James Shaw ends with an eloquent challenge

James Shaw is rated as one of the best prospects in a new intake into Parliament this year. He happens to be a Green MP but it’s important to look at his capabilities and potential to contribute in a wider context.

The Greens themselves rate Shaw enough to have given him their party spot in the Adjournment Debate today.

JamesShawAdjournmentDebate

His speech is worth listening too right through. He is eloquent, humorous, pertinent and at times biting, in an honourable sort of way. The video and full speech is below, but first an excerpt that I think is one of the most important things to be looking for and pushing for in Parliament next year.

I said in my maiden speech only 7 weeks ago that we must transcend and transform our petty politics and our partisanship. I said that to get unstuck we will all need to let go of some things and to be more committed to finding the answers than to being right or to others being wrong.

The intervening weeks have not disillusioned me of that belief; they have reinforced it. To a new observer it may seem that we are stuck in a never-ending downward spiral of attack and defend that serves only to revolt the public at large and to turn them off participating in the political process or even bothering to vote.

One of the four principles of the Green Party charter is that of non-violence.

This is not simply an absence of physical violence; it is the method of social change given to us by Mahatma Gandhi , who preached ahimsa , the lack of desire to harm or to kill, and by Martin Luther King , who drew from the Christian tradition. It is through these principles and practices that we can transcend and transform the stuck situation we seem to find ourselves in.

Let us take the summer recess to consider ways we might work together to fix this, to bring integrity and functionality to our political process, and to restore New Zealanders’ faith in who we are and the work we do here.

I’ll back him and any other MP he wants to work positively on that as much as I can. Our Parliament badly needs a new way to represent and lead.

Full draft transcript fromn Draft transcript – Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Speech – JAMES SHAW (Green)

It is a great honour for me to speak on behalf of the Green Party in this adjournment debate—[Interruption] Calm down, fellas—calm down. I thank my colleagues for the privilege. I became a MP only 12 weeks ago, a period of time that seems both very fleeting and very long. I would like to talk about some of the things I have learnt about Parliament and politics during those weeks.

The first thing that I have learnt is that although many of the things that we have provenance over are deeply mundane, such as Parts 1 through to 4 of the accounting infrastructure legislation, some are indeed matters of great national and international import.

One such legislation is the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill , which was passed in this House yesterday after several minutes of careful consideration and thoughtful debate!

This bill is designed to stop New Zealanders from going to fight for the Islamic State, which is fighting the Iraqi Government, which we support. And we will shortly be sending the military over to help Iraq fight the Islamic State, which definitely will not have any New Zealanders fighting with them because we said so—yesterday.

We also support Saudi Arabia, which also supports the Islamic State, which is fighting the Government of Iraq, which we also support. The Middle East is a very supportive environment right now.

Our military will feel well-supported when they get over there. I will tell this House whom we do not support, and that is President al-Assad in Syria. We do support some of the freedom fighters who are fighting against President al-Assad, who are primarily led by the Islamic State, but we do not support the Islamic State.

We also do not support Iran, which also does not support the Islamic State, and which does support the Government of Iraq, which we do support.

This mess was largely created by a coalition of the willing, which we were unwilling to support. It invaded Iraq for two reasons: to look for weapons of mass destruction that did not exist and to drive out terrorists who were not there until the coalition went in to drive them out. Into this hornet’s nest, the Beehive proposes to send a contingent of the New Zealand Defence Force , perhaps under the Anzac banner, which may be appropriate because, as far as military adventures go, this one looks like a real winner.

It may be just as well that we are passing legislation that is designed to keep us safe from ourselves. I have also learnt that journalists do actually ask questions like: “Have you ever smoked cannabis?”. My answer to that was “No. Absolutely not. Never.”

Of course, I was answering generally rather than specifically, but it is true; I have never inhaled in my capacity as a list MP. My office may have taken drugs in the past—I do not know; I am not accountable for it—but, at the end of the day, what I can say is that I am extremely relaxed.

