Thursday, January 10, 2008

Hopes for 2008

PC tagged me to place my eight wishes for 2008, so without referring to his list (which I largely agree with), here they are:

1. The 2008 New Zealand elections see Labour unable to form a government, and Helen Clark being ousted by the caucus as leader. Rodney Hide waking up and giving National a run for its money based on a consistently liberal platform, NZ First passing away like so many of its voters, the people of Wigram and Ohariu booting their ex.Labour MP one man bands from Parliament, and the Nats having to form a government with a genuinely liberal ACT (it has to be its last chance) with Rodney Hide supplying the testicles to do at least what the Nats promised in 2005. I don't hope for a National win, but I expect it and understand it as the likely consequence of a Labour loss.
2. The media holding the Green and Maori Parties to account for their appeasement of those who advocate political violence in a modern liberal democracy, and both parties' strong support for state endorsed racism, interventionist government in much business and personal life, surrender of individual freedom to collectivist goals decided, of course, by them and their mates, and a general rejection of modern western civilisation. The Green Party failing to reach 5% as a result (the Maori Party will continue to get support as the education system has brainwashed enough voters in the apartheid seats ideologically in favour of them).
3. Acknowledgement by those who should know better, especially feminists and so called “civil liberties” advocates of the left, that the growth of Islamism is a clear and present threat to life and liberty across the globe. It cripples the lives of so many in Africa and Asia, particularly women, it is threatening mass murder of peace loving people in countries rich and poor, and it cannot be appeased. It is time to advocate separation of all churches from all states worldwide.
4. Rational analysis and debate about responses to “environmental issues” that challenges the quasi-religious mantra that “recycling is good”, “road building is bad”, “energy consumption is bad”, “global warming is bad and must be fixed by microeconomic intervention”. Taking what Hayek said about economics and applying it to the environment would be a start. There is no way that governments can make the right choices for everyone (the most recent example being concern about the tens of thousands who are allergic to light from low energy lightbulbs, of course no bureaucrat could ever have thought of that).
5. The removal of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Bashar al-Assad, Fidel Castro, Than Shwe, Alexander Lukashenko, Kim Jong Il and Islam Karimov as leaders of their respective countries. Almost without exception preferably by assassination. The residents of their countries should be a safer place without them, and besides they all have the blood of thousands on their hands. All are far too powerful in their regimes and far too disturbing, their successors may not be angels, but they are more likely to assist in a transition towards better government.
6. The US Presidential primaries produce a clear two horse race between Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Why? Obama is a charismatic flake, Hilary has less chance of winning, and Giuliani for his many many faults, is probably the candidate best placed to handle the foreign policy challenges around Iran and Islamism, and as a reasonably socially liberal Republican he can steer the party away from the religious conservatism that has kept too many in the dark ages. I hope the prospect of a Clinton win scares the "bejesus" out religious conservatives that they vote for Giuliani.
7. The British Conservative Party turns away from its environmentalist mantra, and pushes for major reform of education and welfare to lift standards and address the persistent underclass in UK society of virtually useless individuals destined at best to have sad lives with little hope, or at worst to be violent criminals who breed the same. It might even advocate that people generally know best how to run their lives, but I don't think they understand it.
8. Ken Livingstone to be ousted as Mayor of London. While I hesitate in fully endorsing Boris Johnson, Livingstone’s appeasement of Islamists, filthy deal with Hugo Chavez for cheap diesel for London buses, Stalinist empire building over housing and transport (he now controls the central government budget for public housing in London, and wants to renationalise all local train services) is a drain on London’s dynamism and is a complete embarrassment. At a time of recession London needs someone managing the till who isn’t trying to mould London in the style of Michael Foot.


Anonymous said...

I'm shocked you aren't a Ron Paul supporter to be honest! Giuliani is far too socially liberal for me. I'm afraid I won't be able to vote for him...

Anonymous said...

You can't possibly be serious. Giuliani!? Do you even understand what's been happening in the US? As a New Yorker I almost find that insulting. The man was a trainwreck, and a borderline fascist. During 9/11 he tried to have his term as Mayor extended. All of the downturn in crime has been a result of Bloomberg, and you also seem to forget the way conservative politics work in America. There is no "socially liberal" Republican candidate. Sure, he may be socially liberal, or was in the past, but he'll do what he thinks is necessary to getting elected, which means appeasing the bible thumpers. He's already gone that way in his speeches and debates, and he won't overtly betray them, just like Bush never has - even though neither of them actually believe that crap - if he actually went against the base, his money would dry up and his election and re-election prospects would be bad. The man is NOT a libertarian by any means, at all. Period. He never was, never will be, and loves to abuse his power. (The man once tried to ban ferrets! FERRETS! For no apparent reason either! He increased government power in New York, his tax record isn't as "low as you can go" as he would like people to think, and in general he is the worst possible candidate for libertarians to support. Of course, you living in New Zealand, you don't give a crap how he would screw up people's lives in America.)

And everyone outside of New York seems to buy into his whole "savior of 9/11" bull crap. He never did a single positive thing before or after. In fact, his anti-terrorism record is HORRENDOUS. He did some of the stupidest things after the first WTC bombing (like placing his headquarters IN the WTC) that advisers told him specifically NOT to do, and which damaged the relief effort. He also abused the fire department, provided them with atrociously substandard equipment, and now the fire fighters' union is doing everything in their power to attack him. They haven't endorsed a single candidate, but they have whole movies on how he is the last man who should be president.

(This was only the stuff I FELT like writing. The man has a laundry-list of crimes I could spend all day on.)

Libertyscott said...

Echo - Ron Paul is a bit nuts on foreign policy, which matters first to me. Islamism is a real and present threat to my daily life and that comes above everything.
Gottschreit - Well thanks for your contribution and getting that our of your system, I largely don't disagree. However I don't live in New Zealand. I am looking at the best of a bad bunch, McCain may be another option - but I wont stand for Clinton/Obama and their agendas to grow government further. Besides I DO give a damn about Americans (certainly more than the average American gives a damn about people living in countries I have lived in). However, clearly Americans don't want less government, by and large, so they get the President they deserve.