AP report at Stuff:

A US federal appeals court has declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the US Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the US Constitution when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

I think this is a bad decision. While I disagree with their decision, the people of California voted in a referendum to ban same-sex marriage through a state constitutional amendment.

The way to legalise gay marriage should be winning a future vote on the issue, not having three Judges over-turn a referendum.

The argument of course is that gay marriage is a constitutional right, under the Bill of Rights. I don’t agree. I think it is something that should be legal, and should be allowed. But I do not think it is a constitutional right, just as I don’t think abortion is either.

Again – don’t get me wrong. I support laws which make abortion safe and legal. But these should be determined by legislatures or voters – not a handful of judges.

One reason for this is that you have massive ongoing resentment, when judges determine things, rather than the people. Take for example giving women the vote. This was done by way of constitutional amendment. The result is that no one alive in the US seriously disputes that women shouldn’t have the vote.

But if the Supreme Court had not waited for the law to be changed, and had by themselves declared women have a right to vote (and of course they do), that decision would probably be as contentious today, as Roe v Wade is.

I do support the courts being able to strike down laws which conflict with basic human rights. But I think this is a power that should be used rarely and when there is almost no other option. Otherwise one should try and achieve change through the democratic process of electing Parliaments and referenda.

We’ve shown in NZ you can do it that way.  Several states in the US have allowed gay marriage through the democratic process. That is how the issue should be resolved in California, not by the courts.

As it happens, the issue will now head to the Supreme Court of the US. I pick a reversal by at least 6-3.

For the second time in as many weeks, the U.S. military has rescued distressed Iranian sailors, despite the extremely high tensions between the two nations.

According to the Navy’s account, at about 3 a.m. local time an American Coast Guard patrol boat in the north Persian Gulf was hailed by flares and flashlights from an Iranian cargo ship whose engine room was flooding. Six Iranians were rescued from the ship, fed halal meals in accordance with Islamic law, and later taken to shore.

I suspect if the situation was reverse the rescued sailors would be accused of being spies, put in jail, given a mock trial, and sentenced to die.

Last week, the U.S. Navy rescued more than a dozen Iranian sailors who had been held hostage by pirates in the Arabian Sea for weeks. American sailors on a “visit, board, search and seizure team” were able to free the sailors and take 15 suspected pirates into custody without incident on Jan. 5, the Navy said.

Not bad for the Great Satan.

Both rescues come in the midst of an especially tense time between the U.S. and Iran. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Monday Iran has been enriching uranium in a highly-protected underground bunker as part of the nation’s nuclear program — a move the U.S. State Department said was a “further escalation of their ongoing violations with regard to their nuclear obligations.”

Over the weekend, an Iranian court handed down a death sentence to an American former Marine accused of spying for the CIA in Tehran. Both the U.S. government and the 28-year-old’s family have repeatedly called the Iranian allegations “fabrications.”

One day Iran will be free.

AP reports on 52% of the votes:

1. Romney 37%
2. Paul 23%
3. Huntsman 17%
4. Gingrich 10%
5. Santorum 10%

Romney leads in the polls for South Caroline and Florida. But Gingrich is not far behind in Florida, and will be out for blood.

A very popular video from three of the daughters of Jon Huntsman, who is seeking the Republican nomination for President. They have become minor celebrities.

• In 1990 we exported 12 times as much to the US than China – $1.9b v $0.16b
• In 2000 we exported 5 times as much to the US than China – $3.7b v $0.77b
• In 2008 we exported twice as much to the US than China – $$4.0b v $2.1b
• In 2011 we exported 7/10ths as much to the US than – $3.9b v $5.6b
• From 2000 to 2011 the level of exports to the US has increased only 5% (and these are nominal dollars)
• From 2000 to 2011 the level of exports to China have increased 635%
• Since the FTA was signed in 2008, exports to China have increased a massive 170% in just three years
• In actual dollar terms, that is $3.6b more exports to China in 2011 than 2008
• Comparing three year periods, 2009-11 saw $13.1b of exports compared to $5.7b the previous three years

I suggest people ask candidates of parties that opposed the NZ-China Free Trade Agreement, why? The Foreign Minister in the last Government campaigned against it. The Greens voted against it.

I regard the China/FTA as the best achievement of the 5th Labour Government, and a probably the best legacy from both Clark and Goff who should be very proud of making it happen. If we had not had that extra $13b of exports in the last three years, we’d be a lot worse off.

