Why does the left ignore Islamism?

Noticed how so many on the left are, understandably, pleased about the imminent downfall of the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt, but completely nonchalant about whether it becomes an Islamist dictatorship?

How the rhetoric and thinking, almost childlike in its simplicity goes like this:

What government does Egypt have? A dictatorship

Where does most of Egypt's aid come from? US government. 

That means the US supports dictatorship.  Dictatorship is bad.

What should Egyptian have? Democracy, like "we" in the West have.  Egyptians deserve the same rights we do.

Do you believe in human rights?  Yes

Do you believe women, gay and lesbian people, ethnic minorities and religious minorities deserve equal rights to everyone else? Yes

OK so far but then...

Does it matter who gets elected? Up to Egyptians.

Does it matter if Islamists arm and fund terrorists to wage war against Israel? Silent (but we think Israel deserves it).

Does it matter if Islamists arm and fund terrorists to wage war against the West? Yes, but it would be our fault for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, backing Israel.  They will stop when they have justice.

Does it matter if Islamists get elected who then restrict democracy to be the same sham it was under Mubarak?  Silent

Does it matter if Islamists suppress free speech, shut down competing media, arrest protestors, use the police and army to suppress dissent?  Silent

Does it matter if Islamists execute political opponents, adulterers, rape victims, gay and lesbian people? Silent

Does it matter if Islamists institute laws and enforce laws discriminatory against women? Silent

Does it matter if Islamists get nuclear weapons? America has them, so what?

See in a blind leftwing hatred of the USA, there is a total blindspot about Islamism.  For people who apparently espouse a love for women, desire for equal rights for gay and lesbian people and who hate torture, suppression of free speech and the like, their willingness to tolerate and appease Islamism is absolutely disgusting.  

It is the mindless view that anyone who challenges those they hate (the Republican Party, Israel) are to be thought of generously.

Well no.

I want Egyptians to be free, to have free speech and an open secular society and government.  I want Egypt to progress.  On balance I do not think it will become Islamist, but the risk is there.

For those on the left, whose hatred of the Mubarak regime is so thorough they will accept any alternative, are completely betraying the beliefs they purport to hold.

Want to see why? Look at how often they criticise the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. A socialist Baathist dictatorship, led by a man who got his position through hereditary succession, whose father was a warm friend of the Soviet Union, who runs a secret police and torture network that rivals Hosni Mubarak. Who has invaded Lebanon twice to overthrow liberal secular regimes that were not compliant with it.

No, you wont hear quite the same hatred of Assad as you will Mubarak, because he didn't have US support.  He had Soviet support, so he isn't as bad.  I mean he has not made peace with Israel, he has not promoted peace in Iraq and continues friendly relations with Iran, so who cares?  After all, nothing gets the left more upset that the US backing a dictatorial regime - not because it should know better, but because the US is the embodiment of what they hate.

It completely robs them of credibility.  Particularly when nobody on the political opposite is saying "save Mubarak, he's good". Nobody is saying that.  All that is being said is that Egyptians deserve the rights and freedoms we all expect.  That is consistent, because it rejects Mubarak and Islamism.

However, for some on the left Islamism is implicitly ok because American is bad.

Where do you get this sort of thought? Try here, here or here for starters.

How can we cycle without a quango?

One of the numerous QUANGOs to be abolished by the Con-Dem government as part of its programme to cut government spending to the levels of around 4 years ago is "Cycling England".  This entity had a budget of £5 million in 2005 which has now ballooned elephant like to £60 million this year ("oh but the deficit is due to bankers" cry the wilfully blind on the left).   Quite why it needed a 1200% budget increase at a time of deficits is astonishing, and even with its abolition this funding wont disappear.

What is the response of the Green Party of England and Wales?  Hysteria

"A big question mark now hangs over the future of cycling" says Green Party representative Ian Davey (a city councillor in Brighton, not an MP).

Really Ian?  Does cycling need a government agency spending vast amounts of other people's money?  Do people not buy bicycles unless bureaucrats are paid to promote it?  Will people stop biking because Cycling England no longer exists?

What sort of hysterical hyperbole is this?  The type that states that if anything good exists, it can't survive without the government spending other people's money on it.

Now I am not saying that cycling isn't good, in fact the measure about whether it is good is up to the individual.   Some find it a lot of fun, it keeps them fit etc.  Others are uninterested.  That's ok. 

However there IS a solution for those who promote cycling.   They can keep Cycling England or reconstitute it through (take a deep breath, the concept I am about to describe bamboozles statists) their own efforts and their own money.

Yes, remarkable though it may be to those on the left, but you don't need the government to make things happen in your community.

I'll try it another way - "take the energy you put into placards, marching and generally being a nuisance to peaceful citizens going about their business, and use it to help do what you like Cycling England doing".

You see the government doesn't get enough money, from already high taxes, to pay for everything you want.  Which means you're going to have to pay for some things you like yourself.  

Oh and if you don't, cycling isn't going to end.  For the same reason that there isn't an organisation called Blogging England to help fund this activity.

