Kiwiblog

The report at Stuff is sobering reading:

The most devastating storm in decades to hit the most densely populated US region has cut off modern communication and left millions without power, as thousands who fled their waterlogged homes wonder when – if – life will return to normal.

A weakening Sandy, the hurricane turned fearsome super storm, killed at least 50 people, many hit by falling trees, and still wasn’t finished. …

More than 8.2 million households were without power in 17 states as far west as Michigan.

Nearly two million of those were in New York, where large swaths of lower Manhattan lost electricity and entire streets ended up under water – as did seven subway tunnels between Manhattan and Brooklyn at one point, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said.

The New York Stock Exchange was closed for a second day from weather, the first time that has happened since a blizzard in 1888.

The city’s subway system, the lifeblood of more than five million residents, was damaged like never before and closed indefinitely, and Consolidated Edison said electricity in and around New York could take a week to restore.

New York with no subway system!

Forecasting firm IHS Global Insight predicted the storm will end up causing about US$20 billion in damages and US$10 billion to US$30 billion in lost business. Another firm, AIR Worldwide, estimated losses up to Us$15 billion – big numbers probably offset by reconstruction and repairs that will contribute to longer-term growth.

Not really – this is a common mistake. Yes reconstruction does contribute to economic growth, but the money spent on it has an opportunity cost – and is money not invested in other areas – which would often contribute more to economic growth.

One of the most dramatic tales came from lower Manhattan, where a failed backup generator forced New York University’s Tisch Hospital to relocate more than 200 patients, including 20 babies from neonatal intensive care.

Dozens of ambulances lined up in the rainy night and the tiny patients were gingerly moved out, some attached to battery-powered respirators as gusts of wind blew their blankets.

So emotional.

What damage could be seen on the coastline was, in some locations, staggering – “unthinkable,” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said of what unfolded along the Jersey Shore, where houses were swept from their foundations and amusement park rides were washed into the ocean. “Beyond anything I thought I would ever see.”

The power of nature.

Well I only followed it on Twitter, but the polls show Obama was judged better by a clear majority. This is not a surprise. His approval ratings for foreign policy have been consistently high, and in my opinion he does deserve credit for some of his work in this area. He did basically exit Iraq gracefully (on much the same timetable as Bush proposed though), and the surge in Afghanistan has worked (as it did in Iraq) and they are on track to leave there in the next term. And you have to give brownie points for killing Osama Bin Laden. The mission was risky, and could have ended in a Iran style Carter disaster effectively ending Obama’s presidency. It was a gutsy call to do it.

The killing of the US Ambassador to Libya is of course a low point – especially the misinformation from the US Government on why and how it happened, and the revelations that they were asked multiple times for more security. That issue is yet to be resolved.

The biggest reason not to vote for Obama on foreign policy grounds is probably the fact that John Kerry is his likely next Secretary of State. I think Hillary Clinton has generally done a good job, and I actually have a lot of respect for her. I have almost none for John Kerry. Think how close we came to a Kerry/Edwards presidency!

Too soon after the debate to know how it may have influenced the polls. Five Thirty Eight is projecting Obama 291 and Romney 247 – pretty close.  Real Clear Politics has Obama 281 and Romney 257. Pollster has Obama 254, Romney 191 and 94 tossups.

All the focus is now going on the key swing states – especially Ohio.

A reader sent these in, to give others an idea of how many choices most US people get when they vote. He says some years there are four pages of things to vote on.

Gallup has released the latest of its annual polls measuring trust or distrust in the US media by Americans.

A record high 60% say they have not very much trust or no trust at all in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.  This has declined 14% over the last decade.

What is interesting is the breakdown by affiliation. 58% of Democrats say they have a fair or great deal of trust in the media and only 26% of Republicans say the same. Now some may say that this is because Republicans are detached from reality, but they also found that Independents have only 31% trust in the media. What this suggests to me is that the majority of the media are seen as Democrat-aligned and too sycophantic to the Democrats – hence the rest of America has little faith in them.

This is a significant move by the United States.  Claire Trevett reports:

In a key shift, the United States is lifting a ban on New Zealand navy vessels visiting US ports, and will remove obstacles to defence talks and exercises.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the shifts in policy after talks with Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman in Auckland today.