I’ve just made a fairly good amount of money in iPredict

I doubt she could have won the nomination, let alone the election, so it is a good choice by Palin. As a non-candidate she’ll continue to be influential, and in fact may become the endorser-in-chief. If she throws her support behind a GOP candidate, that will give them tens of thousands of activists and volunteers.

TV3′s political reporter Paddy Gower lost a bet to the Green Party about who would win the USA versus Russia Rugby World Cup match. Paddy reckoned Russia, and the Greens had their money on the USA.

This must be the first time in history that Keith Locke backed the USA over Russia

Unfortunately for Paddy, the USA cleaned up 13 points to 6 so he had to came along to the Greens Caucus meeting and sing the Star Spangled Banner.

I switched on CNN and spent three hours transfixed watching the towers get hit and then eventually collapse. To the end of my days, I will recall those awful scenes of human beings on the upper levels of the twin towers jumping to a quick death rather than face a certain slower death.

Within an hour it seemed half of New Zealand was awake – or at least half of my friends. We were texting and talking to each other in disbelief, and even then with some anger about who had done this.

Around 5 am I headed into work at Parliament. Most of the day we did nothing but watch the televisions. Around 7 am though I had an idea. I went to our NZPA/Reuters feed. Normally I set it to NZ Politics, but swapped it over to International General. This covers stories from anywhere in the world which may be of interest to New Zealanders.

I scrolled back five hours looking for the very first story on the attacks, and found it. A one sentence story that just reported a plane had how one of the WTC towers. A couple more bland stories followed and then the all important story reporting a second plane had hit the WTC, turning it from a possible accident to a certain attack. I read every story of those first few hours, as each new detail unfolded with horror.

So much has been written about the attacks, and how the world changed that day (and it did). But my thoughts remain of the 3,000 souls who perished. They were not part of any war. They were not in a war zone. They were just you and me – people at work, plus of course the brave fire fighters and police officers who died trying to rescue others.

And such a terrible blow at New York itself. You see New York is not really an American city, it is a global city. We have three global cities – New York, London and Hong Kong. They may be physically part of the US, UK and China but they are global hub cities, with workers from scores and scores of different countries.

I recall the inevitable black humour that emerged within hours. Maps showing a lake where Afghanistan used to be.  I also recall Yasser Arafat donating blood to help the American Red Cross out, Australia declaring under the ANZUS Treaty that they stand ready to help the US strike back, as was NATO under the NATO Treaty.

At the time the US was not engaged in any significant overseas wars. And it is long forgotten, but Bush had been an isolationist President. He was actually sceptical of US even getting involved in former Yugoslavia. I worry that tomorrow’s students will regard 9/11 as a response to Iraq and Afghanistan, when in reality it was the other way around.

Iraq is highly debatable, but few would dispute that the US couldn’t allow this attack on their homeland to pass without those responsible being held accountable. International law clearly allows you to strike back after you have been attacked. The notion that all the US could do was send polite letters to the Taliban asking for those responsible to be extradited was farcical. The US did of course ask the Taliban to hand over those responsible, but they refused.

But despite that I recall how the Greens organised a protest march for later that week. Not to protest the slaughter of 3,000 civilians. But to protest against the United States responding. I was outraged and angered. In my mind they were the latter day Neville Chamberlains. but worse than that, the timing was so appalling. The death toll was still rising daily, and these people were marching against the United States, not against the terrorists. They were marching on Parliament and I was determined that a message go out that not all Kiwis hated the US. So I managed to arrange a US flag. Not a normal size one, but the largest one my “supplier” could locate – off memory it was 60 feet long. When the protest arrived at Parliament we unfurled the flag from our balcony. It was so huge it needed half a dozen of us.

Sadly it only got to stay up for a few minutes as some tosser from (off memory) Marian Hobbs’ office complained to the Speaker, and he sent security to make us take it down.

Anyway 10 years on, and the world has changed forever. Apart from anything else, air travel will never be the same again. Osama bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda much weakened. Somewhat remarkably they have not managed another successful attack inside America again.

I often wonder what would have happened if 9/11 had not occurred. Bush may have stayed an isolationist and who knows how this may ave affected his presidency. He may have ended up a one term President, or he may have ended up a less controversial two term President.