The Green view of freedom is eerily Leninist

It is hardly surprising that the Greens oppose voluntary student union membership. After all, such organisations are the training grounds for all too many leftwing political activists, and having such undisciplined access to power and money is a great entree into how the state works.

The great ideological myth around student unions has its direct parallels with the Rousseau view of the "general will" taken to its logical end by Marxism-Leninism.

It goes like this:
- Students are an identifiable collective body of people with a common set of interests. As they are deemed to lack power, having a representative body is in their interests to put the "student view" to the university and more widely to government.
- Student unions can provide that representation, and as such embody the "general will" of students. As long as they are elected, regardless of turnout, the student union can perform this task.
- The "general will" is comprised of the interests of students. Those who disagree with the student union are against the interests of students. As the media, government and universities listen to student unions, this proves they are seen to be representative;
- Students who disagree with the student union are a minority. Their views would only be legitimate if they were carried by the union. If it isn't the view of the union it doesn't represent the 'general will" of students, and could possibly be against it;
- The strength of students is dependent on the strength of the student union. Allowing anyone to opt out of the union would be seen as weakening the expression of the general will of the students. It is an attack on students.
- Students collectively can decide to allow for opting out of membership of their unions, but if they choose not to allow that, then students can't complain. It is the general will of students whether or not they want voluntary student membership.
- Those who wish to contradict this are "anti student" even if they are students.

That twisted perverse logic is what Gareth Hughes is expressing.

He claims making all student unions voluntary somehow takes away the right for students to choose because to him students have a "collective brain".

It's complete snake oil and quite disgusting. If students want to be represented by a student's union they should feel free to set one up by choice or join one, by choice. If they don't then let it be.

It is a diversion to claim universities would charge the same money and fund the association itself. Universities shouldn't do that either.

It's so simple. If students don't want student unions (and their services) then they fail.

Most importantly, if any individual student does not want a union to represent her or him, then the student union should get the hell out of the way.

and the unreformed Leninist merchants of Orwellian collectivism should not get in the way of this!

Matt McCarten wants your money

Given he believes in a bigger state, he believes in compulsory welfare, state monopoly education and health care, it is hardly a surprise.

However, he has an odd view of "fairness".

He thinks, as do most socialists, that the imperative behind those supporting the free market in wanting lower taxes is greed. They think simply that people who are relatively successful want more of their own money and to hell with everyone else. The concept that we actually are suspicious of an ever growing state, see abject failure in the state addressing poverty and social mobility, is beyond the likes of Matt.

You see he loves the state, the state for him is the embodiment of humanity. It is a democratic expression of the "people's will" and it both protects and serves. The more it does, the better we all are for it. Given Matt spent much of his political career advocating for the Alliance, an openly socialist political party, this is hardly surprising. He sees the state as an instrument to take by force from those he deems rich to give to those he deems poor - the rich implicitly having not earnt their money "fairly", and the poor, well it isn't their fault, is it?

Matt says: "We need our public services". Hold on. Who is this "we"? Most would accept that they need health care and education, but separating who pays for it from who provides it creates all sorts of problems of performance. Matt doesn't believe this though. He thinks that when people pay taxes they can keep the state health and education sectors accountable for what they receive, even though it's clear that this works rather badly. However, he has spent much of his life representing suppliers, as in workers. He hasn't ever represented consumers of services, and certainly not those paying for it.

He then goes into his favoured taxes, like capital gains tax and death duties. Then he brings up the tired old nonsense of financial transactions tax, without blinking an eyelid as to how the financial sector could avoid much of it by engaging in most transactions offshore.

He says "Most of us wouldn't even notice it. But those who buy big-ticket items would. That's why the ruling class won't do it.". If Matt put down Das Kapital for a second he might think that "big ticket items" might get bought offshore with offshore bank accounts, and there will be other useful techniques to avoid the tax. However, he's cleverer than those who seek to protect their money.

That's a phrase he doesn't understand. To Matt (and many others on the left) taxes are not the money of those who own it, but the state's money - so it can be used for the benefit of the vested interests who best convince politicians to spend it on them and then all others.

Then he makes something up: "Twenty-five years ago we were told that if we cut taxes for the rich and raised taxes on the poor then we would work harder and earn more. It was nonsense then. It's nonsense now."

Who told you that Matt? Who ever called for raising taxes on the poor? In fact, name ONE report or one person who ever supported this? It's a bright Marxist red herring, as nonsense as he says.

The bigger argument is what the role of the state should be. The welfare state in its current form has produced a culture of dependency and entitlement that is not earnt, and needs to be urgently addressed. By keeping those who pay for health and education far apart from those who deliver it, patients and parents find it difficult to influence outcomes and to ensure that those providing those services are accountable to them.

Other countries have adopted significantly more consumer friendly approaches to both health and education that are hardly radical. Sweden's voucher approach to education is difficult to rebut as a significant first step to increasing diversity and accountability for that sector. Singapore's approach to health care has also resulted in far higher degrees of accountability for service delivery, and a greater interest by individuals in their own health care.

Matt prefers the world of - you earn more, you consume less, then you pay more taxes to pay for the health, education and welfare of everyone else (few of whom are ever grateful for it). He likes state monopolies in those sectors so that the workers can command ever increasing incomes from taxpayers by organising themselves as labour monopolies, so that there are more workers, less work and more pay.

You see the very greed and so called selfishness Matt attributes to the rich is exactly what the trade union movement of which he is a part of, demands for its members.

Absolutely none of it is to do with fairness, none of it is to do with users of state provided services and certainly none of it is to do with taxpayers getting value.

It's just from each according to their ability to each according to their means for Matt.

Who would Matt McCarten prefer?

Oh yes, it shouldn't be a surprise. Matt McCarten's tired old Marxist rhetoric about US foreign policy. Apparently wanting to be an ally of the US is "fawning support", something no country apparently should seek. Why? Because it Matt's world, the US is bad - very bad. In fact given his political heritage I wouldn't be surprised if he missed the Soviet Union, given that the anti-nuclear policy he supported was, in effect, New Zealand opting out of the Western alliances that saw it siding clearly with the US, NATO and Australia against the Soviet Union and its satellites. The middle ground was the middle ground of not giving a damn about which side won.

So what does he believe in?

1. That after 9/11 the US should NOT have attacked Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrown the regime that provided safe haven and support for the 9/11 attacks. Of course not. Did the US deserve it Matt? Do you believe it was a conspiracy? So you prefer the stoneage misogynists of the Taliban who deny girls an education? No, you wont answer them. It's simple enough, the US shouldn't respond militarily when attacked. Of course not. The US is to blame anyway, right Matt?

2. Israel shouldn't build settlements in the West Bank. Well funnily enough Matt, the Obama Administration doesn't believe in that either. However, what would you do? Cut all aid from Israel? Tell Israel it's on its own? Let all of Palestine become a bloodbath of Islamist terror against the state of Israel? No. He doesn't have an answer to this.

3. Gaza should have open borders, and Israel should allow Hamas to import whatever it wishes, presumably including rockets to start attacking Israel again. Oh but it's ok for war to be waged by heroic militants isn't it Matt? You relate to them. After all, just because they attacked Israel proper doesn't mean anything. Not that you're going to tell Hamas to stop waging war, because it's only peace if the US or Western side surrenders right?

4. Iraq is apparently "occupied". Who by Matt? I guess that democratically elected government is illegitimate, although you claim the war against the Saddam Hussein criminal gangster regime was illegal. That means you believe the Hussein clique was legitimate. You'd prefer the Iranian back Islamist insurgents ran Iraq? The same ones who impose draconian sharia law in areas they controlled? Ahh they're not backed by the US so MUST be ok right? Yes, would have been far better to let the insurgents win. Better still to have left Saddam in power. After all, he didn't occupy Iraq did he?

5. New Zealand shouldn't be in a military alliance with the USA. Why? Because Matt and his buddies on the left don't like it. Would it harm New Zealand? Well hardly, but it does put New Zealand squarely against a whole range of rogue states that Matt presumably would like to appease. So why not Matt?

Or is it just your inherent hatred of individual freedom and capitalism that the US still (with many flaws) represents that drives you?

Loser vs talent = Minto vs Peer

According to the NZ Herald, John Minto, a mediocrity, locally known Marxist, has decided to pick on Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer. Why? Because Minto opposes Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (never uttering a word of criticism of the Palestinian authorities or Hamas of course). A pathetic little man who tries to paint a private citizen as representing the politics of Israel. What a welcome!

Does Minto protest Iranians because the Iranian regime murders political opponents, homosexuals, rigs elections and is seeking nuclear weapons? No, because it's "anti-American".

Does Minto protest Zimbabweans because of the Mugabe regime? No. He has little time for Mugabe today, but once was a cheerleader for this proven murderous thug - when it was de riguer to say he was a "hero".

Does Minto get fired up about North Korea, which imprisons and enslaves young children for the political "crimes" of their elders? No.

Did Minto damn the use of violence for political means in a liberal democracy? No, and no less than fellow socialist Chris Trotter damned him for it.

He's a very selective moralist. He protests regimes that have ties to the West, protests regimes that open up to trade and capitalism. He keeps his mouth shut and stays away from protesting those that seek destruction of Western civilisation and capitalism. He didn't even note the passing of Helen Suzman, one of South Africa's foremost opponents of apartheid, because she was also an opponent of the Marxism of the ANC.

Global Peace and Justice is a Marxist organisation that is avowedly against the values of the United States, opposed to capitalism, open trade, free movement of people, goods and services and happily ignores the tyranny, murder and oppression of freedom of regimes and groups. It is only interested in peace at the price of freedom of religion (for it does not fight Iran or Hamas), and justice meaning taking property through state violence.

As such Minto should be dismissed as the fringe tired old commie that he is, after all what place is there for a man who believes that the reason a few brutally abuse children is because they don't get enough welfare money?

Remember 9th of November

Boris Johnson writes in the Daily Telegraph how we should all remember the 9th of November - the day the Berlin Wall was breached for good.

He says:

It is precisely now, when the public mood is so bitter towards bankers, so hostile to profit, so seemingly brassed off with the very idea of wealth creation that we should remember how ghastly, grim and unworkable was the alternative – state-controlled socialism.

He said it was a moral disaster, a cultural and artistic wasteland and ... "It was a complete and utter environmental catastrophe, as anyone who travelled behind the Iron Curtain will remember. I don't just mean Chernobyl; I mean the cynical way in which socialist planning obliged human beings to endure the proximity of some of the filthiest factories in the world, the roiling clouds of smoke that seeded the warts and the cancers on the skin and in the lungs and the eyes of an innocent public."

"after an exhaustive test it was our system that triumphed, not just because of the material advantages of capitalism, but because a liberal free-market democracy has proved the best way of allowing individuals and families to realise their hopes, and to make something of their lives as independent and rounded moral agents. That is the freedom those crowds recognised and wanted in Berlin. It is the freedom of the human spirit, and it is worth infinitely more than some fancy BMW."

and then finally

"Remember, remember the 9th of November, and remember all the idiots – some now running this country – who supported communism in their youth. Peter Mandelson, Alistair Darling – how will you be celebrating the Fall of the Wall?"

Or indeed Keith Locke...

You may also read Richard Ebeling's piece on the Berlin Wall (Hat tip: Not PC Twitter):

"On this 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should remember all that it represented as a symbol of tyranny under which the individual was marked with the label: property of the state. He not only was controlled in everything he did and publically said, but his every movement was watched, commanded or restricted.

Freedom in all its forms – to speak, write, associate, and worship as we want; to pursue any occupation, profession, or private enterprise that inclination and opportunity suggests to us; and to visit, live, and work were our dreams and desires lead us to look for a better life – are precious things."

Remember, nobody was killed trying to move from the west to the east.

UPDATE: Mikhail Gorbachev reveals in the Daily Telegraph how he was advised he could have crushed the rebellion against the dictatorships in the Warsaw Pact countries, but refused because he believed in open democracy and feared World War 3 could have started from it.

He "quipped that he had "a good night's sleep" after the Wall was opened.

"I am very proud of the decision we made," he said. "The Wall did not simply fall – it was destroyed just as the Soviet Union was destroyed.""

The great shame must be that for all he did, so much has been rolled back in Russia, by a new generation of thuggish kleptocrats.

Have we not learnt from 1989?

Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph asks:

"Why do the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the anniversary of which we have been commemorating in a low-key way, and the collapse of communism which followed feature so little in the education curriculum and in the popular renditions of modern history?"

Indeed. She thinks those who had responsibility for curriculums and many commentators were shocked by the sudden implosion of the political system that had kept half of Europe under its jackboot for nearly half a century.

She notes that while Marxism expected capitalism to collapse, it collapsed instead, at least in its most hardened forcefully imposed form, but capitalism simply cannot:

This brings us to the delusion permitted by historical ignorance about the present economic crisis: capitalism, whatever the BBC says, has not collapsed. The banking system very nearly did, but that is a different thing: the banks are simply businesses through which capital flows. They were badly run and they failed due to mismanagement. Capitalism was badly served. But it has not – and cannot – collapse for the same reason that it cannot be overthrown: because it is not a structure that is imposed from above whose perpetrators can be forcibly dislodged.

Yes, you see capitalism is about individuals, about them applying their minds to the world around them and seeing how they can offer people goods or services in exchange for money (or goods and services), and then paying others to provide them services (with minds and hands) to assist in that production. Capitalism is simply human.

She says that if there was a greater observation of what 1989 was about (perhaps especially in Europe where far too many were enthralled by the eastern bloc as offering an "alternative way") it would teach us far more of the risks of rejecting capitalism and the human condition:

"If we had dared to look long enough at the events that followed 1989, as have many of those Eastern European countries which lived through them – if we had produced the plays and films and television documentaries and school texts that they had actually deserved – we might now have a fuller appreciation of the terror that follows from the need to extirpate individualistic impulses. An ideology that attempts to re-engineer human nature in the name of the collective good did not, as its founders had believed, require just a "temporary dictatorship" but a permanent one that bred corruption, victimisation and – most paradoxically of all – a bleak, inexorable poverty both of material goods and of aspiration which eventually became intolerable."

Indeed, nothing must frustrate the left more than the current recession NOT being a collapse of capitalism and not causing people to embrace the reality evasion of Marxism. However, it is timely at the end of this year to remind us all, and the young who knew not of what things were like in eastern Europe, of what the brave people of those lands were seeking to escape in that year.

The cold bleak crushing brutality of the steamroller of socialism.

Sue Bradford's valedictory

It is hardly a surprise I have little time for Sue Bradford. A (former?) Maoist who doesn't get her communist past seriously questioned by the mainstream media, who is a joyous worshipper of big government is hardly going to be a great defender of individual freedom. However I will give her one credit, on select committees she was courteous to Libertarianz submitters.

So her valedictory speech has little special to note. Take this:

"It continues to sadden me that so many people, particularly in the world of blogs and talkback, so casually dismiss New Zealand MPs as corrupt, or lazy or incompetent, or all those things simultaneously." Yes is it surprising? She isn't exactly the model of a competent citizen, and the way MPs so readily support granting vested interests financial or regulatory privileges is telling.

She's rightfully controversial for Section 59, and in saying this: "there is a job for all of us to do in working for a society in which all children and young people are treated as worthy of innate respect, rather than as the property of their parents." she seems to imply that those who don't beat up children have a responsibility to the children of those that are beaten up. Sadly her profound failure to attack those who neglect, rape, beat and murder children, rather than paint most parents with the same brush, must be the greatest disappointment. She supported Cindy Kiros' proposed nationalisation of children which would have been the most profound attack on the family in the country's history. She may have had the best of intentions, but the worst of means and where a sniper's rifle was needed to attack truly vile parents, she preferred the scattergun.

She doesn't particularly believe people are to blame for their circumstances, describing women in prison as "mothers and babies who are caught up in this particularly tragic set of circumstances". Presumably because the mother is a criminal Sue? The babies DO deserve contact with their mothers, but being caught and convicted for committing a crime isn't "being caught up in tragic circumstances".

Sadly she also has learnt nothing from economics, and doesn't see the inherent contradiction in this statement "Capitalism is not providing the answers we need to find a way forward, and some of us at least must be brave enough to seek out viable, democratic and peaceful alternatives." Well Sue, every other alternative is NOT peaceful, it requires you do violence to peaceful people interacting voluntarily, perhaps the problem is that you're not willing to just use non-governmental organisations to achieve what you want through persuasion, not force.

She concludes as a collectivist that "Unless we are willing to challenge the status quo, to examine power relationships and inequality, and do something about addressing core issues, nothing will change for the better for those who have least, or for the natural world our species is so bent on destroying."

It's a shame that someone so passionately interested in people, is so indisputably tied up in believing people do not have individual responsibility and freedom to change their lives, that so many are perpetual victims, and that the route to improving people's lives is not their own efforts to create, produce and convince others.

Manipulation of language

This post is NOT about the merits of deregulating and privatising ACC - you can take it for granted, I'd fully support full competition for all ACC coverage and privatising ACC itself. It is a debate about language used in politics, to manipulate public opinion. It is not a manipulation confined to those I am accusing in this post either.

In the debate about ACC, those on the left consistently refer to the policy of opening ACC up to competition as "privatisation".

Yet these are two very different things. A government owned entity can remain state owned and face private sector competition without it being privatised.

How? Let's take some of the major deregulations in recent years.

- Until 1982, trucks were banned from hauling freight further than 150km (with some exceptions), with rail having a monopoly. Was opening up long haul freight to competition the privatisation of New Zealand Railways?

- Until 1983, Air New Zealand had a statutory monopoly on domestic airline routes, in that competitors were only allowed by and large if Air New Zealand granted permission. Was the removal of this monopoly the privatisation of Air New Zealand?

- Until 1989, TVNZ had a monopoly on television broadcasting, and in 1991 the television market was fully opened to anyone who wished to purchase frequencies, satellite capacity or lay cable. Was this the privatisation of TVNZ?

- Until 1998, it was illegal for anyone other than NZ Post to deliver mail for less than 80c. Was opening up the postal market the privatisation of New Zealand Post?

So why talk about opening up the ACC market to competition as privatisation?

It's simple - it is the manipulation of language for political effect.

You see most people would not disagree with allowing competition. Prohibiting competition seems to be a bad thing, as it means a monopoly can take advantage of you, can underperform, and you have no choice. It doesn't even have to expect the threat of potential competition.

The left cannot attack ACC reform based on the word "competition", because most people will go "So what? I like competition, I don't like monopolies."

Privatisation is a bogey word. It brings up images of an "asset" being sold for less than it "might be worth", of control transferring to those horned devils called "foreigners" (spit) and it not "being our's anymore", even though people complained about it when it was.

So that is why they lie, explicitly, about the proposal. To have people think it is about selling ACC - which, sadly, would not happen in this term of the government, rather than opening it up to competition, which might.

So it should be challenged, repeatedly. NZ Post has NOT been privatised, neither has TVNZ, just because both are fully exposed to competition. Why should ACC be described as privatised if it is also subject to competition?

UPDATE: Both Frog Blog and the Standard repeat the lie, blatantly.

UPDATE 2: The Standard doesn't like being challenged. Take this nasty little remark about "learning my lesson".

Scab = person who wants job more than you

Idiot Savant is upset that the Royal Mail is hiring additional temporary staff to cover for the unionised labour that is going on strike in coming months. He says it is because of privatisation. He's wrong, the word is never mentioned. He puts modernisation in quotation marks, as if it isn't real. Yet it is - the Royal Mail is a dinosaur of the postal world, using automatic sorting less than its equivalents in France and Germany. NZ Post by contrast is seen as an example of best practice. Idiot Savant would always side with a militant union though, it's a tribal thing.

The left calls such people scabs - a vile term that helps justify doing violence to them and threatening their families, a not unknown tactic in some industrial disputes.