Mr Panetta said the restrictions would be lifted in the interests of closer defence cooperation in the Asia Pacific.

Neither side will change their stance on US ship visits to New Zealand, but Mr Panetta said the restrictions had been in place since the suspension of Anzus. He believed removing them could be made without affecting core tenets of US policy.

Currently waivers are required before New Zealand can take part in exercises or talks with the US.

Mr Panetta said the changes signified a “new era” in the relationship.

The ban had become somewhat farcical considering  that NZ and US troops were serving together in Afghanistan and the like. The silliness which saw the NZ ship have to park down the road from Pearl Harbour, while Japanese ships could dock, illustrated this.

Mr Panetta said he expected to see a New Zealand Navy vessel in a US port soon but it was up to New Zealand when that happened.

“While we acknowledge our countries continue to have differences of opinion in limited areas, today we have acknowledged we are embarking on a new course in our relationship that will not let those differences stand in the way of greater engagement on security issues.”

I expect we will see a NZ ship in a US port, and then a US ship in a NZ port. The vast majority of the US fleet has neither nuclear arms nor power.

Pew has done a further annual survey of faith in news media in the US. The scores for net believability are:

• Local TV news +30
• 60 minutes +29
• ABC News +18
• WSJ +17
• CNN +16
• CBS +14
• Daily newspaper +14
• NBC +11
• NPR +5
• MSNBC +0
• New York Times -1
• Fox News -2
• USA Today -2

Interesting that Fox News is viewed as basically as reliable as the New York Times and USA Today.

All media outlets have declined significantly over time in reliability.

Pew Research has a 12 question quiz on where you fit in the US political spectrum. My results were:

• Overall a moderate republican
• On economic issues, slightly to the right of the Tea Party
• On social issues, slightly to the left of a liberal Democrat

By race, there is little difference on social issues, but a big difference on economic issues.

Feel free to state in comments where you were placed overall, and on economic and social issues.

3 News reports:

Prime Minister John Key has been quoted as telling US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that New Zealand would “welcome the opportunity to cooperate with the US in the next conflicts”.

The comments were posted on the US State Department’s website on Friday last week but went unnoticed until host of TV3 show Media 3, Russell Brown, wrote about the comments on his blog.

According to the transcript, Mr Key said: “New Zealand warmly supports the United States rebalancing towards the Asia Pacific, and we welcome the opportunity to cooperate with the US in the next conflicts.”

In response, Mr Brown writes: “What the hell sort of thing is that to say when we’ve just buried several New Zealanders, killed in the dying days of a long and ultimately fruitless war at the behest of the US?”

“This isn’t Key saying something feckless off the top of his head, as he sometimes does – someone else wrote, or at least read, that line. I’m surprised it hasn’t been regarded as news, frankly.”

New Zealand journalists alerted Brown to the transcriber’s error on Twitter, revealing the quote was incorrect.

An audio recording of the meeting proves Mr Key did not say New Zealand would back the US “in the next conflicts”. It’s clear – to New Zealand ears, at least – that he is saying “in that context”.

In several places in the transcript, Mr Key’s words are listed as being “inaudible”. ”The Prime Minister’s diction appears to have rather defeated the State Department’s transcriber,” writes Mr Brown.

Heh. Just as well someone spotted the error, so if there is some future conflict the US can’t point to it and say “You promised you’d be there”

Last week was the 4th of July, or US Independence Day.

The IT Countrey Justice has done an extensive blog on the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson. Students of history should read the whole thing. Some of my favourites include this Thomas Jefferson quote:

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.

And about why it is 4th July:

The resolution of independence had been adopted with twelve affirmative votes and one abstention. With this, the colonies had officially severed political ties with Great Britain. In a now-famous letter written to his wife on the following day, John Adams predicted that July 2 would become a great American holiday. Adams thought that the vote for independence would be commemorated; he did not foresee that Americans—including himself—would instead celebrate Independence Day on the date that the announcement of that act was finalized.

I find it funny that even back then, the day of the official PR announcement was more important than the actual day of the decision to vote for independence.

To be fair of course back then communications were so different, than it is in hindsight quite normal, it would have been the day people heard of the decision that became the important one. Then we have the best part of the declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

The Countrey Justice states:

The form is almost poetical, and it seems that the preamble was designed to be read aloud, its ringing phraseology building to an emotional yet reasonable crescendo

It is a masterpiece of oratory. I see the John Adams mini-series has started again on Sky. I highly recommend it for people who want to capture a sense of the revolution that changed the world.