The people here have been very friendly. To the people at Parliamentary Service , who put on an excellent induction programme and who set up our offices, our IT , our finances, our travel, and our accommodation; the staff at the restaurants who feed us when we are in a hurry; the ushers who look after us in the House; and the cleaners who tidy up after us at the end of a long day—on behalf of all of us who entered Parliament for the first time this September, and on behalf of my Green colleagues, thank you.

The National Party MPs have been especially warm. Almost every time they mention me in the media they talk about me as a leadership contender for the Green Party.

It is very gracious of them to do that without any trace of malice or ulterior motive, especially since Metiria and Russel have led the Green Party and doubled the size since 2008 and I can barely make it into this House with a tie on.

I would particularly like to thank the Hon Chris Finlayson for his praise, and I return the favour by asking the National Party to consider that member as its next leader, after the current one steps down early next year.

The Hon Chris Finlayson has great integrity, a respect for parliamentary process, precision, a sharp mind, and a clear memory—characteristics that we are looking for in a Prime Minister. Minister Finlayson has other qualities too that many people do not see: a great tolerance for chit-chat, humility, empathy, and a connection with real New Zealanders.

He can speak to and for the Kiwi battlers of Huntly.

As the Attorney-General himself might say: “Fecisti patriam diversis de gentibus unam.”

The House is about to rise for the summer recess, which revolves around the tradition of Christmas. I imagine that after this speech, I for one will be begging for forgiveness, and it is on that theme I would like to conclude.

I said in my maiden speech only 7 weeks ago that we must transcend and transform our petty politics and our partisanship. I said that to get unstuck we will all need to let go of some things and to be more committed to finding the answers than to being right or to others being wrong.

The intervening weeks have not disillusioned me of that belief; they have reinforced it. To a new observer it may seem that we are stuck in a never-ending downward spiral of attack and defend that serves only to revolt the public at large and to turn them off participating in the political process or even bothering to vote.

One of the four principles of the Green Party charter is that of non-violence.

This is not simply an absence of physical violence; it is the method of social change given to us by Mahatma Gandhi , who preached ahimsa , the lack of desire to harm or to kill, and by Martin Luther King , who drew from the Christian tradition. It is through these principles and practices that we can transcend and transform the stuck situation we seem to find ourselves in.

Let us take the summer recess to consider ways we might work together to fix this, to bring integrity and functionality to our political process, and to restore New Zealanders’ faith in who we are and the work we do here.

As this most sordid of political years draws to a close and the House rises for the Christmas break, I offer this. In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus is reported in the Gospel of Luke to have said

“But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year .

Leave a comment

22 Comments

  1. Mike C

     /  10th December 2014

    What are you backing him on Pee-Gee?

    His speech sounded like a “bunch of blah blah blah brainless bullshit” to me. LOL.

    Reply
    • More integrity in politics, cleaner more positive politics. There’s far too much emphasis on some things that have happened in the past, there’s room for all parties to improve substantially looking forward rather than moaning backwards.

      Reply
      • Mike C

         /  11th December 2014

        I see what you mean, Pee-Gee. Yes, based on his above speech, Shaw would be a far better Green Party Leader than Norman.

        Reply
  2. Looking forward isn’t so great when you’re on the road to hell, which is where the foreign policy that he was joking about goes. War without end, sold with lies upon lies.

    Reply
    • Yes, the Middle East is a long-running mess. But doing nothing is a very risky option too.

      Reply
      • Assessment of risk to national interests is fundamentally flawed when those responsible for the assessment owe allegiance to a Commander in Chief who has prejudice against those accused of the threat.

        A sane analysis of national security interests involves assessing the threats from all sources, not just those of a different religion. IS is presented as state sponsored terrorism, but the NZ body politic is typically in denial of state sponsored terrorism that is committed by its political allies.