But it is too easy to focus on the big global aspects of 9/11. Today my thoughts and memories are on the 2,977 who died in the attacks (excluding the hijackers) and their families. Special thoughts to the 100 or so nine year olds who were born after their fathers died in 9/11.

The other strong memory is the brave passengers and crew of United Flight 93. They knew their actions would probably lead to their deaths. Logically they knew they would probably die anyway, but it still takes courage to rush armed hijackers – not to save your life, but to save others. Thanks to them, the plane did not reach Washington DC.

Horribly, it might not have made DC anyway. Two F16s had been ordered to intercept it. But they did not have time to arm the jets, so if it were not for the passengers, the F16s would have had to ram the 757 which would have have been a terrible (yet necessary) act.

The Washington Post looks at the winners and losers:

Winners

• Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell
• Tea party
• President Obama
• Congressional Budget Office
• Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax reform
• David Wu (as the crisis overshadowed his sex scandal)

Losers

• Congress
• Gang of Six
• Commissions
• Liberals

Americans for Tax Reform played a big role in keeping the Republicans from agreeing to tax increases as many Republican representatives and senators had signed pledges to never vote for a tax increase. If they broke that pledge, they knew they would face a primary challenge.

I quite like how they have made sure of a second round of spending cuts:

The first step would take place immediately, raising the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion and cutting spending by a slightly larger amount over a decade.

That would be followed by creation of a new congressional committee that would have until the end of November to recommend $1.8 trillion or more in deficit cuts, targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or overhauling the tax code. Those deficit cuts would allow a second increase in the debt limit, which would be needed by early next year.

If the committee failed to reach its $1.8 trillion target, or Congress failed to approve its recommendations by the end of 2011, lawmakers would then have to vote on a proposed balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

If that failed to pass, automatic spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically take effect, and the debt limit would rise by an identical amount.

So if they can not agree on the next $1.8 of deficit trimming, then they vote on a balanced budget constitutional amendment (a good idea), and if that does not pass then $1.2 trillion of extra spending cuts takes place across the board – including defence spending, but excluding welfare entitlements.

They’re $100 bills representing what the US national debt will be by the end of the year.

Wikileaks has also just posted hundreds of cables from U.S. personnel in New Zealand that reveal much the same story including regular government lobbying, offers to draft New Zealand three-strikes and you’re out legislation, and a recommendation to spend over NZ$500,000 to fund a recording industry-backed IP enforcement initiative.

Yes, the US Embassy actually offered to do the rewrite of Section 92A. Thanks, but no thanks. We’ll write our own laws thanks.

Geist also notes:

Finally, an April 2005 cable reveals the U.S. willingness to pay over NZ$500,000 (US$386,000) to fund a recording industry enforcement initiative. The project was backed by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) and the Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS).  Performance metrics include:

“The project’s performance will be judged by specific milestones, including increases in the number of enforcement operations and seizures, with percentages or numerical targets re-set annually.  The unit also will be measured by the number of reports it submits to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) on its contributions to IP protection and enforcement methodology.”

The proposed budget included four salaried positions, legal costs for investigation and prosecution, and training programs. The RIANZ still runs an anti-piracy site, but does not include disclosure about the source of funding.  It certainly raises the question of whether New Zealand is aware that local enforcement initiatives have been funded by the U.S. government and whether the same thing is occurring in Canada.

The current S92A is not too bad (but it should not have termination as an option), but the real danger is the TPPA negotiations. The US is demanding as part of those negotiations a total rewrite of our intellectual property laws in their favour. This is a price we should not be willing to pay, unless the trade gains from the deal are massive. To date the NZ Government has been resisting the demands. I hope they continue to do so.

A discreet diplomatic lunch, a free trip to Washington and assurance of “assistance” from the US Embassy in Wellington have been used to blunt the Green Party’s “radical positions on many issues”, a leaked American diplomatic cable reveals.

The Americans seduced Green co-leaders Metiria Turei and Russel Norman, the latter with a free trip to Washington, and managed, over a lunch, to get a commitment from list MP Kennedy Graham “to turn (to the embassy) for any assistance he may need in the future.”

Accepting Uncle Sam’s free lunchs and trips to Washington will not go down well with the Comrades.

But to be fair to the Greens, these cables are just standard stuff from Embassies. They have to make themselves sound relevant and important, so of course they talk up a meeting or a lunch.

The path to free trade is difficult due to entrenched interests. The best path is a multi-lateral agreement such as the GATT agreement which set up the WTO. Failing that, bilateral trade deals are worth pursuing. The China-NZ FTA, for example, has already led to a huge increase in exports to China. And CER with Australia is part of our economic DNA.

Personally I think bilateral free trade agreements are far too complex. My ideal FTA would be as follows:

1. Country A agrees that the businesses and residents of Country B can sell any goods or services they like to the business and residents of Country A, so long as they are legal in Country A.
2. Country B agrees that the businesses and residents of Country A can sell any goods or services they like to the business and residents of Country B, so long as they are legal in Country B.
3. There shall be no duties, tariffs or other barriers on exports or imports between Country An and Country B
4. ENDS

NZ is currently negotiating a free trade agreement, called the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, or TPP.

The TPP is now a brand new agreement. It is an extension to an existing agreement between Brunei, Chile, Singapore and NZ called the P4. Five additional countries are seeking to join it – Australia, Malaysia, Peru, Vietnam and the US.

Now New Zealand would gain immensely from free trade with the United States. One study estimated our exports to the US would increase by 51%. That’s an extra $2b a year approx.

So free trade with the USA would be great. But sadly free trade agreements are not as simple as the one I wrote above. They include areas which are not about reducing tarrifs, such as intellectual property laws. The United States wants New Zealand to agree to change our intellectual property laws, as part of any TPP agreement.

Top IT lawyer Rick Shera, has done a guest post at Public Address on what the US is asking for. I highly recommend you read his post in full. A summary is:

• Rights holders would be allowed to prevent parallel imports
• Massive extension of copyright terms, from life of author plus 50 years, to 70 years
• Circumventing a Technological Protection Measure (TPM) will to be a criminal offence even if the work it protects is in the public domain or you want to exercise fair dealing rights like educational use or current affairs reporting
• The return of guilt upon accusation three strikes Internet termination laws
• Forcing us to reverse the decision recently taken to exclude software from being patentable
• Introducing statutory damages (which give rights holders windfall damages up to 3 times their actual losses)
•  ISP policing of IP rights including a requirement for ISPs to give up their customers’ identities when they receive a mere allegation from a rights holder
• Criminal liability even where the infringement has no commercial value at all
• Pushing Courts to impose imprisonment as the default sentence for infringement even where no monetary benefit is obtained

Bloody nasty isn’t it. And it is not as if NZ is a country with weak copyright laws. The Property Rights Alliance do an annual index of property rights. Their 2010 report for New Zealand ranked NZ the 4th best country (out of 125) in the world for (lack of) copyright piracy.

The New Zealand Government position has been to reject these provisions, which is good. But at some stage, there will be some calls to be made and compromises to occur to get an agreement.

This will pose a challenge for free trade advocates such as myself. Is allowing the United States to rewrite our copyright laws, a price worth paying?

Well if it was a true free trade deal, where the United States agreed to phase out all (or at least the vast majority) of its tariffs, then yeah it might be. An extra $2b a year of exports would create a lot of extra jobs, extra investment, extra wealth and extra tax revenue.

But what if we don’t get the US to agree to let in our lamb, our beef, our wool, our milk, our fruit without restrictions? What if the lowering of trade barriers is modest at best? This can not be ruled out – the US/Australia free trade agreement was very modest in terms of lowering trade barriers.

Eric Crampton has blogged on the TPP agreement. I know Eric well enough to confidently say that he is probably just as big a fan of free trade as I am. However he is pessimistic about the TPP:

I suggested New Zealand might do best by sidelining the US for now. The biggest potential gains to New Zealand from a free trade deal with the States would be an opening of American dairy markets to New Zealand dairy products. But that won’t happen – a trade deal that would actually open up American dairy markets to New Zealand product would never make it through the Senate.

The actual economic impact on the US of allowing dairy competition would be minor overall. But it would create a political fuss in certain states which would make it very difficult for Obama to ignore.

Eric continues:

I’d put decent money that, if America signs onto the deal, there’d be years of costly arbitration before New Zealand had any kind of increased access to American dairy markets. For starters, American dairy farmers would argue that failure of the New Zealand competition authorities to prosecute New Zealand dairy cooperative Fonterra as a monopoly constituted a subsidy under US law and justified counterveiling duties. …

I don’t think the United States has any credibility on free trade when it comes to agricultural products. They can’t make time-consistent pledges. At point of signing it’s all friendly, then you’re straight into arbitration over whether you’re hurting US domestic competitors – never mind the benefits to American consumers who are paying double what Kiwis are paying for baby formula.

His solution:

And so it’s better that New Zealand sidelines America in the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations so the rest of us can have a serious free trade zone. Get a serious free trade zone, then look to widen it by inviting China. The threat of a Pan-Asian free trade zone that includes China is about the only thing I can imagine that would bring the States around on agriculture. Since New Zealand already has a free trade deal with China, it’s not implausible that China could someday join the TPP.

The idea of a TPP without the US may sound implausible, but I think it is more important to have a high quality agreement that actually reduces trade barriers and doesn’t force IP law changes on us, then a free trade agreement that is more symbol than substance. John Key I believe wants this too – he basically told Japan to stuff off from the TPP negotiations, unless they were seriously willing to commit to a “high quality” agreement.

The same attitude should apply to the US. If at the end of the day we can’t get decent lowering of trade barriers, and they insist in trying to force draconian IP laws on us, then we should be willing to say that we’ll go ahead with Australia, Malaysia, Peru, and Vietnam joining the P4 – and leave the US for another day.

In theri first two years of office the number of q+a sessions they did with the press was from least to most 75, 159, 258 and 408.

See if you can match up each president with his number of press q+a sessions.

Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner’s killing spree might fill the bill. …

There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!” the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. “Where,” asked Mr. York, “was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?”

I find that comparison very apt. An army major starts slaughtering his own colleagues while crying out “Allah Akhbar”, and many media say one can’t jump to conclusions about his motivations, while in the Arizona shooting, they concoct rationale on the spot.

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill. …

So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

Blood libel – a nice turn of phrase.

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Also a strong piece from Jay Nordinger at National Review:

After the Kennedy assassination, John Tower and his family had to evacuate to a safe place. The early word was that right-wingers had killed the president. Tower was associated with Goldwater for President. There were death threats against his family. It transpired, of course, that a left-wing nutjob who had “defected,” briefly, to the Soviet Union was the killer. A liberal was quoted as saying, “Now our grief can be pure.”

When Reagan was shot, there were not many political recriminations, or any. Just a lot of Jodie Foster jokes.

A few months ago, an eco-extremist took hostages at the Discovery Channel building, threatening to kill them and blow up the building. He was shot by the police before he could kill anyone. I don’t recall any comments from the right-wing peanut gallery. …

If an Islamist blows up or guns down 50 people, shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he does it, you’re not supposed to say that the act has any broad implications at all. It is simply an individual act, end of story. But if a young psychotic in Arizona kills a lot of people, we’re supposed to examine the state of Sarah Palin’s soul.

A gunman shot a congresswoman in the head, seriously wounding her, and killed six other people in a shooting rampage at a public meeting in Tucson Saturday.

The shooting took place outside a supermarket where Gabrielle Giffords, a 40-year-old Democrat, was meeting with constituents. Among the dead were a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. A Tucson fire official said six were killed and 13 wounded in the attack.

It is too early to know the motivations of the shooter – he may be insane like Raegan’s shooter was, or he may have had political motivations.

Regardless it is tragic six people are dead, including a nine year old girl, and Giffords is in critical condition.  To some degree political violence is worse than other violence – it is basically a form of terrorism. The impact is not just on those targetted, but can have a chilling effect on what people will say and do.

The suspected gunman, identified by a federal law enforcement official as Jared Loughner, 22, opened fire at point-blank range with a pistol with an extended magazine. Loughner was tackled after the shooting and was in custody.

Giffords, a supporter of Obama’s healthcare overhaul, had warned previously the rhetoric had prompted violent threats against her and vandalism at her office.

“The rhetoric is really heated. Not just the calls but the e-mails, the slurs,” Giffords told MSNBC at the time.

She referred back to a map of electoral targets put out by former Alaska Republican Governor Sarah Palin, each one marked by the crosshairs of a rifle sight.

“Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action,” Giffords said.

While I don’t think crosshairs are an appropriate way to indicate the political targeting of someone, neither do I think that crosshairs on a website cause someone to decide to start shooting people. Also Michelle Malkin points out that both the Democratic Leadership Council and Daily Kos have had websites with bullseyes or cross-hair targets on them. It is sad that some people’s first reaction to a tragic shooting is can we blame it on Sarah Palin.

The fact the shooter shot six people, including a young girl, strongly suggests he was simply bad or mad. If he had just shot at the congresswoman, then one would suspect a stronger political motivation.

Malkin has extracts from stories which pretty conclusively put him in the nut category:

A former classmate of Loughner at Pima Community College said he was “obviously very disturbed.”

“He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts,” said Lynda Sorenson, who took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College’s Northwest campus.

Sorenson doesn’t recall if he ever made any threats or uttered political statements but he was very disruptive, she said. He was asked to leave the pre-algebra class several times and eventually was barred from class, said Sorenson, a Tucson resident…

…The online accounts also contain bizarre discussions of a new currency and literacy, as well as threatening and despairing messages.

“WOW! I’m glad i didn’t kill myself. I’ll see you on National T.v.! This is foreshadow …. why doesn’t anyone talk to me?..” he posted on MySpace Dec. 14.

On Dec. 13, he wrote: “I don’t feel good: I’m ready to kill a police officer! I can say it.”

The killer is in custody, so given time we may learn more about why he did this – but frankly it just looks like a tragic combination of a nutter with a gun.

1. A deal with the Republicans on cutting taxes to stimulate the economy
2. Ratification of an arms reduction treaty with Russia
3. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

It’s a nice combination of something for everyone. Almost all Americans like treaties which reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Those sympathethic to the tea party movement will like the tax cuts and the liberals will hail the repeal of DADT.

His net approval rating is now just a -2% average.

The Republican’s main problem is finding the right challenger. A generic GOP candidate out polls Obama, but the moment you put a name in there, Obama leads. This article divideds up the potential candidates as being populists or managers. Populists include Palin, Huckabee, and Perry, Managers are Romney, Daniels, Barbour with Gingrich and Pawlenty (my pick) being a bit of both.

A recent poll has Obama vs Palin being a 54% to 39% landslide for Obama. If Bloomberg enters the race as an independent, then it is 47% to 31% to 18%.

Another poll has Obama beating Romey 47% to 40%.

The net favourability ratings for Obama and the three leading Republicans are:

1. Huckabee +11%
2. Obama +5%
3. Romney +3%
4. Palin -15%

So Huckabee has some popularity, and is a rare person who can rally the christian base without scaring off liberals. However fiscal conservatives do not trust him, and hard to see the tea party rallying behind him.

If the economy picks up in time for 2012, Obama will be hard to defeat – unless the Republicans can find a candidate who appeals to both their religious and fiscal conservative wings – but also does not scare off independents and moderates.

In some areas, they have done an analysis which is superior to anything I have read in the local media.

This cable analyses the Kiwi Muslim community, and looks at whether they are heading for integration or insulation.

New Zealand’s small but active Muslim community points to a member of parliament, regular appearances on national television by community leaders, ready access to the Prime Minister and her cabinet, and joint statements with Jewish organizations as hallmarks of movement into the political mainstream. But a recent influx of Arab and African immigrants is creating tensions within New Zealand’s traditionally South Asian Muslim population. This changing ethnic makeup is causing some disagreement over members’ identity and assimilation, as well as concerns about preventing terrorist groups and Wahhabi ideology from gaining a toehold here. The community also faces other challenges )from hate crimes to job discrimination ) as it deals with its continued growth.

They correctly highlight the tensions between the traditional sources of Muslims – South Asia, and more recent migration from the Middle East and Africa. We have seen this play otu in just the last week with battles over the main Auckland mosque.

The Embassy also looks at the Wahhabi faction of Islam, and the internal politics within NZ:

In a meeting with ConOff, XXX2, president of [REDACTED], said FIANZ is essentially a Sunni establishment. X said Shias do not feel represented by the national organization. Although X claimed there are no tensions between FIANZ and the Shia community, X criticized FIANZ for not doing enough to educate New Zealanders about Islam.

And

Contrary to assertions by XXX1 (see ref A) that there are no extremists in New Zealand, XXX3 told Conoff that Wahhabi groups have “overtly tried to influence New Zealand’s Muslim society.” XXX3 said [REDACTED] has sponsored speakers from Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al Haramain. XXX3 claimed these two groups receive Saudi money for their activities. [REDACTED]‘s alleged drift towards or tolerance of Wahhabi ideology made it difficult for Shias and even some Sunnis to stay with the group, and so XXX3 and other disaffected members left to form [REDACTED].

And a warning:

Reftel A showed that the first large wave of Muslim immigrants from the 1960s through the 1980s had no choice but to interact with their non-Muslim neighbors, and was thus quickly initiated into traditional New Zealand life. They were largely English-speaking, educated service providers whose language abilities and job skills dovetailed with Kiwi society. However, since the 1990s, immigrants with limited language and educational backgrounds have come into an already established Muslim community with mosques, Halal meat butchers, and government services available in their native language. If not carefully managed, this could lead to the kind of insulation seen in some Muslim populations in Europe that can potentially serve as a breeding ground for homegrown extremists. While we don’t see extremism taking hold here yet, our GNZ counterparts and many Muslim leaders recognize the ingredients are there.

But the Embassy also followed domestic politics closely – not just the national race, but even electorate contests, as seen in this cable about the Auckland Central race in 2008:

The National Party is making a serious play for Auckland Central, an electorate that has been in nearly uninterrupted Labour control for almost a century. That a 28-year-old virtual unknown has a serious chance of ousting a Labour stalwart demonstrates just how vulnerable the Labour Party is in this election cycle.

That was their summary. And they profile the electorate:

The electorate is dominated by well-educated young adults. It has the lowest proportions of children and pensioners of any electorate in the country, but the highest proportion of people in their twenties. It is the third-wealthiest electorate in the country, but is socially liberal. It ranks last of all New Zealand electorates in the percentage of inhabitants identifying themselves as Christian, and first among those who ascribe to no religion at all. It has the country’s lowest share of married residents, but highest share of partners in non-marriage relationships. It has a higher ratio of single people than any other electorate.

And in this cable they look at the Chinese vote in NZ:

New Zealand’s Chinese can be divided between those with deep roots in the country and more recent arrivals. Members of the first group trace their ancestry to the market gardeners and Otago gold miners that arrived in New Zealand as far back as the mid-19th century. Their forebears suffered overt racism and often toiled in poverty on the margins of society.

4. (SBU) Members of this group to this day often keep a low political profile. While many enjoy a standard of living their grandparents could not have dreamed of, they often stay loyal to the Labour Party. They remember Labour as the social welfare party that was most ready to help the working class and as the most racially tolerant party. This loyalty is weakening as Chinese Kiwis grow wealthier and as the National Party leaves race-baiting in its past.

The 70% of Chinese who arrived in New Zealand after 1991 make up the second group.

So a 30/70 split between those with traditional loyalties to Labour and those who are more heterogenous in their voting.

Huo nonetheless remains Labour’s most important Chinese candidate. Despite not getting the nod to run in Botany, Huo was given a far higher place on the party list than Tawa. Indeed, Huo placed higher on the list than a number of veteran Labour MPs. In a meeting with the CG, Huo’s lack of partisan passion was notable. While paying lip service to Labour policies, his remarks suggested he was drawn into politics not to support a particular ideology, but because the Chinese community’s voice “was not being heard.”

A fascinating insight into the Labour MP.

Huo argued that National’s Wong “does not connect well” with most Chinese New Zealanders because she’s from Hong Kong and speaks Cantonese rather than Mandarin. …

Also, like Huo, Wang told the CG that Wong is “not Chinese enough” and that Botany’s Chinese would prefer a Mandarin speaker like himself to a Cantonese speaker like Wong.

The importance of language!

But Wikileaks has revealed that one country which did send troops to Iraq, qas motivated by commercial factors. Yes, Helen Clark sent in troops to Iraq (something Labour hopes that people forget), and the reason was to help Fonterra.

So there was no oil for blood by the US, but Helen Clark was willing to trade blood for milk.

I look forward to Labour talking about their principled foreign policy.

So what has this bipartisan group recommended:

• $200 billion of domestic and defence savings by 2015
• Tax reform that reduces rates, simplifies the code and broadens the base to reduce the deficit
• Measures to control long-term health cost growth
• Mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement
• Ensure social security solvency for next 75 years

This would achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020, reduce the deficit to 2.2% of GDP by 2015 and caps revenue at 21% of GDP (note NZ is well over 30%).

Obama, to his credit, has not rejected it. Sadly Congressional Democrats look likely to – which will impose future generations with horrific levels of debt and interest on the debt.

The situation in NZ is not so dire, but we still need bold measures to stop borrowing $250 million a week.