John Armstrong writes:

Petty, petulant and pathetic. What other conclusion is it possible to draw from the absurd, vindictive and ultimately short-sighted refusal by the United States military to allow two New Zealand naval vessels to berth at the Pearl Harbour military base?

Having invited New Zealand to participate in the Rimpac exercises off Hawaii for the first time in nearly three decades, the Pentagon then slaps this country in the face by making the frigate Te Kaha and the refuelling ship Endeavour tie up at civilian port facilities in Honolulu.

They invite us. and then say we have to park down the road. Some Pentagon bozo should receive a visit from Hillary Clinton and told to pull their head in.

John Key should have ignored the diplomatic niceties and gone with gut feeling. He should have pointed out that resolving the anti-nuclear impasse has not come without cost for New Zealand. A terse brief statement including the words “New Zealand”, “Afghanistan” and “sacrifice” would have not have gone amiss.

Key has to be diplomatic, but it does piss me off that we do have soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan. and the USG is fixated on an almost 30 year old issue.

This tawdry episode smells very much like the revenge of the United States Navy, the branch of the American military machine most affected by New Zealand’s ban on nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships and consequently the one most averse to resolving the subsequent two decades-plus stand-off.

The berthing ban is even more ridiculous given other Rimpac participants include Japan which almost destroyed the American Pacific fleet based at Pearl Harbour some 70 years ago. 

Exactly.

I know Ambassador Huebner is the US representative to New Zealand, and not vice-versa. I do hope however he reports back on how insensitive the US decision was, and counter-productive.

Last night the US Embassy celebrated Independence Day early, to coincide with the 70th anniversary of US marines arriving in New Zealand (which is today). As well as the normal contingent of Marines at the Embassy, we have 54 Marines visiting here for three weeks. It was a pleasure meeting and talking to many of them last night.

The reception was at the Town Hall, which was decorated in red, white and blue. 1940s movies were playing on the screens, and a jeep somehow got into the reception also.

The highlight was the coming onto stage of two WWII veterans – one US, and one NZ. The US veteran had not been back to New Zealand since 1944. It was very moving.

Ambassador Huebner spoke very well, and quoted Oprah of all people. But it was a good quote about how some friends want to travel in your limo with you, but the true friend is the one who will catch the bus with you.

As our men were fighting in Europe against the Nazis and Fascists, we had between 15,000 and 45,000 US servicemen stationed in New Zealand, whose job was to risk their lives defending our country should Japan invade. Thankfully the invasion never came, but we did see 1,500 Kiwi women marry a US serviceman.

Forbes reports:

Public sector unions have reached their high water mark. Let the cleanup begin as the red ink recedes.

Despite a last-minute smear campaign accusing Scott Walker of fathering an illegitimate love child, the governor’s recall election victory sends a clear message that should resonate around the nation: The fiscal cancer devouring state budgets has a cure, and he has found it. The costly defeat for the entrenched union interests that tried to oust Walker in retribution for challenging their power was marked by President Obama’s refusal to lend his weight to the campaign for fear of being stained by defeat. …

This fight is not without precedent. Progressive patron saint Franklin Delano Roosevelt—who more than any other president set our country on a course away from the founding principles of limited government—knew that public sector unions would be the death of the social welfare state he worked so hard to create. Hence, he consistently opposed allowing government employees to unionize. Today, Greece sets the example of what happens when public sector unions gain the upper hand. …

In 1959 Wisconsin became the first state to allow collective bargaining by government employees. The projected cost of supporting Baby Boomer union retirees now threatens to bankrupt the state, as it does many others. Scott Walker ran for office promising change. The fiscal medicine he is administering may be bitter, but it looks like it is starting to work.  The state budget has been balanced.  The unemployment rate has been dropping and is now below the national average. Property taxes are down. Fraudulent sick leave policies—which allowed employees to call in sick and then work the next shift for overtime pay—have been ended. The government has stopped forcibly collecting union dues from workers’ paychecks.

Best of all, the myth that union bosses represent their members’ interests has been exposed as a lie. Now that union dues are voluntary, tens of thousands of union members have stopped paying them.

