Not satisfied with punishing America's poor, Bush seeks an opportunity to twist New Zealand's election to try to punish New Zealand's disadvantaged too. Can't say this man doesn't enjoy sharing his personal version of the Gospel, eh?

And we've seen how well Bush/GOP policy has worked in America too. In fact, we saw a lot of it during Katrina. :|

Poverty in America has risen steadily over the last 4 years that Bush has presided, unlike the Clinton years in which the poverty level was reduced sharply reduced.

***********************

The poverty level today is within a range common over the last 35 years, Census Bureau figures show, but recent trends are moving in the wrong direction. In the last 35 years, the poverty rate has twice peaked at about 15% — during the economic slowdowns at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidential term and the end of George H.W. Bush's.

As the economy expanded through Clinton's two terms, the number of Americans in poverty dropped by nearly 8 million, and the poverty rate fell to just above 11% by 2000. Those were the sharpest reductions since the 1960s.

Since George W. Bush took office, the share and the number of Americans in poverty have increased for four consecutive years. The overall poverty rate remains lower than during most of Clinton's presidency. But at the same time, 5.4 million more Americans are living below the poverty line today than when Bush took office, and the poverty rate has climbed back to 12.7%.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/floodwatersliftpovertydebateintopoliticalfocus;_yl t=AsMvqpORSc7clbhZalt9gDV2wPIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMD MzBHNlYwM3MDM-

**********************
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050916/ap_on_re_au_an/new_zealand_elections;_ylt=Arm76fDTm19p6SYRgGAH.CA fYhAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

U.S. Has Interest in New Zealand Elections By MIKE CORDER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 13 minutes ago



WELLINGTON, New Zealand - New Zealand's relationship with the United States could enter a new era of cooperation if the country's opposition National Party wins parliamentary elections Saturday.

Party leader Don Brash, a 64-year-old economist and former central bank governor, has said he would be prepared to dismantle New Zealand's 20-year-old nuclear-free laws to help prepare the way for a free trade deal with Washington — although he first would seek approval for the move in a referendum.

Nuclear laws have strained relations between Washington and Wellington since they were enacted in 1985, leading to New Zealand's being frozen out of a defense treaty with the United States and Australia.

Two-term Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark says she is appalled at the prospect of Brash scrapping them.

"We can take pride ... in being nuclear free and in having the strength and independence not to send our young people off to fight in unjust wars," Clark said in a televised address to the nation Friday night.

Her comments were a clear reference to her vocal opposition to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Clark, who spent Friday rushing to campaign rallies at malls and factories in New Zealand's largest city, Auckland, refused to send troops to participate in the invasion without U.N. approval but later dispatched army engineers to help rebuild the shattered country and Afghanistan.

Political analysts and pollsters who have charted erratic swings in support for both Labour and National consider the vote for parliament's 120 seats too close to call.

...

Since coming to power in 1999, Clark has presided over a booming economy helped by strong prices for agricultural exports and a surge in tourism sparked by the blockbuster "Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy that showcased the country's spectacular scenery.

Unemployment is at a 30-year low of 3.7 percent, and the budget has grown each year Clark has been in office. Her message Friday to the estimated 12 percent of the country's 2.83 million voters who were still undecided: Don't change a good thing.

"I think it's absolutely critical that we get a good vote for Labour tomorrow because these things don't happen by accident," Clark said. "They happen because you've got a good strong government that's pursued policies of growth and jobs and that's lifted household incomes across New Zealand."

But Brash, who led New Zealand's central bank for 15 years before entering politics, accuses Labour of not capitalizing on the favorable economic conditions and has vowed to slash taxes.

The policy that has drawn the most fire for Brash is his pledge to cut welfare and social programs aimed exclusively at the country's indigenous Maori and abolish seven seats for them in parliament — a raft of privileges he branded "state-sponsored separatism."

"For us having a single standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders irrespective of race remains a very important objective indeed," Brash said Friday at a campaign appearance. "It's not one we could easily tamper with. In fact, we can't tamper with it at all."

Maori, a minority of 530,000, are among the poorest, least-educated and worst-housed citizens in this nation of 4 million and make up half the prison population.

A newly formed Maori Party is expected to win some seats Saturday and could help Clark stay in her post by agreeing to support her party in parliament.

Peter Love of the Te Atiawa tribe of about 25,000 people said that if Brash wins power, "we could see a public protestation level never seen before."

I don't see how New Zealand can resist after reading the success stories every day in the news about Iraq and their new 'democracy'. That's just what the world needs... Dubya's personal vision of society in every country. :|

What's wrong with equal rights?

Do you think a person should get special treatment from the government because they belong to an ethnic group that statisitically has less money than other ethnic groups?

And it looks like the only thing Bush asked anybody in NZ to do is repeal the nuclear-free laws. Your article is making a mountain out of a molehill.


NEW ZEALAND: US links free trade to repeal of NZ nuclear ships ban
by Bernard Moran

The bombshell came on October 6 with a phone call from New York to a journalist in Wellington. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, fresh from talks with senior Bush Administration trade officials, admitted that NZ's nuclear-free law is now linked to the bid to conclude a free-trade deal.

It was made very clear to Dr Cullen that New Zealand's hopes to be included with Australia in a free-trade deal (estimated to add NZ$1 billion a year to the NZ economy) were illusory. Things had changed since September 11 and because of the anti-nuclear law, NZ would be way down the queue.

PM furious

Prime Minister Helen Clark was reported to be furious at Dr Cullen's admission and promptly stated that there would be no change to the anti-nuclear law. There was alarm at the implications of Helen Clark's immediate and uncompromising public stance.

A few days later, Jim Sutton, Minister of Agriculture and Trade Negotiations, gave a full and frank account of his own earlier experiences to Sunday Star-Times parliamentary reporter, Ruth Laugeson:

"The penny dropped several months ago. He [Sutton] had been reading diplomatic cables from New Zealand's embassy in Washington, when he noticed a strange pattern. Every Kiwi going to Washington to talk about trade ran into the same opening remarks from their hosts. The Americans all raised the issue of the nuclear-ships ban. Such unanimity from congressmen to officials was striking - and worrying.

"Even Americans who might have been vague in their minds as to where New Zealand was on the map of the world, before fate brought them into contact with New Zealand Ministers, have been briefed on it and raise it first thing, as if it was something that had just recently occurred.

"The fact that the nuclear issue is raised by Americans nowadays when we raise trade issues, but is not generally raised at other times, is clearly designed to create an impression in our minds."

Jim Sutton confirmed Ruth Laugeson's suggestion that the nuclear ships issue is the elephant in the room that no one in Labour wants to mention, despite the evidence that it is damaging economic prospects.

Washington is frustrated that Labour will not acknowledge the elephant. One mid-ranked Labour MP admits that the subject of any reconsideration is so taboo, that no one would even dare raise the idea at a Labour caucus meeting.

Sutton speculated about why the Bush Administration was adopting a tougher line. The last of the US Navy's conventional powered aircraft carriers that operate from Japan are due to be decommissioned within the next few years. Japan will then have to host a nuclear-powered ship, in the face of popular nuclear-free sentiment. America is concerned that Japanese anti-nuclear movements will be inspired by New Zealand's example.

Also, many of the senior people around Bush were serving in the Reagan Administration and still harbour a sense of resentment at what they regard as the NZ Labour Government's betrayal of ANZUS in the 1980s.

Regarding New Zealand's hope to ride along with Australia on securing a free-trade deal, Sutton admits that the Howard Government has framed its trade deal as a reward for a loyal ally. The inference is that New Zealand can and should be left out and the economic consequences have concentrated minds wonderfully on this side of the Tasman.


http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2002nov02_nz1.html

New Zealand won't allow any nuclear-powered ships to go near it. Fine, that's their right. But if they don't want to let us sail near their country, they shouldn't expect us to be anxious to sign free trade agreements with them.

Maori, a minority of 530,000, are among the poorest, least-educated and worst-housed citizens in this nation of 4 million and make up half the prison population.

thats 13.25% of the population...Bush is still doing better lol. :p

Maori, a minority of 530,000, are among the poorest, least-educated and worst-housed citizens in this nation of 4 million and make up half the prison population.


And Malcolm said New Zealand didn't have any racial problems. :confused:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Malcolm, I can't say it, but you know what I'm thinking. :D

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The White House didn't say anything at all about New Zealand's internal social spending. They said they want NZ to allow American nuclear-powered ships to sail nearby.

Spab, your headline about Bush asking NZ to "starve their own poor" is rediculous! Nothing could be farther from the truth. Stop the hackery!

Bah. The thread title is a masterpiece.

Redline: you're making an assumption that the entire Maori population is poor. Here is what the article said: "Maori, a minority of 530,000, are among the poorest, least-educated and worst-housed citizens in this nation of 4 million"

The poverty rate itself isn't given. All that statement says is that Maoris constitute a big part of those who fall under their poverty line.

I disagree. Bush is backing a candidate who would like to see social spending cut and allow for expenses to rise for military spending and have the country support the U.S. in whatever illegal invasions we perform.

IF it's like the U.S. "war on poverty" through compassionate conservatism, they can starve part of their poor, send a lot of them to die in unncessary wars, and throw the rest in prisons. If only they privatized their prisons like we have, then I'm sure Brash is right... the overall GDP would probably really jump, however all the income will go to New Zealand's top 10% while the dwindling middle class struggles to support both the rich and the dying social services. If they pass out guns to all their redneck types too, they could be mini-America!

Feenix.

Damn right the Maoris deserve preferential treatment. The land was stolen off them to start with, just like we whites here stole the land from the native Americans. We give native americans sovreignty and preferential treatment. Do you think we shouldn't?

Feenix.

Damn right the Maoris deserve preferential treatment. The land was stolen off them to start with, just like we whites here stole the land from the native Americans. We give native americans sovreignty and preferential treatment. Do you think we shouldn't?

That is correct. I think we shouldn't. We shouldn't be "repaying" any wrongs that were committed centuries before any of us were even BORN.

I disagree. Bush is backing a candidate who would like to see social spending cut and allow for expenses to rise for military spending and have the country support the U.S. in whatever illegal invasions we perform.


Did I miss something? I don't think the article even said that Bush was backing Brash. Bush wants the nuclear-free law reformed or repealed. Just because Brash has promised to do that, we can't infer that Bush has made an official endorsement for him.


IF it's like the U.S. "war on poverty" through compassionate conservatism, they can starve part of their poor, send a lot of them to die in unncessary wars, and throw the rest in prisons. If only they privatized their prisons like we have, then I'm sure Brash is right... the overall GDP would probably really jump, however all the income will go to New Zealand's top 10% while the dwindling middle class struggles to support both the rich and the dying social services. If they pass out guns to all their redneck types too, they could be mini-America!

:rolleyes: what's this thread about?

You know you love me. :|

Bah. The thread title is a masterpiece.

Redline: you're making an assumption that the entire Maori population is poor. Here is what the article said: "Maori, a minority of 530,000, are among the poorest, least-educated and worst-housed citizens in this nation of 4 million"

The poverty rate itself isn't given. All that statement says is that Maoris constitute a big part of those who fall under their poverty line.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3204616a6160,00.html

New Zealand's child poverty rate was 16.3 per cent, which put it fourth worst of the 26 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Well, they beat the U.S.. Our CHILD poverty rate in this country is something like 30%. :|

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_06232004

Social expenditures and child poverty—the U.S. is a noticeable outlier
All advanced industrialized countries make an effort to reduce the number of children who live in poverty, but poverty remains a harsh reality for many children in every country. Child poverty is defined as children living in households where income is less than 50% of household median income within each country. Although children bear no responsibility for living in poverty, they are penalized not only in childhood but later in life if their health or education suffers from a lack of resources.

All economies face the trade-off between how much money should be spent and what level of childhood poverty is acceptable. The data used in the figure below compare social economic expenditures and child poverty rates of the United States to that of 16 other rich, industrialized countries that, like the United States, belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The United States and these other countries face similar global conditions with respect to trade, investment, technology, the environment, and other factors that shape economic opportunities. Thus, this comparison provides a yardstick for gauging the commitment of the U.S. government to reducing child poverty and its lifelong effects.



The figure clearly illustrates that those countries with higher social expenditures — as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP — have dramatically lower poverty rates among children. The blue line in the figure shows the correlation between expenditures and child poverty rates for all countries. Individually, the Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway, and Finland — stand out, with child poverty rates between 2.8% and 4.2%. The United States stands out as the country with the lowest expenditures and the highest child poverty rate — five times as much as the Nordics.

The paucity of social expenditures addressing high poverty rates in the United States is not due to a lack of resources — high per capita income and high productivity make it possible for the United States to afford much greater social welfare spending. Moreover, other OECD countries that spend more on both poverty reduction and family-friendly policies have done so while maintaining competitive rates of productivity and income growth.


***for those who can't see the upload because of no premium membership, it's on the link too.

http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html
Low-Income Children in the United States (2004)

Overview

More than one-third of children in the United States live in low-income families,[1] meaning their parents earn up to double what is considered poverty in this country. The federal poverty level for a family of four (2004) is $18,850.[2]

16% of American children—more than 11 million—lived in poor families in 2002, meaning their parents' income was at or below the federal poverty level. These parents are typically unable to provide their families with basic necessities like stable housing and reliable child care.

37% of American children—more than 26 million—lived in low-income families in 2002. Their parents made less than 200% of the federal poverty line (FPL). These families often face material hardships and financial pressures similar to those families who are officially counted as poor.

After a decade of decline, the rate of children living in low-income families is rising again, a trend that began in 2000.

Common Misconceptions About Children in Low-Income Families

Most children in low-income families have parents who are employed full-time and year-round.

56% of all children in low-income families—14.6 million—have at least one parent who works full-time and year-round.

28% of children in low-income families—7.3 million—have at least one parent who works part-time or full-time, part year.

Just 16%—4.2 million—do not have an employed parent.

(graphs on site)

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040623-112135-8756r
WASHINGTON, June 23 (UPI) -- The Economic Policy Institute said Wednesday that child poverty in the United States is the highest among industrialized nations.

Washington-based EPI's economist Sylvia Allegretto found in a study that one reason for the high U.S. rate is the "relative lack of spending our country commits to social services for disadvantaged families."

She argued that countries with higher social expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product have far lower poverty rates among children.

"When it comes to child poverty, nations tend to get what they pay for," the EPI study said.

In the United States, 22 percent of children fall below the poverty line defined by the think-tank, while in Scandinavian countries, only 2.8 percent to 4.2 percent fall below that line.


Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International

What's wrong with equal rights?

Do you think a person should get special treatment from the government because they belong to an ethnic group that statisitically has less money than other ethnic groups?

And it looks like the only thing Bush asked anybody in NZ to do is repeal the nuclear-free laws. Your article is making a mountain out of a molehill.


Excuse me Feenix: I generally appreciate you as a human being, so don't take the stern tone of this response an attack.

I don't think you are measuring your words.
'... ONLY .... repeal the nuclear-free laws'?

That might not be much of a big deal for someone who lives states side and has been accustomed to not having a choice concerning the methods of energy production. Here in New Zealand, a huge portion of the population is extremely proud that we have nuclear-free laws. We put a very high emphasis on providing for our needs, as mcuh as possible, via alternative, greener production methods. Who the F*** do you think Bush is to try to manipulate our politics in that manner? Do you think that's right?

Dangling economic incentive as long as we sacrifice our commitment towards clean energy is literally a devilish maneuver.

I've been fearful and sad at the effect Bush has had on the world, but until now, I had the notion the country I had elected to live in was too far out of the way to suffer from the madness. Now it seems he's trying to F*** things up here too.
Your flippant comment about a 'mole hill' shows you simply don't know how to put yourself in the position of people actually living in the countries our foreign policy' affects. Your attitude is imperial in its nonchalance. 'Oh, what's the big deal? We only want them to do what we want them to do before we trade with them. No biggy. They're a little too protective of their environment, with their anti-nuclear and anti-GE notions: a little bribery will do away with that foolishness'. Great f***ing attitude.

M.

And Malcolm said New Zealand didn't have any racial problems. :confused:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Malcolm, I can't say it, but you know what I'm thinking. :D

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I actually specifically said that racism exists in New Zealand, but that whites and blacks there live in harmony.

You, sir, manifestly would benefit from getting Hooked On Phonics.

M.

Ah M.... how I adore you when you are angry and formal~

:)

I've been fearful and sad at the effect Bush has had on the world, but until now, I had the notion the country I had elected to live in was too far out of the way to suffer from the madness. Now it seems he's trying to F*** things up here too.


M.


Bush stuck his nasty little fingers in the N.I pie too (pro-loyalist). Blair actually had to politely tell him to 'piss off' to keep him and his policies from undo-ing years of work on the peace process.

That is correct. I think we shouldn't. We shouldn't be "repaying" any wrongs that were committed centuries before any of us were even BORN.


Where is the rational argument to support this opinion of your's? Do you have a policy of considering we are not responsible for creating the best world we can?

If that is the way you feel, then by extension, you would naturally come up with the notion that things we individually have had no direct part in are beyond our responsibility.

For instance the welfare of our grand children... Since you are not directly responsible for putting them into the world the way your children will be directly responsible, you should not have to try to pass on the best possible world for them, and should not be concerned with the quality of the water they will have to drink, or the purity of the air they will breathe...

Yes, this mentality seems to mirror itself in its attitude towards past wrongs, and future dangers: I didn't do it, I'm not responsible :) Its a cop out from the very challenges life presents us with. How easy it must be to just fall back on only looking out for 'number 1'. Ultimately, that attitude is what is creating the multiple crisis' we seem to be heading towards.

With that creed, you are simply dropping the ball.

M.

Amen Malcolm, Amen!

Kiwimac

I actually specifically said that racism exists in New Zealand, but that whites and blacks there live in harmony.

You, sir, manifestly would benefit from getting Hooked On Phonics.

M.

No this was not your claim at all. Your claim was that New Zealand was a case of people of differing races living in "harmony".

Also, New Zealand has a only a very tiny population of people of African descent (likely less than 1%), therefore we can surmise that even if this supposed "harmony" between blacks and whites exists (which I doubt), it is only because blacks do not have the numbers to make any noise politically.

No this was not your claim at all. Your claim was that New Zealand was a case of people of differing races living in "harmony".


I should know better than to ask you to 'build your case': you have pulled excuses from the darkest recesses int he past in order not to. But how about you quote the entire relevant passages from my posts in order to make your point? Perhaps because it doesn't make the point you claim?


Also, New Zealand has a only a very tiny population of people of African descent (likely less than 1%), therefore we can surmise that even if this supposed "harmony" between blacks and whites exists (which I doubt), it is only because blacks do not have the numbers to make any noise politically.

Why do you doubt that blacks and whites are living harmoniously here? Simply because I say it? Tut tut.
I mean I'd understand if you knew about cases if unrest, or even high criminality amongst New Zealand blacks. Then maybe you would have some sort of ground to doubt my words. But I am incorrigible: since when does hate need reason to sustain itself?

M.

you keep stretching further and further out there with each story you post, The story is about a repealing a 2 decade old nuclear law to promote trade with the US, nothing more. Lets say for example Bush supported the other canidate, But that canidate was for less gun laws.. Would you blame Bush for wanting rampant murder in NZ? This is simply a reactionary fishing expedition to find fault in anything Bush does, and its getting old.

Dr.

In other news, Bush wiped his butt with toilet paper today. Yes, that was paper from trees, exacerbating the existing trend of ever decreasing woodlands in the USA. He also then flushed his toilet, no doubt due to the political ties he has with the sewage management in D.C. where he actually pays them money for such a service, meanwhile he denies this pork-filled life style. In Katrina's wake, don't you think our president could be a little more frugal?

In other news, Bill Clinton hugged a black person today. And Hillary is a moderate.

In other news, Bush wiped his butt with toilet paper today. Yes, that was paper from trees, exacerbating the existing trend of ever decreasing woodlands in the USA. He also then flushed his toilet, no doubt due to the political ties he has with the sewage management in D.C. where he actually pays them money for such a service, meanwhile he denies this pork-filled life style. In Katrina's wake, don't you think our president could be a little more frugal?

In other news, Bill Clinton hugged a black person today. And Hillary is a moderate.


LOL

Bush toilet plea photographed
http://www.u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=65040&pt=n

A photographer has leaked a photo of a picture of a note, written by George W Bush, asking to be excused to go to the toilet.

It is understood the photographer, who reportedly works for Reuters, zoomed in on the note written during the UN Summit in New York. It was then passed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In a mix of upper and lower case letters, President Bush asks if a bathroom break is possible.

you keep stretching further and further out there with each story you post, The story is about a repealing a 2 decade old nuclear law to promote trade with the US, nothing more. Lets say for example Bush supported the other canidate, But that canidate was for less gun laws.. Would you blame Bush for wanting rampant murder in NZ? This is simply a reactionary fishing expedition to find fault in anything Bush does, and its getting old.

Dr.

There is more to such news than partisan considerations. The same comments would apply if it were Clinton posing such conditions for so-called free trade.

The US has been miffed with New Zealand for a long time regarding these anti-nuclear wars. And it has only gotten worse under Bush, with his war which New Zealand staunchly resisted supporting.

Its not so much about who the present talking head happens to be. Its about our foreign policy. We are not going to be leading the world in a beneficial direction if we use our economic might to bully other nations into less environmentally sound ways. The final aggravating factor is that we have managed to get the world to refer to our objective as 'free trade'.

People in all seriousness proclaim that in order to establish 'free trade' with the USA, we will have to accept the subtle dictates of the bigger dog. Doesn't sound very free to me.

M.

Elusive has no sense of posting genius, or he'd see the stark beauty of this entire thread. :|

Clark Moves Forward After New Zealand Win

(Guess Bush will just to have to bite the bullet, eh? roflmao)

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - Prime Minister Helen Clark courted coalition partners Sunday after narrowly winning an election that featured a rival bid to strip special rights from indigenous Maori and dismantle nuclear-free laws in favor of stronger U.S. trade ties.

...

Labour's most likely partners are the Maori Party; the Greens, with six seats; and the Progressive party, with one lawmaker. The nationalist NZ First party, with seven lawmakers, has said it will talk to the largest party about giving it support on key votes in Parliament....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050918/ap_on_re_au_an/new_zealand_elections;_ylt=ApED3T3U73hbddEJG6HEWEI fYhAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

New Zealand's Maori Party Wins Four Seats

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - A new political party representing New Zealand's Maori won four of seven Parliament seats set aside for indigenous people in Saturday elections dominated by an opposition party's vow to scrap Maori privileges.

The Maori Party — formed just last year — won 2 percent of the total vote in its first foray on the national ballot.

"To win four seats is a really proud moment for us," Maori Party leader Tariana Turia told cheering supporters. "We have created history. We're really proud of that."...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050917/ap_on_re_au_an/new_zealand_maori;_ylt=AlIz0h9S878cDIStuO4TLncfYhA F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Please replace 'anti nuclear wars' with 'anti nuclear laws' in my post above or it won't make much sense.
I worked 72 hours this week. It might be getting to me a little. :p

M.

Damn, it was close.
Thank God she won.

I hope she is able to build a coalition, but at least the worst has been averted. For now.

M.

Elusive has no sense of posting genius, or he'd see the stark beauty of this entire thread. :|
I all i see here is angry liberals who cant get over the fact that bush won. I dont like bush either, but at least i Accepted his victory and can be Mature enough to refrain from Bathroom jokes. There is no beauty here Just partisan rhetoric and toliet humor.

Dr.

You need to borrow Scott's "Stick in the Mud" banner.

Just because you don't get the joy or humor in something doesn't mean it isn't there. LOL

I all i see here is angry liberals who cant get over the fact that bush won. I dont like bush either, but at least i Accepted his victory and can be Mature enough to refrain from Bathroom jokes. There is no beauty here Just partisan rhetoric and toliet humor.

Dr.

The thread is only partisan rhetoric? How easy it is to leisurely shake that stick.

Did you miss my post about how it doesn't matter who the talking head is, and how the comments would be preceisely the same about Clinton if he took a similar approach? One would be entitled to expect you to understand that as an explicit renunciation of partisanship.

M.

Don't worry too much about these moris going hungry . They can always do what they use to if times get bad , and thats eat their enemis . :eek7: . And if they get bored from poverty they can go back to headhunting [human] . They use to hang their enemiys head out for decor . Capt. Cook learned this after some of his men put on the menu .

just like the un-civilized indians of asia who came here, they did't beleive in ownership of property ,so if you have nothing, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE ,or be taken .

After the civilized whiter man taught them some hygene ,they no longer had to gum their food or die from filth deseases .

But still today they ae on a suicide mission because they keep resorting to deadly old ways . Most are un-healthy mentally and physically .

Hating your own kind and blaming whites for everything wrong with earth is evil . If you choose to breed with other races, thats your biz wax, but don't hate your race for it . If you leave your country for 'greener grass' good riddance .

Don't worry too much about these moris going hungry . They can always do what they use to if times get bad , and thats eat their enemis . :eek7: . And if they get bored from poverty they can go back to headhunting [human] . They use to hang their enemiys head out for decor . Capt. Cook learned this after some of his men put on the menu .

just like the un-civilized indians of asia who came here, they did't beleive in ownership of property ,so if you have nothing, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE ,or be taken .

After the civilized whiter man taught them some hygene ,they no longer had to gum their food or die from filth deseases .

But still today they ae on a suicide mission because they keep resorting to deadly old ways . Most are un-healthy mentally and physically .

Hating your own kind and blaming whites for everything wrong with earth is evil . If you choose to breed with other races, thats your biz wax, but don't hate your race for it . If you leave your country for 'greener grass' good riddance .

One can purchase little pill boxes with alarms in them. Very handy for remembering to take one's meds. Avoids all sorts of embarassments.

M.

One can purchase little pill boxes with alarms in them. Very handy for remembering to take one's meds. Avoids all sorts of embarassments.

M.


it's not the poor most liberals care about . If it were they would have decreased instead of increased in the world . The poor is just the host the commys feed off of to further their own agendas . Agends mostly of perversion and immorality . They can't allow absolutes or wrongs because it would make their evil lifestyles stick out like sore thumbs . :eek7: They like to give away small amounts other peoples money to poor and keep the most for themselves . Clintons ,Kerrys ,Heinze , Kennedy and all hollyhood movie scars good example of this scheme . No different than the other rich greedy corporate owners . They all feed off the working man , slothes and poor .

I actually specifically said that racism exists in New Zealand, but that whites and blacks there live in harmony.


The Old South lived in harmony too when the black slave jumped when his master said rabbit. :D

The Old South lived in harmony too when the black slave jumped when his master said rabbit. :D

I'm getting sick and tired of you and Stigger making all threads you touch turn to race threads.

You are trolls.
The rest of DA does not share your obsession. Have a bit of consideration for that fact.

M.

Janus,

Here's a dare. Come here and tell a Maori he's a slave to the Pakeha. My people (I am mostly Pakeha but ...) were warriors, they fought the British soldiers to a standstill, so I would guess one lone Yank wouldn't be a problem, indeed not at all if the 'Battle of Queen Street' is taken into account.

Kiwimac

Spad, your entire arugment is based on lies. I have already shown the difference between current and continual poverty levels, but you insist on posting the current poverty levels as continual levels. The continual poverty rate in America is around 3%, not 15%, that is a fabrication. The current poverty rate is irrelevant because it includes individuals who are not actually living in poverty.

From here: http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1086140&postcount=107


What she posted are current poverty levels wich are misleading because they include teenagers, college students, part-time workers etc. who may temporarily make wages putting them below poverty but who live very comfortably and/or move into much higher income brackets in the future. The rate of Americans living in poverty continually hovers just around 3%:

The new tax return data support the conclusion of earlier research which concluded that the degree of income mobility in American society renders the comparison of quintile income levels over time virtually meaningless. According to the tax data, 85.8 percent of filers in the bottom quintile in 1979 had exited this quintile by 1988. The corresponding mobility rates were 71 percent for the second lowest quintile, 67 percent for the middle quintile, 62.5 percent for the fourth quintile, and 35.3 percent for the top quintile.

About 86 percent of those in the bottom quintile in 1979 had managed to raise their incomes by 1988 enough to have moved up to a higher quintile. The data show that these were not all grouped at the bottom at the second quintile. While 20.7 percent were in the second quintile, 25.0 percent had made it into the middle fifth, and another 25.3 percent into the second highest quintile. The 14.7 percent in the top quintile was actually higher than the 14.2 percent still stuck in the bottom fifth. In other words, a member of the bottom income bracket in 1979 would have a better chance of moving to the top income bracket by 1988 than remaining in the bottom bracket.

Currently there are two models of the American economy, one static, and the other dynamic. The first portrays the United States as a caste system and misapplies the characteristics of a permanent income strata to those only temporarily moving through income brackets. The alternative view portrays a much more complex and interesting social reality in which the composition of income classes are in constant flux. According to this latter point of view, simplistic generalizations about actual persons and families (or "the rich" and "the poor") cannot be drawn from data on a conceptual artifice which does not exist as such in reality.

The empirical data support the view of the market economy as a dynamic and open society which provides opportunity to those who participate. There is no evidence of stagnation, with the turnover rate in the most stable quintile -- the top fifth -- exceeding 35 percent. The turnover rates in the bottom four quintiles were at least 60 percent over the period, with most of this reflecting upward progress. Analysis which assumes or suggests stable composition of family or household income quintiles rests on invalid assumptions. It makes no sense to draw sweeping conclusions such as "the income of the bottom 20 percent of families fell" in a 15-year period when most of the people originally in that category have long since improved their standard of living enough to have moved up from the bracket entirely.

http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/mobility.htm

And this book (Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty: The Changing Economic Fortunes of American Workers and Families.Greg J. Duncan, University of Michigan) written by a LEFTIST university professor finds that just 3% of the American population stayed in the bottom 20% of the income bracket over a period of 8 years.

This book is important for people who operate antipoverty programs. This book both describes the conditions of poverty and ANALYZES THE CAUSES OF POVERTY. Every year between 1968 and 1978 the University of Michigan Survey Research Center staff visited a sample of 5,000 American families that represent the nation as a whole.

They tracked the formation and breakup of families, and the shifts in jobs, income levels, education, and other aspects of people's lives. They interviewed people to understand their attitudes, motivations, behavior patterns, skills, education, and to obtain demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and race. A whole army of graduate students and professors have been grinding away at these data for fifteen years. They correlated all the variables to find out the extent to which differences between people's incomes are explained by different factors (variables) and combinations of factors.

Greg J. Duncan is Professor of Education and Social Policy and a Faculty Associate in the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University. He is deputy director of the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.

Duncan received in Ph.D. in Economics in 1974 from the University of Michigan. Much of Duncan's career has been spent at the University of Michigan on the Panel Study of Income Dynamics data collection project. That project has conducted annual interviews with a large and representative set of families all around the country for nearly 30 years. It has become a major source of information about poverty and welfare dynamics in the United States.

Those who present poverty statistics conveniently leave out the effects of upward mobility. Leaving out this phenomenon has a distorting effect on the reality of the poverty in America, you ain't getting the whole story. Statistics alone without analysis means nothing.

hehehe this thread is fun too: http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1098866#post1098866

hehehe this thread is fun too: http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1098866#post1098866

Interesting thread, but definitely not 'fun'.

M.

The free trade issues and nuclear-free-zone issues should be separated. NZ has a right, and indeed a moral need considering the views of its citizens, to keep itself nuclear free. If America doesn't wish to sign a free trade agreement, of mutual benefit to the economies of NZ and the US, then they have that right; perhaps NZ should concentrate on more economic (and other) cooperation with Asia (including China) and let Bush erode Americas standing in the World a little more (he has that right).

Rubi (is that you Contra?) AFAIK the US has the greatest difference between rich and poor of any Western country. Also AFAIK Ireland has the second largest difference in this area (something I am not proud of). By poor I mean people living below the poverty line, I do not refer to *absolute* poverty which is something rare in the Western World (and it would be outrageous if it wasn't rare considering the wealth of Western countries).

The free trade issues and nuclear-free-zone issues should be separated. NZ has a right, and indeed a moral need considering the views of its citizens, to keep itself nuclear free. If America doesn't wish to sign a free trade agreement, of mutual benefit to the economies of NZ and the US, then they have that right; perhaps NZ should concentrate on more economic (and other) cooperation with Asia (including China) and let Bush erode Americas standing in the World a little more (he has that right).

I agree NZ should simply take its commerce elsewhere.
But its not that simple. Candidates like Brash can use the catchy phrase of 'free trade with the USA' in his campaigns. To alot of people, that carries more weight than it should. In the minds of many New Zealanders, not making concessions for free trade with America means condemning our economic future... This perception - based on the premise that felicity must come via America - corrupts the local politcal arena.

You are correct in ppointing out that we are facing two separate issues, but that does not prevent one from looking at thems ide by side, and observing the absurdity of it all.

'Free trade', as long as you do what we want, despite the inclinations of your constituants?

M.

Trade? Yes, but not at the price of ones own soul.
(I mean that metaphorically of coarse, I don't think Bush is Satan, honestly :D).

NZ has banned nukes in its waters and land on the principle of their opposition to the use of both peaceful and non-peaceful forms of nuclear energy. If NZ wishes to use nuclear power in the future to generate electricity then they could do that (certainly reactors grow more safe) but that is a different issue to that of allowing nuclear powered military vessels of foreign power in your harbours or territorial waters.

I vote "most stupidest and misleadingest title ever used for a thread"

:nice:

Less nukes on planet the better ! Power plants included ,since the waste is accumilating .

But going to China for ally could be dangerous at best ! The people have vry little rights in China. And most live in poverry . But what the heck, since America has become the slop pot of the world what does it matter ?

Give us your crimminals, your knives in our backs and your bigotry in ' bigotrys ' name . Call us racist, while you segregate yourselves amoung us to form your armies . Call us selfish while you collect our labor dues and molest our society with your cultures of third world politics and customs . Chage our languages and values . Infect our children with third world deseases and deadly cultures in the name of diversity and euality .

All of above seems to be the NZ and NA[ New America ] way .

Not satisfied with punishing America's poor, Bush seeks an opportunity to twist New Zealand's election to try to punish New Zealand's disadvantaged too. Can't say this man doesn't enjoy sharing his personal version of the Gospel, eh?

And we've seen how well Bush/GOP policy has worked in America too. In fact, we saw a lot of it during Katrina. :|

Poverty in America has risen steadily over the last 4 years that Bush has presided, unlike the Clinton years in which the poverty level was reduced sharply reduced.

***********************

The poverty level today is within a range common over the last 35 years, Census Bureau figures show, but recent trends are moving in the wrong direction. In the last 35 years, the poverty rate has twice peaked at about 15% — during the economic slowdowns at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidential term and the end of George H.W. Bush's.

As the economy expanded through Clinton's two terms, the number of Americans in poverty dropped by nearly 8 million, and the poverty rate fell to just above 11% by 2000. Those were the sharpest reductions since the 1960s.

Since George W. Bush took office, the share and the number of Americans in poverty have increased for four consecutive years. The overall poverty rate remains lower than during most of Clinton's presidency. But at the same time, 5.4 million more Americans are living below the poverty line today than when Bush took office, and the poverty rate has climbed back to 12.7%.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/floodwatersliftpovertydebateintopoliticalfocus;_yl t=AsMvqpORSc7clbhZalt9gDV2wPIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMD MzBHNlYwM3MDM-

**********************
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050916/ap_on_re_au_an/new_zealand_elections;_ylt=Arm76fDTm19p6SYRgGAH.CA fYhAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

U.S. Has Interest in New Zealand Elections By MIKE CORDER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 13 minutes ago



WELLINGTON, New Zealand - New Zealand's relationship with the United States could enter a new era of cooperation if the country's opposition National Party wins parliamentary elections Saturday.

Party leader Don Brash, a 64-year-old economist and former central bank governor, has said he would be prepared to dismantle New Zealand's 20-year-old nuclear-free laws to help prepare the way for a free trade deal with Washington — although he first would seek approval for the move in a referendum.

Nuclear laws have strained relations between Washington and Wellington since they were enacted in 1985, leading to New Zealand's being frozen out of a defense treaty with the United States and Australia.

Two-term Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark says she is appalled at the prospect of Brash scrapping them.

"We can take pride ... in being nuclear free and in having the strength and independence not to send our young people off to fight in unjust wars," Clark said in a televised address to the nation Friday night.

Her comments were a clear reference to her vocal opposition to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Clark, who spent Friday rushing to campaign rallies at malls and factories in New Zealand's largest city, Auckland, refused to send troops to participate in the invasion without U.N. approval but later dispatched army engineers to help rebuild the shattered country and Afghanistan.

Political analysts and pollsters who have charted erratic swings in support for both Labour and National consider the vote for parliament's 120 seats too close to call.

...

Since coming to power in 1999, Clark has presided over a booming economy helped by strong prices for agricultural exports and a surge in tourism sparked by the blockbuster "Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy that showcased the country's spectacular scenery.

Unemployment is at a 30-year low of 3.7 percent, and the budget has grown each year Clark has been in office. Her message Friday to the estimated 12 percent of the country's 2.83 million voters who were still undecided: Don't change a good thing.

"I think it's absolutely critical that we get a good vote for Labour tomorrow because these things don't happen by accident," Clark said. "They happen because you've got a good strong government that's pursued policies of growth and jobs and that's lifted household incomes across New Zealand."

But Brash, who led New Zealand's central bank for 15 years before entering politics, accuses Labour of not capitalizing on the favorable economic conditions and has vowed to slash taxes.

The policy that has drawn the most fire for Brash is his pledge to cut welfare and social programs aimed exclusively at the country's indigenous Maori and abolish seven seats for them in parliament — a raft of privileges he branded "state-sponsored separatism."

"For us having a single standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders irrespective of race remains a very important objective indeed," Brash said Friday at a campaign appearance. "It's not one we could easily tamper with. In fact, we can't tamper with it at all."

Maori, a minority of 530,000, are among the poorest, least-educated and worst-housed citizens in this nation of 4 million and make up half the prison population.

A newly formed Maori Party is expected to win some seats Saturday and could help Clark stay in her post by agreeing to support her party in parliament.

Peter Love of the Te Atiawa tribe of about 25,000 people said that if Brash wins power, "we could see a public protestation level never seen before."


Tomorrow is the day when we find out whether New Zealanders have been foolish enough to be manipulated into voting the way Bush'n'Brash want... that is to say, the result of 200,000 special votes which have been being counted for the last two weeks will be revealed. On election night, the results were 50 seats for Labour (left) and 49 seats for National (far right).

It was revealed that Brash and National were being coached by the Business Roundtable and by some Americans, they also had help from the Exclusive Brethren who had backed Bush in the USA and Howard in Australia. Sadly, an insufficient number of New Zealanders cared! :nonono:

Did I miss something? I don't think the article even said that Bush was backing Brash. Bush wants the nuclear-free law reformed or repealed. Just because Brash has promised to do that, we can't infer that Bush has made an official endorsement for him.

Bush did back Brash, just not openly.


That might not be much of a big deal for someone who lives states side and has been accustomed to not having a choice concerning the methods of energy production. Here in New Zealand, a huge portion of the population is extremely proud that we have nuclear-free laws. We put a very high emphasis on providing for our needs, as mcuh as possible, via alternative, greener production methods. Who the F*** do you think Bush is to try to manipulate our politics in that manner? Do you think that's right?

Dangling economic incentive as long as we sacrifice our commitment towards clean energy is literally a devilish maneuver.

I've been fearful and sad at the effect Bush has had on the world, but until now, I had the notion the country I had elected to live in was too far out of the way to suffer from the madness. Now it seems he's trying to F*** things up here too.
Your flippant comment about a 'mole hill' shows you simply don't know how to put yourself in the position of people actually living in the countries our foreign policy' affects. Your attitude is imperial in its nonchalance. 'Oh, what's the big deal? We only want them to do what we want them to do before we trade with them. No biggy. They're a little too protective of their environment, with their anti-nuclear and anti-GE notions: a little bribery will do away with that foolishness'. Great f***ing attitude.

M.
Excellent, Malcolm! :nice:
.
I mean I'd understand if you knew about cases if unrest, or even high criminality amongst New Zealand blacks.

M.
AFAIK, there aren't any - Malcolm is correct.
you keep stretching further and further out there with each story you post, The story is about a repealing a 2 decade old nuclear law to promote trade with the US, nothing more. Lets say for example Bush supported the other canidate, But that canidate was for less gun laws.. Would you blame Bush for wanting rampant murder in NZ? This is simply a reactionary fishing expedition to find fault in anything Bush does, and its getting old.

Dr.
Your asdsumption about gun laws causing more murder, is just an assertion, in fact, the reverse is true.
LOL

Bush toilet plea photographed
http://www.u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=65040&pt=n

A photographer has leaked a photo of a picture of a note, written by George W Bush, asking to be excused to go to the toilet.

It is understood the photographer, who reportedly works for Reuters, zoomed in on the note written during the UN Summit in New York. It was then passed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In a mix of upper and lower case letters, President Bush asks if a bathroom break is possible.
Yes, I saw that on the news. Hilarious!
Damn, it was close.
Thank God she won.

I hope she is able to build a coalition, but at least the worst has been averted. For now.

M.
I hope she can build a coalition, as well. Watch out for the specials tomorrow, they may give the Greens an extra seat... :crossedfingerssmiley:
The free trade issues and nuclear-free-zone issues should be separated. NZ has a right, and indeed a moral need considering the views of its citizens, to keep itself nuclear free. If America doesn't wish to sign a free trade agreement, of mutual benefit to the economies of NZ and the US, then they have that right; perhaps NZ should concentrate on more economic (and other) cooperation with Asia (including China) and let Bush erode Americas standing in the World a little more (he has that right).
Well said, Myrddin!

NZ has banned nukes in its waters and land on the principle of their opposition to the use of both peaceful and non-peaceful forms of nuclear energy. If NZ wishes to use nuclear power in the future to generate electricity then they could do that (certainly reactors grow more safe) but that is a different issue to that of allowing nuclear powered military vessels of foreign power in your harbours or territorial waters.
I seriously hope we never will go nuclear here, Myrddin. NZ is too geologically unstable... volcanoes, earthquakes and the like everywhere...
:nice:

I seriously hope we never will go nuclear here, Myrddin. NZ is too geologically unstable... volcanoes, earthquakes and the like everywhere...
:nice:
And perhaps too beautiful to risk also if the landscapes on display in the Lord of the Rings movies were accurate.

And perhaps too beautiful to risk also if the landscapes on display in the Lord of the Rings movies were accurate.
They are indeed accurate, Myrddin. (Our cities are small and unobtrusive.)

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/tstat.htm

New Zealand - the land of harmony or hypocrisy?
And it's just amazing how little the fact of maori extermination is mentioned on google.

As in Australia or indeed the US the relationship between native populations and Western settlers has always been strained and modern native populations often suffer from poverty and other issues to a greater extent than the national averages.

As in Australia or indeed the US the relationship between native populations and Western settlers has always been strained and modern native populations often suffer from poverty and other issues to a greater extent than the national averages.

I heard that the attitude towards maori was terrible in the most extreem way - like the murder of maori became legally a crime not so long ago - much after blacks were (at least) legally equal in US.
Of cource I can't say I'm an expert on this issue - but that what I heard.

New Zealand in the 19th Century had quite a problem with race relations. Why? Because the Maoris were IN NO SENSE a weak race, when pushed they pushed back.

But as the number of settlers continued to increase and the attitudes of the colonial government became more and more racist (to the great offense of the UK Colonial Office BTW) movements of peace began to gain more power among the Maori people with Te Whiti O Rongomai and his Parihaka movement, Te Pai Marire (the Good Religion), Te Whetu and the kingitanga movement and Te Kooti and the Ringatu all having parts to play here.

Since the beginning of the 20thC the disputes between Maori and Pakeha have been carried out mostly in court settings with the Maori getting more and more of the land confiscated from them back since about the 1970s. There are always tensions, ( show me a multicultural society without them ) but I'd like to believe we are learning to be Kiwis together WITHOUT the specter of assimilation and WITH the strength that comes from seeing that there is more than one side to a problem.

Kiwimac

) but I'd like to believe we are learning to be Kiwis together WITHOUT the specter of assimilation and WITH the strength that comes from seeing that there is more than one side to a problem.

Kiwimac

Kind of easy to do after not enough of them had left to be a threat...

I heard that the attitude towards maori was terrible in the most extreem way - like the murder of maori became legally a crime not so long ago - much after blacks were (at least) legally equal in US.
Of cource I can't say I'm an expert on this issue - but that what I heard.
You are probably right, AFAIK until early in the last century it was legal to shoot aborigines in Australia.

You are probably right, AFAIK until early in the last century it was legal to shoot aborigines in Australia.

From what I remember - it was not really "early".

Census snapshot: Māori1

The thirty-first New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings was held on 6 March 2001. The following snapshot highlights some of the key findings from tables prepared for the National Summary topic-based report published at the end of March 2002.

Overview

One in seven people were counted in the Māori ethnic group, an increase of 21 percent since 1991, according to 2001 Census results.

Most Māori continue to live in the northern regions. Nearly 90 percent live in the North Island and nearly 60 percent of Māori live in Northland, Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. However, the number of Māori people in the South Island has increased 38 percent since 1991 to reach 64,650.

While one in four people of Māori ethnicity speak the Māori language, nearly one half of Māori language speakers are under 25 years of age.

The median annual income for Māori adults was $14,800 for the year ended 31 March 2001, with Māori between 45 and 49 years of age having the highest median income for all Māori at $21,800. One in twenty Māori adults have an annual income of more than $50,000.

The Māori population is ageing, with the median age of people of Māori ethnicity increasing to 22 years from 20 years in 1991. Whereas 10 years ago 1 in 40 Māori people were aged 65 years and over, 1 in 30 are now in this age range.

Highlights

For the census usually resident population count.

1 in 7 people (526,281) in New Zealand were of Māori ethnicity.
Nearly 9 in 10 people of Māori ethnicity live in the North Island.
The median age of people of Māori ethnicity is 22 years.
1 in 4 people of Māori ethnicity speak the Māori language.
The median annual income for adults of Māori ethnicity was $14,800.
Over 1 in 5 adults of Māori ethnicity had a post-school qualification.
The largest iwi was Ngāpuhi.

Location

Nearly 9 in 10 people of Māori ethnicity live in the North Island, a similar proportion to 1991.
Nearly 6 in 10 people of Māori ethnicity live in the four northern regions of Northland, Auckland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty.
1 in 4 people (127,629) of Māori ethnicity live in the Auckland region.
9 in 20 people in the Gisborne region are of Māori ethnicity.
1 in 6 people of Māori ethnicity live in rural areas.
The count of people in the South Island of Māori ethnicity increased by 38 percent from 46,680 in 1991 to 64,650 in 2001.
The count of people in the Nelson region of Māori ethnicity increased by 89 percent from 1,707 in 1991 to 3,219 in 2001.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/kiwimac/Maori%20%20Statistics/CenMaoriGraph1.gif

Demographics

1 in 7 people (526,281) in New Zealand were of Māori ethnicity.
There has been an increase of 21 percent for the count of people of Māori ethnicity between 1991 and 2001.
The Māori population count at the 1901 Census was 45,549.
There were 95.7 males of Māori ethnicity for every 100 females in 2001, a decrease from 97.2 in 1991.
The median age of people of Māori ethnicity is 22 years, an increase from 20 years in 1991.
More Māori people are in older age groups, with just under 1 in 30 people of Maori ethnicity aged 65 years and over, compared with 1 in 40 in 1991.
3 in 8 people of Māori ethnicity are aged under 15 years, a similar proportion to 1991.
The Gisborne region had the largest proportion of people of Māori ethnicity aged 65 years and over, at 1 in 19.
The Tasman region had the highest proportion of people of Māori ethnicity aged under 15 years, at 4 in 10.
99 percent of people of Māori ethnicity were born in New Zealand.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/kiwimac/Maori%20%20Statistics/CenMaoriGraph2.gif

Language and religion

1 in 4 (130,482) people of Māori ethnicity speak the Māori language.
Nearly one half of Māori language speakers were aged under 25 years.
1 in 4 people of Māori ethnicity speak more than one language.
Over 1 in 3 people of Māori ethnicity in the Gisborne region speak the Māori language, with just under 1 in 3 in Bay of Plenty and Northland.
98 percent of people of Māori ethnicity who stated a religious affiliation were Christian.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/kiwimac/Maori%20%20Statistics/CenMaoriGraph3.gif

The main Christian denominations were:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/kiwimac/Maori%20%20Statistics/CenMaoriTable1.gif

Income and work

The median annual income for adults of Māori ethnicity was $14,800 for the year ended 31 March 2001.
The median income for males was $18,600 – more than $5,000 above that of $13,200 for females.
The highest median income for people of Māori ethnicity was in the 45 to 49-year age group at $21,800.
The Auckland and Wellington regions shared the highest median income for people of Māori ethnicity at $18,700.
1 in 20 adults of Māori ethnicity had an annual income of more than $50,000.
6 in 10 adults of Māori ethnicity had an annual income of $20,000 or less.
3 in 8 adults of Māori ethnicity had received a government benefit in the 12 months before the 2001 census.
56 percent of adults of Māori ethnicity were employed in 2001, compared with 43 percent in 1991.
The most common occupation group for people of Māori ethnicity was service and sales workers, with 1 in 6 (28,635) workers.
The most common occupation group for Māori females was service and sales workers (23 percent) and for Māori men plant and machine operators and assemblers (25 percent).
The manufacturing industry had the most workers of Māori ethnicity, with 1 in 6 (29,142), a decline from 1 in 4 (26,004) in 1991.
Nearly 3 in 10 workers of Māori ethnicity in the Gisborne region were in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry group.
Nearly 9 in 20 workers of Māori ethnicity in the communication services industry group were in the Auckland region.

Qualifications

School Certificate in one or more subjects (or National Certificate level 1) was the highest school qualification for most adults of Māori ethnicity, with 1 in 5 adults (65,211) – the same proportion as in 1991.
Over 1 in 5 adults of Māori ethnicity had a postschool qualification.
1 in 6 adults of Māori ethnicity had a vocational qualification (such as New Zealand Certificate of Engineering), while 1 in 21 had a degree or higher qualification as their highest post-school qualification.
The Otago region had the largest proportion of people of Māori ethnicity with tertiary qualifications as their highest qualification, with 3 in 11.
The most common field of study for post-school qualifications for people of Māori ethnicity was teaching, with 2,988 people.

Iwi
1 in 6 people (604,110) are of Māori descent. (Descent is a different concept to that of ethnicity, which is related to cultural identification.)
For those people of Māori descent, the largest iwi were:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/kiwimac/Maori%20%20Statistics/CenMaoriTable2.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v169/kiwimac/Maori%20%20Statistics/CenMaoriGraph4.gif

Source: http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/census-snpsht-maori-Apr02.htm

You are probably right, AFAIK until early in the last century it was legal to shoot aborigines in Australia.
But not, AFAIK, here! I am not sure what Coral was talking about... Murder of Maori was never legal!

But not, AFAIK, here! I am not sure what Coral was talking about... Murder of Maori was never legal!

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/tstat.htm

What this people are talking about?

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/tstat.htm

What this people are talking about?
Coral, I know English isn't your native language, and that you probably know nothing about Tariana Turia, so I will excuse your ignorance.

Mrs Turia used the term 'holocaust', but she didn't mean it literally! In fact, she got into a lot of trouble, mainly from whites, but also from her fellow Maori by using the term 'holocaust', because she claimed that the effects of colonisation were equivalent to a literal holocaust. It doesn't mean that Maori were literally murdered, or that they were allowed to be! So, no way are you correct in your assertion that Maori were allowed to be shot (though that is true of Australian aborigines, as Myrddin said.)

Oh, and BTW, if colonisation = holocaust, how that does that make you feel, vis a vis the Palestinians, whom you in Israel have colonised? :D

Della what about in Australia? Was shooting of natives legal there?

Della what about in Australia? Was shooting of natives legal there?
Sadly, yes, it was.. I don't know when that ended. They were only given the vote in the 1960s or 1970s, which is horrifying. My son learned that in school history last ear, and we were both gobsmacked.

Coral, I know English isn't your native language, and that you probably know nothing about Tariana Turia, so I will excuse your ignorance.

Mrs Turia used the term 'holocaust', but she didn't mean it literally! In fact, she got into a lot of trouble, mainly from whites, but also from her fellow Maori by using the term 'holocaust', because she claimed that the effects of colonisation were equivalent to a literal holocaust. It doesn't mean that Maori were literally murdered, or that they were allowed to be! So, no way are you correct in your assertion that Maori were allowed to be shot (though that is true of Australian aborigines, as Myrddin said.)

Oh, and BTW, if colonisation = holocaust, how that does that make you feel, vis a vis the Palestinians, whom you in Israel have colonised? :D

This document is talking about murder and loss of lives.

And I would think that you - with so little knowledge, so little willingnes to learn and so strong opinions about what happening in our area - should be more restrained in talking about other people ignorance.

My son learned that in school history last ear, and we were both gobsmacked.

And you didn't know it before?
Amazing.

This document is talking about murder and loss of lives.

And I would think that you - with so little knowledge, so little willingnes to learn and so strong opinions about what happening in our area - should be more restrained in talking about other people ignorance.
Coral, the point is, that you said murder of Maori was once legal, and it wasn't, which was my point.

Coral, the point is, that you said murder of Maori was once legal, and it wasn't, which was my point.

And if it was - would you know it?
I doubt it.

The crucial point, really, is that Don Brash lost. Special votes are counted. The Labour Party are back in, which a lead that would make Bush jealous. Coalition talks are underway now, but with the Greens, ol' Jim Anderton, the Maori Party, United Future and, dare I say it, parliamentary jester Winston Peters' NZ First Party to choose from, Clark looks pretty damn secure.

The true Right possesses on 50 seats out of 121. The horrible populist idiots in the centre are worrying and disturbing, as always, but Brash is going to be 68 before he even has a shot at government again.

Sorry suckas, you lose.

Pity Nandor's out of parliament though...

What's wrong with equal rights?
Do you think a person should get special treatment from the government because they belong to an ethnic group that statisitically has less money than other ethnic groups?

Hey, Feenix, here's a tip: Don't **** with a New Zealand law student on matters pertaining to law and policy in New Zealand. You'll lose...

You absolutely fail to understand anything to do with race-relations in New Zealand. Admittedly, I am ignorant of the status of Native Americans. That is why I do not presume to comment on it.

No doubt you could not find Waitangi on a map, let alone identify the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Under this Treaty, Maori ceded governership - or kawanatanga - to the Crown, but retained tino rangatiratanga or chieftainship and exclusive possession over all land, fisheries and other taonga or treasures.

This Treaty was, in the nineteenth century, declared to be a legal nullity, and up until last century, absolutely ignored by the New Zealand courts. British common law was introduced entirely, including the radical title of the Crown. In a breach of te Tiriti and international law, land was siezed, purchased and converted into individual title in the fee simple. Both the Maori and English versions of the Treaty were summarily ignored.

This is not an issue of reperations or claims between individual citizens. This is the Crown acting to recognise its past mistakes under international law and its own common law. As much as I detest patriotism and nationalism, I am proud to live in a country where, flawed as it is, our government accepts its mistakes.

However, it must be stressed that historical claims are far from the core issue of New Zealand race relations. In fact, it was simply not at issue that the deadline for settling historical claims within ten years would be met.

The issues are threefold. First and simplest is addressing historical disputes. Second is addressing cultural conflicts and accepting that Maori culture is a vivid and vibrant part of New Zealand's culture. The third is addressing current instances of apparent racial bias in New Zealand.

The key issue is the present and the future. Land seizures did not end in the nineteenth century.

In 2003, Chief Justice Sian Elias ruled, supported unanimously in the nation's Court of Appeal, that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims regarding the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. This was a simple application of the common law. Native customary title, under current precedants, exists until ceded, sold or otherwise alienated. The Maori land court exists in part to determine the status of such land. Under British common law, the foreshore and seabed is always Crown land, but Elias judged that no such law applied in the different circumstances of New Zealand.

She ruled, therefore, that the Ngati Apa had the right to the due process of the Maori Land Court. She did not engage in judicial activism or give away 'our beaches' as the ignorant and uninformed love to claim. She simply stated that the issue was justiceable. In my view, a clear case could have been made for claims of Maori title.

Parliament responded by rapidly pushing through a fundamentally unjust law. They explicitly denied the Maori the legal rights to appeal conferred under the common law. They explicitly siezed any and all Maori customary lands - the scope and nature of which was as yet undetermined by the courts - and instituted a procedure by which Maori who had been using the land siezed "substantially uninterrupted" since 1840 for reasons "integral to tikanga Maori [Maori traditional law, spirituality and morality]. In effect, they became legally obliged to ask the Crown if they could please, please keep on doing what they'd been doing for the last century and a half...

Welcome to the facts, Feenix. This isn't about what happened in our grandfather's time. This is about the denial of rights to property and appeal to the Maori in 2004.

And if it was - would you know it?
I doubt it.

Coral, I am a New Zealander. I am also a law student. Moreover, I have studied 19th century history under James Belich, New Zealand's premier historian. I can say with absolute certainty that it was not [wars aside; killing enemies in war is rarely illegal...] after 1840. Prior to 1840, English law did not apply. Maori law, or tikanga Maori did. In fact, Maori chiefs declared themselves, with support from British resident James Busby, to be an independant nation in 1835.

You lose.

In fact, the missionaries pressuring the British Crown into despatching Hobson to acquire New Zealand as a colony did so precisely because they felt that the anarchic settlements of whalers and the like were so detrimental to the Maori. The Maori, of course, quite liked muskets, and were excedingly good with them. It wasn't killing of Maori by Pakeha that was the worry, so much as rampant sex between the two...

So, from the moment British law applied in New Zealand, killing natives, outside of war, was illegal.


Give us your crimminals, your knives in our backs and your bigotry in ' bigotrys ' name . Call us racist, while you segregate yourselves amoung us to form your armies . Call us selfish while you collect our labor dues and molest our society with your cultures of third world politics and customs . Chage our languages and values . Infect our children with third world deseases and deadly cultures in the name of diversity and euality .

All of above seems to be the NZ and NA[ New America ] way .

What on Earth are you talking about?

Janus,

Here's a dare. Come here and tell a Maori he's a slave to the Pakeha. My people (I am mostly Pakeha but ...) were warriors, they fought the British soldiers to a standstill, so I would guess one lone Yank wouldn't be a problem, indeed not at all if the 'Battle of Queen Street' is taken into account.

Kiwimac

A standstill? That's a nice way of putting it. Remember Gate Pa? 250 Maori, 1000 Pakeha? Who won that one? Ooooh...

People forget that the Maori were the only 'native' race to never suffer large scale military defeats during colonisation. With a few exceptions, they won.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/tstat.htm

New Zealand - the land of harmony or hypocrisy?
And it's just amazing how little the fact of maori extermination is mentioned on google.

Odd. I mean, up until the Foreshore and Seabed Act, Tariana Turia was part of the Labour Party...in government. Funny that. I mean, I'm sure she meant to call the government she was part of genocidal, right?

New Zealand has its problems, I'll grant you. But I'd wager that Maori are better off than most American or Australian indigenous people.

Kind of easy to do after not enough of them had left to be a threat...

Hilarious. You know less than nothing about race relations in New Zealand.

Not a threat? Not a threat?

Comedy.

Coral, I am a New Zealander. I am also a law student. Moreover, I have studied 19th century history under James Belich, New Zealand's premier historian. I can say with absolute certainty that it was not [wars aside; killing enemies in war is rarely illegal...] after 1840. Prior to 1840, English law did not apply. Maori law, or tikanga Maori did. In fact, Maori chiefs declared themselves, with support from British resident James Busby, to be an independant nation in 1835.
.

O.K. I suppose I can accept your opinion on this matter as based on knowledge.
Just don't tell me that maori are a independent nation now.

Odd. I mean, up until the Foreshore and Seabed Act, Tariana Turia was part of the Labour Party...in government. Funny that. I mean, I'm sure she meant to call the government she was part of genocidal, right?

New Zealand has its problems, I'll grant you. But I'd wager that Maori are better off than most American or Australian indigenous people.



Hilarious. You know less than nothing about race relations in New Zealand.

Not a threat? Not a threat?

Comedy.

It does looks like the nations that like today to talk to others from some high moral grounds are exactly those who somewhere in their history was so oppresive and cruel to some not-convinient minorities, that they had very little problems with those minorities later.

O.K. I suppose I can accept your opinion on this matter as based on knowledge.
Just don't tell me that maori are a independent nation now.

Maori are not an independant nation now.

It does looks like the nations that like today to talk to others from some high moral grounds are exactly those who somewhere in their history was so oppresive and cruel to some not-convinient minorities, that they had very little problems with those minorities later.

Please name me one colonial nation that does not have a dark past of some kind.

Maori are not an independant nation now.

Please name me one colonial nation that does not have a dark past of some kind.

My point exactly.
That's why I think they must show some modesty.

The crucial point, really, is that Don Brash lost. Special votes are counted. The Labour Party are back in, which a lead that would make Bush jealous. Coalition talks are underway now, but with the Greens, ol' Jim Anderton, the Maori Party, United Future and, dare I say it, parliamentary jester Winston Peters' NZ First Party to choose from, Clark looks pretty damn secure.

The true Right possesses on 50 seats out of 121. The horrible populist idiots in the centre are worrying and disturbing, as always, but Brash is going to be 68 before he even has a shot at government again.

Sorry suckas, you lose.

Pity Nandor's out of parliament though...

Yes, it is a pity about Nandor... but Yay! Brash lost!




:D