The truth is such people are workers, people who want to do the job the unionised workforce is less interested in doing. Let's be clear here, postal workers do not exactly have jobs involving deep levels of training or skills. It is easily substitutable. The choice is between those who want to work, and those who don't. Why should people who want jobs have any "solidarity" with those who have them but don't want to change to save their employer from ongoing losses of money and business?

Idiot Savant thinks because the temporary workers are being hired with full support of the Labour government it shows how "out of touch" Labour is. He's wrong. In fact it shows how desperate Labour is for Britain not to be brought to its knees at Christmas by a greedy union in the midst of a recession unwilling to let the Royal Mail being seriously restructured from practices that date back to the 1970s.

As the Royal Mail loses business to competitors (no doubt Idiot Savant hates the idea that other people might be employed in competing companies to deliver mail - a sacred duty of the state), this union action cripples it more, threatening more jobs, whilst Billy Hayes, the head of the Communication Workers' Union is on a six figure salary.

Nice to be supporting the proletariat isn't it?

What the Greens COULD say about Urewera 17

It has been said before the main thing the Green Party is guilty of is playing down the significance of what led to the Police raid in the Ureweras.

Here's just an idea of what could have been said.

"The Green Party openly abhors violence and promotes peace, and while we are opposed to the anti-terrorism legislation that saw the raid and arrest of suspected criminals in the Ureweras, we can understand Police concern given the evidence collected about alleged activities in the area. Given it included plans to murder others and commit other criminal acts, it is only natural to be concerned.

The Green Party vehemently opposes people training to use firearms for any form of insurrection in New Zealand, or calls for killing or vandalism or any other such attacks. If anyone in our party promotes such a view, steps will be taken to eject them.

Whilst nobody has been convicted of any offences, the Police are duty bound to act when they have due course to fear for the lives and property of peaceful New Zealanders. The Police did so. While we always have concerns about how much force is used to undertake search warrants and arrest suspects, we are not concerned that the Police acted without due cause, per se.

We look forward to the justice system handling these cases appropriately. However, notwithstanding this, it is important to clarify that our policy of peace and justice is not compatible with those who seek political change through force or to seek terrorism or civil war in New Zealand. Whether they be Tuhoe or any other iwi, Maori or non-Maori. The Green Party disassociates itself from anyone supporting such criminal behaviour. We support Tino Rangitiratanga, but we do not support the use of violence to achieve political objectives in New Zealand"

I'm not holding my breath. I asked at the time "Why don't they condemn it if it were true", but the Greens preferred to damn the publicity around the evidence.

At least Pita Sharples expressed abhorence at the evidence.

The Greens want to rewrite history, blank out what was said, what was found and what motivated the Police to undertake the raids. Its friends are victims, they were brave and deserve our support.

Like hell.

Ireland votes yes and no

According to The Times, it looks like Ireland's second referendum on the same subject in two years is a "yes" to ratify the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union. Now given it was "no" last year, isn't it now one all?

Not to the European Union though. What was once a welcome lowering of borders and barriers between countries has become an arrogant statist project to impose a vision of regulation and uniformity across Europe. It is dominated by the economically and environmentally destructive Common Agricultural Policy, a massive transfer from British, Dutch and German taxpayers to French farmers (whilst farmers in eastern Europe get a third of the equivalent subsidy).

So when a country votes no, it is dismissed and it is time to have another vote. It is a disgraceful piece of hypocrisy that a customs union that purports to be in favour of democracy, ignores it when it doesn't go the "right" way.

As far as Ireland then? Well with an economy that was particularly badly hurt by bubbles in banking and property, many Irish were convinced that they needed to EU to be saved (given Ireland uses the Euro).

Of course, there needs to be another referendum next year doesn't there?

Rudman shows why politics and transport don't mix

Brian Rudman has a cheek to call the Minister of Transport an ideologue when he is one of the true believers of the Auckland rail religion. Rudman doesn't call into question the "business cases" the ARC puts together on rail, or Mike Lee's strong leftwing political background in being mischievous towards the government before he is put out of a job.

Bear in mind a "business plan" for something that produces ongoing financial losses is a curious thing, and that scepticism from central government officials about the veracity of the ARC's work doesn't motivate Rudman to question his fellow true believers.

He damns the proposal for a Puhoi-Wellsford motorway. A project which may not be worthwhile, but only money to investigate it has been approved. Money paid for by road users of course. The same can never be said about capital expenditure on Auckland's railways. Rudman in a rather arrogant style dismisses the only major link between Northland and the rest of the country as a road to John Key's holiday bach. I guess he thinks nothing exists north of Puhoi.

Auckland's Regional Transport Committee, a hodgepodge of political interests, naturally wouldn't think so. Given it is advocating a billion plus underground rail tunnel in central Auckland, which would also run at a continued loss, it is clear it worships at the same church as Rudman and Lee.