I’ve always thought that unions should invoice their members directly for their membership fees – not have employers do it for them.

This is the first time a Governor has won a recall election. It provides Walker with a renewed mandate, and more importantly shows other Governors that they can retain support by implementing similar policies.

For those not paying attention to the titles and the tagline – note that this is a guest post from PaulL, long time commenter here, not from DPF.

Obamacare is before the Supreme Court at the moment, with the potential that it could be struck down.  What is the argument, and why does this matter?

Firstly, I don’t claim to be an expert, merely an interested lay person.  I’m sure many who comment on Kiwiblog may have something to contribute, and this thread should give a place to do so.

Obamacare was enacted as an individual mandate.  Americans would be obliged to buy health insurance, if they did not they would attract a penalty, said penalty to be collected by the IRS.  The Democrats could in concept have enacted instead a public health insurance system paid for by taxes, as much of the western world has, but they didn’t have sufficient political support to pass a bill with that structure, so instead they added compulsion on top of an existing insurance-based system.

A number of Republican states have taken exception to this mechanism, and are asking the Supreme Court to strike down aspects of the legislation on the basis that the Federal government doesn’t have the ability under the Constitution to compel citizens to engage in commerce.  This argument hinges around the extent to which the Federal government is permitted to regulate commerce – whilst the Federal government has wide tax powers, it has more limited powers to regulate commerce.

The interesting bit of this to me is the political tradeoffs involved.  It is quite possible to rewrite this legislation as a tax and rebate – citizens could have been subject to a tax to pay for their healthcare, with said tax being refunded as a credit if they purchase private health cover.  The actual fiscal effect on citizens is the same – they need to buy health insurance, if they don’t there is an amount to pay to the government.  And that construct apparently would be very constitutional.  The problem is that Americans (rightly, in my assessment) have a strong aversion to new taxes, and if the law was written that way it would not have passed.

The Democrats are stuck – despite this penalty being collected by the IRS they argued strongly at time of the law being passed that it was not, in fact, a tax.  Now, in front of the Supreme Court, they’d much rather be arguing that it was a tax, as that would make it much more sustainable.  But they’d be accused of speaking with forked tongues if they did so.

This is important politically – if bits of Obamacare are found to be unconstitutional, the headlines that go with that would have negative impacts on Obama irrespective of the details of the political chicanery that got to this point, and irrespective of the value or otherwise of Obamacare.  A decision should come down from the Supreme Court in June/July, which will be in prime campaigning season for the Presidential election.

This is also potentially important for health care in the USA.  I’d personally argue that the bits of the legislation that make health insurance more affordable are the important bits, the bits that force people to buy it seem to me to be unreasonable extensions of government power (in the US context).  I can understand the government taking measures to make health insurance more affordable, but if, even once it is made more affordable, people don’t want to buy it, why would the government be forcing them to do so?  If the penalty is struck down, that doesn’t prevent the remainder of the legislation from continuing to have effect.

Certainly this will be an interesting circus as it moves along, and one that potentially will have the effect of denying oxygen to Obama at a key point in campaigning.

Thanks Paul for the guest post.

The Supreme Court hearings were interesting. Scotusblog has extensive coverage of them.

Hat Tip: Larry Willmore

I was an active supporter of the NZ civil unions legislation, and am also a supporter of gay marriage. I think it is also inevitable within a generation or less.

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.

ABC reports:

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.

As expected Mitt Romney has won New Hampshire. This was very much expected as he was a neighbouring Governor. What is more interesting is the order of the others and what may happen in South Carolina, which votes next.

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.

A comment in the PREFU about our relative trade with China and the US got me curious, so I downloaded the export data from Stats NZ. This is purely how much we export to each country. The years are June years.

• 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.

Sarah Palin has just announced she is not standing for President of the United States.

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 doubt there will ever be another day I can recall as graphically as 9/11. My birthday was the previous night (I was born on 11 September, but in NZ of course the attacks happened on 12 September NZST) so I had just been asleep for a couple of hours when a friend from the UK texted me telling me to switch on the TV as a plane has flown into the World Trade Centre.

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.

A deal has been done on the US debt ceiling, with agreement on around US$1,000,000,000,000 of spending cuts over the next decade. That is not enough to get back into surplus, but is a promising start. And no tax increases.

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.