        The landmark case of state sponsored terrorism was 9/11, in which Muslim extremism was blamed for highly publicized destruction and loss of life. The facts regarding the physical destruction of the twin towers and the Salomon Brothers building are not consistent with the state narrative because the destructive energy far exceeded that available from the conventional sources described in that narrative.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  11th December 2014

          I don’t believe that, Ugly. It’s on a par with the fake moon landing theories.

          There are plenty of real atrocities committed by governments without indulging in fantasies.

          Reply
          • It’s better than the moon landing theories because the facts about the excess energy are indisputable.

            The state narrative can’t account for surface temperatures hot enough to melt aluminium days after the event. This fact, not fantasy.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  11th December 2014

              How can you know that? You have the enormous forces of gravity plus all the combustion energy of the fires. Then you have to compute the heat losses through such a complex mess.

            • I know that because:

              a) Ordinary multi-storey building demolitions don’t result in thermal hot-spots or reports of molten steel.
              b) The fires in the twin towers didn’t burn hot enough to account for the 700C hotspots. The fires diminsished over time and produced black smoke characteristic of an oxygen starved fire. FLIR images show fire temperatures well under 100C.

              http://www.irinfo.org/articles/article_9_11_2001.html

              Gravity acts on all parts of the building equally, a gravitational collapse doesn’t concentrate energy into hot-spots.

              Here is Hoffman’s energy budget:

              energy, KWH source or sink
              + 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)
              – 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)
              ignoring water vaporization
              – 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
              – 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)
              assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited
              – 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)
              – 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)
              – 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)

              http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  12th December 2014

              “FLIR images show fire temperatures well under 100C.” Irrelevant. Obviously flame temperatures are vastly higher than that. The issue is the distribution and dissipation of heat.

              As for Hoffman, he is obviously having to revise his claims after criticism:
              http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev4.html

              And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

  3. “Obviously flame temperatures are vastly higher than [fire temperatures]. ”

    No, it’s not obvious at all, your argument appears to be based on the assumption that the fires must have been hot enough to cause structural failure, which conflicts with the oxygen starved fires which gave of black smoke and the fact that the fires diminshed in intensity over time.

    You haven’t really addressed the core issue of how these oxygen starved fires could possibly result in 700C hotspots days after the event.

    Reply
  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  12th December 2014

    A candle flame temperature is 1400 deg C. Obviously a building combustion is far hotter let alone one started by aviation fuel. The temperature of hotspots is a function of their initial temperature, ongoing combustion and heat dissipation. In the complexity of a collapsed skyscraper I would be amazed if anyone could forecast the range with any accuracy – let alone you or me.

    Reply
    • “Obviously a building combustion is far hotter let alone one started by aviation fuel.”

      No, It’s not obvious that a building combustion is far hotter than 1400C. Combustion temperature depends on the presence of combustible materials and oxygen.

      Accuracy of forecasts is irrelevant in that no forecast can reasonably explain temperatures increasing from under 100C to hotspots of over 700C without factoring in an additional source of energy.

      The only source of energy available in the MSM narrative is from crushed office combustibles mixed with incombustible concrete and steel debris. Are you really suggesting that the burning of office debris was the source of the energy that resulted in reports of molten steel, melted workmen’s boots, and underground fires that burned for months?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  12th December 2014

        @Ugly, peat fires can burn for years underground. Offices are full of plastics and paper. Temperatures of combustion of various materials:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature

        I’m happy to leave the analysis to professional engineers as cited in the wikipedia link in my previous post. In my view the conspiracy theory fails any reasonable crap detector test by a substantial margin.

        Reply
        • I didn’t mention any conspiracy theory, all I did was to show that you can’t account for the excess energy. Basically, the MSM narrative of 9/11 is bullshit. A theory which involves a conspiracy would be the next logical step, but given your abuse of the word “obviously”, I really don’t think you’re ready for that.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  12th December 2014

          Flame temperatures are much higher than 100 deg C. Flames in a building fire containing wood and plastics are typically 2000 deg C, so hotter than a candle flame as I stated. Clearly you are not interested in what is obvious, neither are you willing to accept professional engineering analysis which has dismissed the claims you cited. Finally, the conspiracy theory you are forced to contemplate is simply ludicrous as is the cover-up it would necessitate. Not to mention the minor problem of arranging four simultaneous jumbo hijacks only two of which are to be met with pre-planted explosives.

          At some point sanity becomes questionable.

          Reply
  5. “Flames in a building fire containing wood and plastics”
    Are not relevant to the fires in the WTC towers, which were constructed from steel and concrete.

    “Clearly you are not interested in what is obvious”
    You misrepresented what is obvious when you said “Obviously flame temperatures are vastly higher than [fire temperatures]” and “Obviously a building combustion is far hotter [than 1400C]”. Not only is your second statement not obvious, it’s also not true for some buildings, eg ones made from concrete and steel.

    The fact that some parts of a flame burn much hotter than the material being burned is relevant to the issue of measuring the temperature of the fires in the twin towers.

    The fact that one the fires had cooled off considerably before collapse is evidenced here:
    Woman in tower

    “neither are you willing to accept professional engineering analysis which has dismissed the claims you cited”
    What are you taking about?

    “At some point sanity becomes questionable.”
    Like when you believe that 700C hotspots days after the event are the result of buring office materials, you mean?

    Reply
    • “The fact that some parts of a flame burn much hotter than the material being burned is relevant to the issue of measuring the temperature of the fires in the twin towers.”

      Gack. “is relevant to” -> “is not relevant to”. Considering only the hottest part of a fire (eg the 1400C extreme of a candle flame) is blatant cherry picking.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  12th December 2014

      I never said “Obviously flame temperatures are vastly higher than [fire temperatures]”. I said they were greater than 100 deg C. Stop misrepresenting me and read what I wrote properly.

      Since the concrete and steel don’t burn they are irrelevant to the heat of combustion which is instead driven the combustible content – plastic, wood, paper, solvents, synthetic furnishings and furniture.

      You are doing a good job of convincing me you don’t know what you are talking about and are totally unwilling to investigate your beliefs with adequate scepticism.

      Reply
  6. I never said “Obviously flame temperatures are vastly higher than [fire temperatures]”. I said they were greater than 100 deg C. Stop misrepresenting me and read what I wrote properly.

    I’m not misrepresenting you. This is what you wrote:

    “FLIR images show fire temperatures well under 100C.” Irrelevant. Obviously flame temperatures are vastly higher than that.

    You’re apparently trying to represent the extremes of flame temperature (your 1400C candle flame) as the average fire temperature, rather than the temperature measured by a FLIR device.

    This is gross misrepresentation, cherry picking data to suit your argument.

    “Since the concrete and steel don’t burn they are irrelevant to the heat of combustion”

    They are relevant to the temperature of the fire because they act as heat sinks, cooling the combusting materials.

    You are crazy to argue that a mixture of steel, concrete rubble, and crushed office combustibles could burn to over 700C days after the towers came down.

    Reply
  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  13th December 2014

    “You’re apparently trying to represent the extremes of flame temperature (your 1400C candle flame) as the average fire temperature, rather than the temperature measured by a FLIR device.”

    Nonsense. I am saying that internal parts of the fire are much hotter than the average or exterior radiating surfaces and are certainly hotter than 100 deg C.

    “You are crazy to argue that a mixture of steel, concrete rubble, and crushed office combustibles could burn to over 700C days after the towers came down.”

    I have no idea whether or not it did, but depending on insulation and fuel supply, in principle pockets certainly could. So that fact alone if established proves nothing without further detailed analysis. I see no reason to believe the professional investigations have failed properly to gather and assess the evidence.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: