Smile America, the world smiles with you

[jojo22]

Rest assured that kids do not "have to do that" now; nor were kids ever forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't know when your husband was in school in the U.S., but it really doesn't matter because any child has always been free to abstain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance without adverse consequences.

Many public schools nowadays, and almost all private and parochial schools, have dispensed with the Pledge of Allegiance altogether.

My husband left the states when his Kiwi mother broke up with his American father - he was about 8 1/2 at the time. So it must have been at a primary school that the class did the pledge. He was from LA, and I figure this would have happened sometime between 1983-1986 (the Reagan years).

Good to hear that things have changed. I guess at sometime in the past in the NZ schooling system kids would have had to sing the national anthem or 'god save the queen' or some such - but certainly not by the time I entered the schooling system. I would imagine it would have been the sort of thing that was more likely to happen around times of war, when it was important to have a strong sense of patriotism in case you had to go to war in the future - but apart from some being part of the Vietnam War (and only enlisted men - no draft), NZ really hasn't been at war since WW2.

[Guest]

My point about New Zealand having more sheep than people is that comparing New Zealand to the United States is a non-starter.

The total land area of New Zealand is about the size of the state of Colorado, which is nowhere near the largest of the 50 states of the U.S.

The total population of New Zealand is slightly more than 4,000,000, about the population of a large American city and considerably less than most of the 50 states taken individually. The total population of the U.S. is about 300,000,000.

The only data on which the U.S. and New Zealand can be compared are those expressed in rates and percentages.

Following are the relevant data on New Zealand:

Population growth rate: 0.99% (2006 est.)
Net migration rate: 3.63 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity): $102 billion (2005 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate): $94.6 billion (2005 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 2.3% (2005 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP): $25,300 (2005 est.)
Unemployment rate: 3.7% (2005 est.)
Inflation rate (consumer prices): 3% (2005 est.)

Link: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html


Following are the comparative data for the United States:

Population growth rate: 0.91% (2006 est.)
Net migration rate: 3.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity): $12.31 trillion (2005 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate): $12.49 trillion (2005 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: presently about 3.2%
GDP - per capita (PPP): $41,600 (2005 est.)
Unemployment rate: presently about 4.4 %
Inflation rate (consumer prices): presently about 2.4 %

Link: http://www.treasury.gov/economic-plan/ ; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm ; https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html ; http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

The rates of population growth and migration are very close, though not when computed in terms of the relative populations.

New Zealand has 0.7% less unemployment, but the United States has 0.6% less inflation.

The United States GDP annual growth rate is 0.9% higher than New Zealand's, and the United States' per capita GDP (purchasing power parity) is more than 50% higher than New Zealand's.

[jojo22]

Nope - not really - and it's not changing the subject either. The fact that the kids have to do that (my husband had to and he hated it) is yet another reason why I wouldn't go there because I wouldn't want my daughter subjected to that.

I really don't know why people think it's such a big deal that there are more sheep than people here. Sheep are not indigenous to New Zealand, they were brought here from Europe for farming because of the great expanses of farmable land. We export out lamb worldwide and there is nothing better than a lamb roast on a Sunday. NZ is a beautiful, unpolluted and non-crowded paradise. I live 5 minutes from the CBD of the Capital city - I can walk to work. We have an extensive back yard, segmented into three distinct areas - the last of which has 6 mature apple trees, a fig tree and a number of citrus trees. The native Tuis sing a beautiful song throughout the day. Now that, my friend, is living.

I have not been there yet, but I have no doubt that "NZ is a beautiful, unpolluted and non-crowded paradise."

I imagine people do have real life problems, however, even in "paradise."

I love Merino wool sweaters, so you Kiwis must be doing something right.

People everywhere have 'problems' - most of them they create for themselves through self destructive choices - we're talking about human beings afterall - we're pretty bloody good at stuffing things up to make life more interesting - something to whinge about

We have the usual issues you find in any society like domestic violence, youth suicide and - belatedly - a bit of a methamphetamine problem. Drunk driving, binge drinking. We have the occasional murder, rape - that sort of thing, petty thefts, the odd robbery. The police don't carry guns, but I think they've recently been given tazers - which caused a public outcry. So we're not living in a total state of perfection and nor would I ever claim that - but all in all 'we don't know how lucky we are mate'.

You should come check out NZ some time - I think you'll like it.

[Guest]

For the last 50 years the USA has guaranteed the stability of the Far East region. While several wars have been fought there, no country needs nuclear weapons as long as Pax America keeps Taiwan, Korea, Japan, NZ and Australia safe from the petty wars North Korea wants to start, China wants to extend as well as the extremism of Indonesia and the Philippines and the insanity of Cambodia.

It might be self interested Pax America, but your economy would be much different if you had to pay for your own protection.

[jojo22]

Do you think Phillipinos are extreme? They don't strike me as such - I know they have a fragile economy and many would like to migrate. Indonesia is a bit more dodgy - but that is certain elements rather than the whole population. China is ok - you've just got to interact respectfully and you get respect in return.

Who knows what would happen if we didn't have America's protection - I assume we would be allied with someone else and have their protection - but I suppose there is a case for 'better the devil you know', although that becomes rather uncomfortable when 'imperialism' and 'these rules apply to everyone else but us' starts staring you in the face. Then you just think 'hello, someone's getting too big for their booties'.

[jojo22]

My point about New Zealand having more sheep than people is that comparing New Zealand to the United States is a non-starter.

The total land area of New Zealand is about the size of the state of Colorado, which is nowhere near the largest of the 50 states of the U.S.

The total population of New Zealand is slightly more than 4,000,000, about the population of a large American city and considerably less than most of the 50 states taken individually. The total population of the U.S. is about 300,000,000.

The only data on which the U.S. and New Zealand can be compared are those expressed in rates and percentages.

Following are the relevant data on New Zealand:

Population growth rate: 0.99% (2006 est.)
Net migration rate: 3.63 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity): $102 billion (2005 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate): $94.6 billion (2005 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 2.3% (2005 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP): $25,300 (2005 est.)
Unemployment rate: 3.7% (2005 est.)
Inflation rate (consumer prices): 3% (2005 est.)

Link: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html


Following are the comparative data for the United States:

Population growth rate: 0.91% (2006 est.)
Net migration rate: 3.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity): $12.31 trillion (2005 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate): $12.49 trillion (2005 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: presently about 3.2%
GDP - per capita (PPP): $41,600 (2005 est.)
Unemployment rate: presently about 4.4 %
Inflation rate (consumer prices): presently about 2.4 %

Link: http://www.treasury.gov/economic-plan/ ; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm ; https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html ; http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

The rates of population growth and migration are very close, though not when computed in terms of the relative populations.

New Zealand has 0.7% less unemployment, but the United States has 0.6% less inflation.

The United States GDP annual growth rate is 0.9% higher than New Zealand's, and the United States' per capita GDP (purchasing power parity) is more than 50% higher than New Zealand's.

Hmm - the purchasing power thing - is that adjusted for population? It doesn't seem to be - so of course, when you compare USA against NZ, our financial 'might' and perhaps implicit if you value things monetarily 'relevance and value' is nothing compared to the States. We know we're the 'little guys' - that's ok as long as you value quality over quantity

Us 'little guys' are not too easy to push around and will stand for what we believe in - so we might not be a financial beacon in the world, but at least we're a good example of a spunky little underdog that can encourage other underdogs to be spunky too - yeah!

[Guest]

Of course it is adjusted for population.

"Per capita" means "per person."

"Purchase power parity" or "PPP" adjusts the dollar amounts to reflect what those amounts can purchase in the particular country and thus offsets differences in costs of living.

[Guest]

Do you think Phillipinos are extreme? They don't strike me as such - I know they have a fragile economy and many would like to migrate. Indonesia is a bit more dodgy - but that is certain elements rather than the whole population. China is ok - you've just got to interact respectfully and you get respect in return.

Who knows what would happen if we didn't have America's protection - I assume we would be allied with someone else and have their protection - but I suppose there is a case for 'better the devil you know', although that becomes rather uncomfortable when 'imperialism' and 'these rules apply to everyone else but us' starts staring you in the face. Then you just think 'hello, someone's getting too big for their booties'.

If New Zealand didn't have America's protection, Kiwis would be speaking Russian and calling each other "comrade" today.

[Guest]

Us 'little guys' are not too easy to push around and will stand for what we believe in - so we might not be a financial beacon in the world, but at least we're a good example of a spunky little underdog that can encourage other underdogs to be spunky too - yeah!

You don't let those Maori push you around do you? That's sarcasm. I'm well aware you feel strongly about the Maori and respect and agree with your views.

Without US protection you'd be part of Indonesia or Russia or even an amical joining with Australia. You currently spend less than 1% of your GDP on defense. Indonesia spends 3% of a 8X larger GDP. The USA for reference spends over 4% of over 120X your GDP.

In case you think this spending doesn't impact the USA's society, think again. Military expenditures are a serious drag on our economy and politics. I'd love to reduce our spending to 1% and see how long Japan and Korea and yes New Zealand and Australia remain free to complain about the USA's meddling.

[jojo22]

I'm not really sure what you think my take is on Maori - where did I write about that? My general position is that NZ is a lot more progressive than most countries in terms of being respectful towards the people of the land and supporting them to revitalize their culture, which colonization threatened to extinguish. My utopia is that all peoples in NZ, whether tangata whenua, New Zealand European and all other ethnic communities - multi-generations born in NZ or more recent migrants - feel that they are a valued part of NZ, share in a positive national identity but also feel a strong sense of connection to their culture and that we share the richness of our cultures with each other. I guess it's the idea of globilization, but not assimilation to the majority but rather integration.

Who knows what would have happened if America had not taken the actions it had taken in the past - we can speculate until the cows come home. All I know is that I am less than impressed with their actions over Iraq, as well as a number of other questionable actions.

Empires (Roman, British, American) have been invading and imposing on other countries for millenia - and the general outcome is that once they withdraw they leave chaos behind them (Israel/Palestine, Britain in the dark ages, Iraq, India/Pakistan, etc...). Why do people have to decide that their way of living and their values has to be imposed on others? Unfortunately, I think despite the multitudes of platitudes that cover true motivations up - it all comes down to the root of all evil - money.

[Guest]

Imelda Marcos

[jojo22]

*Looks at shoe collection*

Sadly not

[Guest]

I'm not really sure what you think my take is on Maori - where did I write about that? My general position is that NZ is a lot more progressive than most countries in terms of being respectful towards the people of the land and supporting them to revitalize their culture, which colonization threatened to extinguish. My utopia is that all peoples in NZ, whether tangata whenua, New Zealand European and all other ethnic communities - multi-generations born in NZ or more recent migrants - feel that they are a valued part of NZ, share in a positive national identity but also feel a strong sense of connection to their culture and that we share the richness of our cultures with each other. I guess it's the idea of globilization, but not assimilation to the majority but rather integration.

Who knows what would have happened if America had not taken the actions it had taken in the past - we can speculate until the cows come home. All I know is that I am less than impressed with their actions over Iraq, as well as a number of other questionable actions.

Empires (Roman, British, American) have been invading and imposing on other countries for millenia - and the general outcome is that once they withdraw they leave chaos behind them (Israel/Palestine, Britain in the dark ages, Iraq, India/Pakistan, etc...). Why do people have to decide that their way of living and their values has to be imposed on others? Unfortunately, I think despite the multitudes of platitudes that cover true motivations up - it all comes down to the root of all evil - money.

As I said I respect your views on the Maori. I know you from another forum that I don't post on anymore which shall remain nameless as every time it is mentioned someone gets banned.

You seem to think the USA is fostering violence based on a presuposition that empires cause violence. Firstly I would argue that the USA is not an . in the formal sense and secondly I would argue that your argument in general is false.

The primary cause of the 20th century violence that you allude to is a huge topic in it's own right. It's not so much that empires can be blamed, as firstly cohesion is lost between minorities and majorities very quickly when the . leaves, which is fixable and doesn't have to have anything to do with the . although it does corollate. The second big reason for the violence was idiological, whether religous or secular. The secular based idological wars were the most violent by the way.

[jojo22]

As I said I respect your views on the Maori. I know you from another forum that I don't post on anymore which shall remain nameless as every time it is mentioned someone gets banned.

Nuff said

You seem to think the USA is fostering violence based on a presuposition that empires cause violence. Firstly I would argue that the USA is not an . in the formal sense and secondly I would argue that your argument in general is false.

Nope - I was simply saying that when empires withdraw violence tends to ensue because they leave chaos behind, not forgetting, of course, the violence that comes with an . forcing its way into another culture in the first place. The invaders withdraw - dividing up the land into sections - from on high deciding who will rule in their absence - who will live where, etc. Of course, they are bound to make a huge balls up with this, given their arrogance and self-righteousness to go in and 'correct' another land, while raping it of its spoils. Such thinking might have the veneer of 'doing good' but you won't have to look too far to see how it is self-serving nor is it unconceivable that such forces can spend a great deal of time in a land yet through their arrogance or self-interest not bother to get to know the local situation, or appreciate the nuances of the local culture and make suitable suggestions. Such invasions generally always happen under the presumption that the existing culture is flawed and its only redemption is to assimilate to the culture of the invading force - sorta like how a virus attacks the cells of the body, turning them to its cause.

Given that these decisions are imposed upon a people and not self-determined then of course there will be a lot of people who oppose these decisions - and thus the violence begins.

The primary cause of the 20th century violence that you allude to is a huge topic in it's own right. It's not so much that empires can be blamed, as firstly cohesion is lost between minorities and majorities very quickly when the . leaves, which is fixable and doesn't have to have anything to do with the . although it does corollate. The second big reason for the violence was idiological, whether religous or secular. The secular based idological wars were the most violent by the way.

I don't disagree with any of this but by what means is it fixable - with time? Have the Israeli's and Palestinians fixed their issues? Have the Indians and Pakistanis fixed their issues? Just how long is quickly?

Remember the dark ages? After the Roman's left Britan was un-unified and tribal for a good long period during which time they were at the mercy of the Irish - who had strong leadership under their king and had been spared Roman domination.

[Guest]

I don't dispute that this rape and pillage was often the case. I do dispute that it is currently the case. The latest outbreaks of violence have been treated as gently as possible by an intelligent and mostly ethical, if also confused and divided, G8.

I believe most politicians would like to be ethical and moral, and it is this that attracts them to the position, once their overwhelming need for power is satisfied. I don't need to subscribe to conspiracy theories to explain the world.