was one of the major contributing factors for the weekend spike in oil, not green lack of exploration. That and a weak US dollar (not the fault of the greens), oh and a signal from Israel that they would strike Iranian sites that they don’t like (massively illegal act of aggression). Where in those three forces that saw the spike in the dollar, did the greens affect the price of oil? ”

    Well of course those factors are independent to be sure, but if there was more oil exploration it would at least partly offset the effect of them.

    ” Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa, providing massive crops for the entire region (not to mention livelihoods and stable economies. Mugabawe has systematically destroyed the ability of that nation to provide crops, a political act, not a the fault of the greens. ”

    Might I remind you that Mugabe was a socialist revolutionary?

    ” Take an example (similar that which we are experiencing in NZ), the rise of biofuels and land conversion. How can it be the fault of the greens that land is being consumed at almost incomprehensible rates and used for the production of corn to appease the US consumption of biofuels. An announcement by the US Agricultural Secretary that their policy on this agricultural shift will not change, saw the immediate and rapid rise of the stocks of the biofuel companies – literally as he spoke. How is this born out in real terms, this from the Gurardian;

    “This means one in 20 of all cereal grains produced in the world this year will end up in the petrol tank of US cars”

    Quite literally without the US demand for biofuels, world production of grains would exceed demand, as it has more or less every year in modern times until this year. But this isn’t just diverting grain away from the tables of the poor, it’s also driving up the price through simple market forces, up 70% in the past year. This isn’t the consequence of a green ‘lock down’, it’s a car driven market factor. ”

    But these policies are the result of lobbying by the Green movement! Trying to wriggle out of that one is ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    Kimble

    How can asking for testing be a loss of credibility. Take for instance the very topical issue today on National Radio was the reclassifying of the risk assessment of Amalgam Fillings. For decades dentists told us that there is no risk and that these are the best and cheapest way to fill a hole in your tooth. Now the American FDA has come out associating all manner of ills to this Mercury based filling, from chronic diseases to ME.

    So sorry sunshine, but asking if there is any risk associated with something doesn’t preclude one’s credibility – far from it.

    Matt
    “but if there was more oil exploration it would at least partly offset the effect of them.”

    Since the 19060’s there has never been as much investment in new exploration as there is today, the green movement hasn’t shut down exploration, it just wasn’t economical enough to make money out of it. Take the southland bight, potential huge reserves there, but too expensive to explore. Now that the price of crude has hit a certain price point, the ability to produce a potential return on exploration has been met, exploration is full steam ahead. The Alberta Oil sands, too expensive to extract in the past, now this alone is surging the Canadian economy to places not seen before. To attribute the lack of exploration to the green movement alone is just too simplistic not to mention incorrect.

    “Mugabe was a socialist revolutionary” Yes he was and the country for years and years was the breadbasket of Africa, when he gave up any right to a title other than evil despotic dictator then he screwed the country. You can not attribute his socialist ideals to his later insane failings, as the problems are recent and hideous.

    “But these policies are the result of lobbying by the Green movement”

    No no no these policies are not the result of lobbying by the greens. These policies are driven by the Bush administration keen to break the dependence on overseas oil and in particular the rise of the likes of Venezuela, whom Bush has an ideological and pathological hatred of. I mean if the worlds largest superpower can befriend that guy (even with it’s fingers crossed behind there backs) and control him how they see fit, i fail to see how they are a super power. No they stick their heads in the sand and say he’s evil. Having said that I agree there was too greater rush to biofuels but the greens and those willing to listen, but then the warnings were issued by other green movements almost immediately. Case in point, Brazil, massive deforestation not to feed cattle or people but cars, which is now failing economically. No single issue can be explained in isolation.

    But Matt, thanks for taking the time. Nice to see someone is. I mean it was southern raider that made the ridiculous remark then shot off, yeah really interested in the facts or debating the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    Paul said about Mugabe:
    “You cannot attribute his socialist ideals to his later insane failings, as the problems are recent and hideous.”

    Zimbabwe’s economy was brought down primarily due to Mugabe’s radical land redistribution program. This program directly caused the drop in food production: Farm owners were forced to flee the country; the new “occupants” of the farms had no idea how to run them and/or lacked the finances to do so. Forced land redistribution is socialism at its most base and unrefined. As such Mugabe’s “socialist ideals” were at the heart of the failure of Zimbabwe as a nation.

    Do not make the mistake of thinking Zimbabwe ended up in its current state primarily due to Mugabe’s brutal repression of the populous, as this is simply a desperate attempt to retain power after he had already crashed the economy with his far left policies. Remember it is possible for a country with severe limitations on personal freedom to still have a functional and even thriving economy, so long as the limitations to personal freedom does not extend to limits on economic freedom. Limiting economic freedom is socialism by any other name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote