Well, by George, he made it. As I "predicted" in my Update 1, George Bush was re-elected and, as I suggested, more comfortably than he was elected for his first term, his popular vote being 51%. I will admit however, that I thought he would be re-elected with a somewhat more comfortable margin still.

In a strange way, I think the American people chose their president logically. Why? Well they chose the devil they knew, a strong force in politics, and one of the reasons an incumbent usually does get re-elected. They chose with the thought he should be given another chance to complete the job he started. They chose because in his simple, folksy style he comes across as personable. They chose, unfortunately, because of his stated religious belief. They chose because many Americans are scared about terrorism, and they see in Bush a personification of their fears. They chose because his rival just didn't display the qualities that would persuade them otherwise. And in this latter matter I would have to agree with them, Kerry did come across as a lacklustre and passionless candidate.

Would Howard Dean have done better? Who knows, Kerry did rather better than I expected him to. When I wrote my last article about the election seven plus weeks ago, I had been very unimpressed by Kerry, indeed I stated time was running out for him to show qualities of leadership and vision. But he must have read my article, because after this he did improve considerably. But it wasn't enough and his basic character of quiet thoughtfulness was always going to be a problem for him. I always had the impression that he was never his own man, he never really showed the fire or passion that would make people understand why he was seeking the highest office in the land. He always seemed to be the puppet of the Democratic party and its elite; they pulled the strings, told him what to say, told him how to behave, told him what his opinions should be.

Dean would not have been like this. It is pointless to labour the contrast between Kerry and Dean, history has a habit of making its own decisions. But for what it's worth I would say, yes, Dean would have done much better than Kerry. He was his own man and he would have run his own campaign, and he would have won the election for the Democrats rather than what happened this time, the Democrats trying to win the campaign for their candidate, and failing.

I hope the Democrats learn from this. They need to choose a candidate who will ignite passion in the people, particularly the young and the middle class. They need to choose a candidate who can be elected for what he is and what he represents personally, not some amorphous political sponge. Perhaps Howard Dean will get his turn next time, I truly hope so. Perhaps Hilary Clinton would wish to put her name forward, though I would personally prefer Howard Dean.

In a sense, the Democrats might have been lucky to loose this election. There are so many grave issues facing America, and us, that the Presidency has become something of a poisoned chalice. Who in their right minds would wish to be President? The Iraq war, Afghanistan, unemployment, medical care, intolerable balance of payments deficits, intolerable overseas indebtedness, major environmental issues, oil, etc. It will serve Bush and his cronies right if the whole thing becomes unstuck and they actually have to account for themselves. The problem is that they are all rich enough to be able to escape the consequences of their own actions.

And as for the rest of us? Well, we are stuck with Bush, we just have to hope that the realities of the world economy, the Iraq war and of the environment, will impinge sufficiently on his consciousness to allow some movement in his otherwise fixed right wing and reactionary ideologies. But, to bring some variety to a hackneyed phrase, I'm not going to wait to go to the toilet.

I thought it was about time to bring some energy matters up to date. Peter Hodgson continues his wilful ways with power. He refuses to give support to windpower, in any meaningful way at any rate, platitudes seem to suffice. One of his repeated mantras is that it is important that different forms of power generation should be treated neutrally (he has written to me several times about this); the idiotic "level playing fields" of Rogernomics persists personified in Peter. Yet he can't even be trusted to stick to his own principals. Peter Hodgson wants a new combined cycle generator built at Huntly. Whilst certainly more efficient than the positively ancient and inefficient generators already there, it will still burn vast amounts of gas, contributing to greenhouse warming, and depleting our reserves of gas at an unsustainable rate. In fact they will burn so much gas, that our presently discovered gas reserves will be totally depleted within ten years. That he seems to have learnt nothing from Maui is bad enough, but because the time of ten years is not sufficient to guarantee a return to the company, Genesis, which is government owned in any case, he has agreed to the government guaranteeing the company funding for this facility if further gas is not found. Whilst Peter is confident it will be found, he is no soothsayer (if the Ministry of Energy's forecast of $25 per barrel of oil in 2025 is anything to go by, he is certainly isn't) , but in any case this makes a nonsense of his creed of the "level playing field". He is directly subsidising a competitive power source to wind and contributing unnecessarily to global warming. Peter, you are a humbug, and the sooner you give up your job to someone up to the task, the better.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0403/S00673.htm This site details some proposed generation capacity for New Zealand. Even these figures can't be trusted. The Whirinaki plant, of 155 MW nominal capacity, should not be included, it is entirely meant as a back-up generation capacity when there is the imminent likelihood otherwise of blackouts. The government said as much. It will be burning oil, at what cost for Heaven's sake. It is a costly white elephant. Of the projected increase in capacity of around 843 MW, just about 245 MW will be in renewables (29%). So much for our commitment to Kyoto. We presently use about 65% renewables in electricity generation, so our performance in the next few years will be woefully short of what we already achieve. New Zealand is a country going backwards. I would like to remind Peter Hodgson and the Ministry of Energy that they published in 2001 a paper examining mechanisms for increasing the proportion of renewable electricity generation. I quote "The Government is committed to a sustainable and efficient energy future" Humbug, again, Peter.

http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/map/2004.html This page is part of the British Wind Energy Association site, with a list of new windpower sites being installed this year. It is estimated that by the end of 2005 there will be a total installed wind capacity in the UK of 1689.7 MW, equivalent to generation of approximately 4.49 TWh. Applied to this country this figure represents 13% of our total generating output, or the needs of nearly half a million households. These figures, which have been relatively easily attained in a densely populated country, reveals just how pathetic the figures are in New Zealand, and directly challenge Peter Hodgson's continued and inexplicable inertia.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/453680%3fformat=html The Electricity Commission is to spend up to $21 million in an energy efficient programme, mainly to encourage more efficient domestic lighting, water heating, refrigeration and commercial lighting. It's a start, but what a timorous start. The problems with the inefficient use of electricity has been known for years. This is just a minimal investment. Home insulation isn't even mentioned, but this is probably the single biggest issue. There will be about 500,000 inadequately insulated homes at a guess. To get these buildings up to standard will cost, say, about $2000 per home, ie an investment of $1 billion. $20 million will not go very far.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3604506&reportID=162576 This NZ Herald site reports yet another government "discussion document" on energy projections, energy efficiency and renewables. There is a link to a Ministry of Economic Development on this page ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pdf/sustainable2004.pdf ). This document is 76 pages long. It contains much the same sort of information as previous discussion documents, which I have referred to in my energy article. The Ministry still can't get its figures right. e.g. in projected oil prices, which "may rise substantially after 2030". Have they not filled their cars recently? Most of the document is waffle, and repeats itself frequently. There is no focus , no true commitment to renewables. It includes things such as importing LPG, CO2 sequestration and all sorts of other nonsense. But it wouldn't matter to me if the document was flawless, the problem is this is just another discussion document. The time for discussion is long gone, Peter, long, long, long gone. There is absolutely no sense of urgency, no sense of action, no sense of leadership, no sense of passion, no sense of understanding. Peter, you have had several years to have dealt with all this, you or your party had years in opposition to develop policy and hone this. You are still sitting on your backside doing almost nothing. The programmes that are still just in the discussion stage should have been up and running years ago (I won't repeat them here - they are all mentioned more than once elsewhere in my internet site) . Sometimes I think that in considering energy matters in New Zealand, that I am in some sort of dream, the sort of nightmare where the monster is after you and you find your steps so laboured and so slow - the ground under you is like walking through treacle. Peter, you are the treacle in our dreams of a self sufficient and renewable energy future.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3605851 New Zealand Herald page, reporting Winston Peter's speech to the New Zealand First's annual conference in Taupo. Winston says he would repurchase strategic assets from foreign control. If this included Contact Energy and reintegrating the generation and distribution network, then I would have to agree with him, this is the single simplest and cheapest option (yes, cheapest) in providing New Zealanders with an efficient and cost effective electricity supply, any profits can then be reinvested. I corresponded about this some time ago with Jeanette Fitzsimons, she thought this was not feasible and that legislation and regulation would be sufficient. Much as I admire Jeanette, I think she is wrong, in comparison with the total value of all our electricity assets, purchasing Contact is not expensive, and up to now legislation and regulation has been woefully inadequate. In addition, if we don't do this and Don Brash and / or National get to be in power, they will almost certainly sell off the remaining publicly owned electricity assets. There is something really wrong with our country if we have to wrap up, tie up or hide such strategic assets to prevent them from falling under foreign control.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3975325.stm This page, appearing in today's BBC internet site reports an address by Professor Schellnhuber at a global warming conference in Germany. He states that the cost of saving the world's climate would be about 0.3% to 0.5% of the total world's gross domestic product. As I stated in my article about global warming - it was my belief the cost of avoiding global warming would be minimal - then this article would appear to confirm this. In fact I am pretty sure that there will be no net cost at all, that the efficiencies gained will far outweigh the one-off costs. I get so angry with the rich and powerful like George Bush, and with those who should know better, like Peter Hodgson, the dinosaurs and ostriches of our societies, who still just don't get it.

I, along with two of my socially aware daughters, went last night to see the film, The Corporation. As a subscriber to the "New Internationalist" , and a viewer of Michael Moore's films and reader of his books, I thought this film would be interesting and informative. I think I should say at the outset I found the film, as a documentary, mildly disappointing. It was a bit long, poorly edited, rather tendentious and in places seemed to loose the thread of what was supposed to be being demonstrated. Most episodes of "Panorama", the long running documentary series from the BBC, which unfortunately we don't get to see in this country (a lost cause for quality television), would have higher production and information values than this film. Having said that, it is important for people to be able to view a contrary view of the world, that isn't beholden to big business, Rupert Murdoch, advertising interests, rugby football and ratings. There was much in the film that was important, and some of this can be listed here.

The co-operation of big business with despotic regimes, for instance IBM and Coco-Cola with Nazi Germany (I shall never drink Fanta again), but shocking as this was, the present day ability of corporations to work with similar regimes like Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Turkmenistan etc. was not highlighted or properly examined, a missed opportunity

The use of sweatshop labour in clothing manufacture particularly where just one thousandth of the cost of $30 shirt is the wage of the person who made it, often a child.

The corporatisation of water supplies as illustrated in Cochamba, Bolivia, where it became illegal even to collect rainwater, but where a local uprising forced the Bechtal corporation to withdraw - this was likened, appositely, to the British Raj's attempt to tax salt in India.

The increasingly worrying ability of corporations to patent naturally occurring genetic material, where the mere discovery of a gene constitutes the basis of the patent. This must be wrong.

Monsanto's attempts to prevent poor farmers in third world countries saving seed for replanting in the next year. Monsanto seems to be a corporation with a particularly bad reputation as a corporate, involved as it is in genetic engineering and herbicides.

The misuse of growth hormone-like injections (Posilac, made by Monsanto of course) in the dairy herds of the USA, a process banned in most western countries because of its bad effect on the health of the cows, and probably also the people that drink the milk. The film relates the efforts of two whistle blowers (journalists) in trying to get the Posilac story broadcast by the TV station that employed them, but when Monsanto's lawyers got heavy, the TV station, owned ultimately by Rupert Murdoch, backed down. It all got rather involved, but ultimately the TV station was cleared because the Supreme Court found that it is not actually illegal to knowingly broadcast misinformation (lies)! I found this the single most frightening aspect of this film, the incestuous collusion between business, advertisers and media that deprives the public of thorough examination of these important matters. It is not that this information is not available, one can subscribe to The New Internationalist, watch films such as this one etc., but you actually have to go out of your way to do so. The mainstream broadcasters, especially television, controlled as they are by Rupert Murdoch, or run by ratings-aware, advertising revenue conscious and risk-averse management, do not reflect the reality of many people's concerns.

I won't go on with this list, but it does illustrate the widespread coverage attempted in this film - I wonder if this was one of the problems. There were some amusing moments. Michael Moore made a few brief entertaining appearances; the man employed by Pfizer to liaise with the neighbours of their factory, his grin was infectious; the Shell CEO and his wife entertaining protesters on the lawn of their home ("so sorry", says Mrs CEO, "we don't have any soya milk"), the advertising lady explaining how they make use of children's nagging in persuading mums and dads to part with their money, the CEO who sees to solution to all the world's problems as in privatising absolutely everything, plants, water, air, sea - at least his viewpoint was one of logical consistency; the Nike executive who had never visited his factories in the Philippines, and refused to accompany Michael Moore to visit them, even though he had a first class ticket bought for him, but later he did contact Michael Moore, that perhaps he could drop in on his way to the Australian Open.


What was interesting was the fact, that in America at least, a corporation is legally considered as an individual person. This allowed the makers of this film to fill in a questionnaire as it might relate to an individual being examined by a psychiatrist; there was a good case made out that the typical corporation is a psychopath. Whether this device was actually helpful or not in considering the problems of corporatisation and globalisation I will leave to others to judge.


My two daughters found the film interesting and informative, it's not the sort of film they would be likely to see in the general course of events. They also said the film was too long, and they found the female voice-over irritating.



Much of the information in this film was known to me, but I am forgetting that for many much would be new, and I trust that it would be a real eye-opener. Perhaps the major problem with the film was its reluctance to point out that the corporation can only survive with the willing co-operation of us all. Does the knowledge of Nike sweat shops stop us buying its shoes, is Fanta still a popular soft drink made by Coca Cola, do we still think of the bargains we can get when we buy that shirt made in the Philippines imported by Woolworths? Do we still buy and use gas guzzling SUVs courtesy Ford, drink coffee from countries with dreadful working conditions and pitiful wages via Nestlé, ditto bananas from the Dole corporation, or not worry too much about either our environment or Monsanto profits when we use Roundup?



The problem is that we, as individuals, can't always act in the world's best interests, our own monetary and social needs are so disparate, and as individuals one can feel so powerless. This is where progressive government comes in, there really needs to be a commitment in our ministers and politicians to understand the true nature of corporatisation and globalisation. I get very upset and frustrated with the chronic institutional naivety of successive governments. I sometimes think that our politicians forget they are running a sovereign nation, and not some branch office of the Combined Supranational Multicorp, Inc. We have sovereign powers that should be used more often in protecting our interests, and more importantly, the interests of our children. Our continued selling of much of our productive assets - farmland, forestry, electricity and energy come to mind - but also our beautiful countryside and coastline, is short sighted and destructive in the long term to our economy and perhaps even to our own sense of worth of what it means to be a New Zealander . The Corporation certainly demonstrated that we can't trust international corporations, but I would contend that we can't trust our politicians, and we can't even trust ourselves.


There are a multitude of internet sites that can be accessed in regard to corporation, their abuses etc., use Google or your favourite search engine. Here are a few sites to get you started.

http://www.agbioforum.org/v2n2/v2n2a07-fetrow.htm pro- Posilac site.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Monsanto-Truth-rBGH2feb04.htm Anti - Posilac site.
http://www.democracyctr.org/bechtel/ re Bechtel
http://www.newint.org/ - New Internationalist Magazine and internet site.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/Nigeria.asp - article re Shell Oil and Nigeria. (Interestingly Shell Oil has come under great scrutiny recently for its deliberate overstating of its oil reserves; it is likely to face very expensive class litigation by disgruntled shareholders)
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ - an interesting site in regard to a Canadian case where a small farmer actually won an important victory against Monsanto.
http://pewagbiotech.org/events/0204/pope.php3 Sierra Club article on genetic engineered seeds.