Rudman doesn't understand why central government time and time again has said no to pouring taxpayers' money into Auckland local government's railway flights of fancy, except the last government. Maybe he should check his premises, these being the following key features of the religion he subscribes to:

- Auckland rail projects all result in ratepayers and motoring tax payers losing money year after year, but that's ok. It is for their own good, even if few ratepayers will see their property values increase as a result, and motorists wont notice a jot of difference to congestion.

- Auckland rail projects always fail conventional economic cost-benefit appraisal, compared to other public transport projects or road projects. That's because the wrong things get counted. People don't value saving travel time that much (they speed, use shortcuts and overtake because they are mean spirited), accident reductions aren't that important, and it is just really really special for people to ride by train instead of, bus.

- Just because the majority of Auckland rail users come from buses or wouldn't have taken the trip in the first place, doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile subsidising them at $4 a trip.

- It doesn't matter that 88% of Auckland jobs aren't in the CBD, where the railway is focused, it doesn't matter. Just ignore that. It will change when there is a railway, you'll see. Aucklanders who work elsewhere don't matter anyway, and we'll build more railways to serve them.

- It doesn't matter that 7% of Auckland trips are by public transport (most of those by bus), spending over a billion to get it to 15% (by 2051!) is good for you all (although 17% of trips are currently by foot).

- It doesn't matter that between 33 and 45% of peak trips to Auckland's CBD are by public transport, predominantly by bus as it is. It doesn't matter that this split is high by international standards.

- It doesn't matter how much money is spent on rail in Auckland, it must all be good, it must be good, even though the whole network was only worth $20 million to start with and wont be worth much more after $550 million is spent electrifying it. You couldn't sell it off for what has been spent on it, you couldn't sell it off for a quarter of that. However, in the church of Auckland rail, spending other people's money is a core sacrament.

- It doesn't matter that the impact on traffic congestion of Auckland rail is virtually nil. Traffic congestion is good. Car users are addicts and must be weaned off their addiction. They really don't want to drive, many don't really want to own cars, they just haven't learnt it yet.

Brian wants government to treat Aucklanders as adults. Brian, they would be better treated as adults if you let them spend their own money, respected the fact that most Aucklanders most of the time choose the transport modes that best suit them, respected the fact that most of the money you want spend on railways comes from people using roads, and respected the fact that this religion of yours is completely useless for the trips most Aucklanders do most of the time.

Maybe you should go to Penrose/Mt. Wellington, Auckland's second biggest employment hub, and ask workers there what the electrified railway will do for their trip to work?

Harriet Harman ignores the US constitution

There is, in the US, a rather unpleasant website called Punternet. It effectively is a website for consumers of prostitutes to rate their experiences. It is legal in the US, indeed it is constitutionally protected free speech. The speech may be highly offensive to many, but that is not a ground to prohibit it, it is, after all, just a series of opinions about consensual experiences between adults. For many it is no doubt a bit of prurient reading, for some it may be useful. It rates prostitutes in the UK . Again, this is protected by the First Amendment. Nobody has to go there, and no crime is committed to produce the website.

However, these are boundaries that enemies of free speech don't respect. They believe free speech which offends should be banned. So what is the result?

According to The Times, Harriet Harman, the Equalities Minister (an Orwellian role if ever there was one) thinks the Governor of California should ignore the US Constitution, and ban the website, because it offends her for encouraging the "commodification of women". Whether it does or does not is besides the point.

Sorry Harriet, just because the UK doesn’t enjoy protection of civil liberties by Constitution, and just because you have a petty fascist attitude to that which “offends you”, doesn’t mean you can extend your bullying ways to the USA.

Harriet has been criticised by Carrie Mitchell, of the English Collective of Prostitutes, who said "Once again instead of prioritising dealing with rape and other violence, Harman is prioritising censorship and repression”. So not even those who represent prostitutes believe in this supposed attempt to protect them, they'd rather the Police better dealt with real crime.

Nobody has a right to not be offended, for it were true, then I’d ban Harman and most of the utterings of this contemptible government for offending me and millions of Britons every day. This latest extension of the authoritarian "do as we say for your own good" nanny state shows further how vile the British Labour Party is, wanting other countries to break their own Constitutions to extend the nanny state into their jurisdiction, because of the limits of their own authoritarian reach.

Oh and well done Harriet, you’ve made Punternet’s day by undoubtedly increasing the hit rate from the UK by a significant factor. Today it is ranked 1053rd in the UK (according to Alexa), with 36576 hits yesterday. Let’s see how it is in the next two days….

Yes let's listen to Gaddafi says McCarten

So says former Alliance President Matt McCarten.

Why is this fool given space in a mainstream newspaper when it is best left to some leftwing rag?

He says "Rather than reporting fully on some of his valid commentary, the international press almost universally portrayed Gaddafi as some sort of nutty clown"

Of course, given that anyone who dares make fun of him in Libya will get dispatched to prison at best if not oblivion, we shouldn't laugh should we Matt? I mean, a man who gained power through military coup, and has been directly responsible for funding, arming and training murderers the world over, yes, let's not poke fun at him should we?

He is a nutty clown, and if you can't see it through his mad grand projects, his ridiculous cult of personality with statements like "I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam (leader) of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level" and his prize for human rights, then you're a fool or willfully blind.

"The description of his flowing robes, large rings on his fingers and his insistence in staying in tents was intended to make him look comical rather than the cultural racism it is."

Oh yes, silly me, the fact that OTHER Arab leaders don't get the same media treatment (or stay in tents) wouldn't make that just another cheap "racism" jibe, would it Matt? How fucking DARE people make fun of this murdering tyrant?

"we would have learned some valuable insights, such as Libya and almost all Middle East nations don't support Iran being nuclear armed."

Valuable insights? Really? So he can speak on behalf of "almost all Middle East nations", by what mandate? None Matt, Gaddafi doesn't speak for any other states, just the dictatorship of his own. Besides, it is long known that the Arab world opposes Iranian nuclear weapons, if you didn't know then it speaks volumes about any value in your point of view on the topic.

"Unsurprisingly, they want Israel to dismantle their atomic arsenal too." Amazing, who'd have thought?!! Oh and the word is "its" not "their" Matt, there is only one Israel.

"there should be one secular state within the current greater border. This is the most sensible solution for both peoples and needs more air time. Everybody knows the current situation in Israel/Palestine is apartheid, and that it's not sustainable." The current situation isn't sustainable, but isn't Israel not far from being secular as it is? Hamas isn't secular Matt.

"Gaddafi also supports the establishment of a Kashmir state to resolve conflict between India and Pakistan. He even argued the Taleban had a right to form a state too. This is also worthy of further discussion." Oh wonderful, Matt is keen on telling Kashimiris to live together but separate from the two big countries either side of them, and he thinks it's worth discussing putting some people under the joyless tyranny of the Taliban.

Isn't he so nice, drawing lines, creating states? However Matt loves the state doesn't he?

"His best contribution was his expose of the hypocrisy of the United Nations. The UN Charter claims all its nation members are equal. Yet it's run by a Security Council with five nations (US, Britain, France, Russia and China) who can veto any decision." Expose? Yes nobody ever thought of that before. Matt, it might pay for you to read some books on international relations before thinking Gaddafi teaches you things everyone else has heard of.

Matt goes on about the tired old story that the UN Security Council should be restructured to include a bunch of other states, including the veto, then he finds something new, for him...

"his most blistering accusation is that the Security Council is the cause of many wars. Sixty-five wars have occurred since the UN was founded and a permanent member on almost every occasion used its veto to prevent the rest of the world stopping it."

65 wars? Well Gaddafi said so, he MUST be right. What superficial nonsense. The Cold War veto use is well known, but more recently it has primarily been Russia and China to wield vetoes. Not that Matt would want to point that out, see he really likes how Gaddafi lays into the Western World. That's why he mentions about Gaddafi blaming Bush and Blair for killing innocent people, without noting at all how Gaddafi knows about killing innocent people.

Libya is a sad country, it is awash with oil wealth that is wasted on profligate projects, the military, enriching Gaddafi and his stooges, and not much else. Libya is quite third world for most of its inhabitants, and nobody dare utter a word of criticism. You see Libya imprisons and executes political prisoners, it doesn't have the slightest notion of a free press or media.

Read the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information report on Libya

and ask yourself if Matt McCarten might think less about being offended about Gaddafi being called a clown, if he might search out other sages for ideas on international relations, and might give at least a sentence to his articles to give a damn about the people who live under Gaddafi's rule. The man who has supported Idi Amin deserves no respect.

This apologetic naive article shows Matt at best as a shallow badly informed fool, who worst of all has just written a nice piece of propaganda for Gaddafi's sycophantic media.

Can Matt get any worse? Is Kim Jong Il just misunderstood Matt because he's "ronery"?

Farewell Sue Mao Bradford

Naturally I can barely concede my joy at this news. Bradford is a Marxist who unashamedly embraces a big violent interfering state that treats the economy as a self-sufficient xenophobic fortress and which has its eyes and hands freely in the homes and bank accounts of everyone, to take what it needs to give to what it wants, and make sure you're being good. What can I say?

Well I do love Not PC's summary of the Greens:

What’s unique about the Greens, of course, is nothing more than their combination of authoritarianism and ludditery – with a a caucus composed almost entirely of the intellectual remnants of the Socialist Workers’ Party they’re little more than a bunch of authoritarians with a marketing wing.

So what has Sue Bradford done that is positive for freedom and prosperity? Let me look back at the times I've referred to her in my posts:

Sue Bradford hates Chinese Workers as she opposed Air New Zealand (mostly state owned which she would consider to be a good thing) buying foreign made uniforms. So she despises trade, wants foreign workers to lose their jobs and is economically illiterate. She'd have NZ pursue a kind of North Korean autarchic self sufficiency no doubt. Didn't stop her flying Air NZ at taxpayers' expense of course. She pushed to make you pay for a Buy NZ Made promotional campaign, that she wouldn't pay for herself of course.

Sue Bradford embracing Cindy Kiro's neo-Stalinist plans to have Big Mother watching over every child, monitoring them all, in case you've been bad parents, rather than focusing on targeting children of parents known to the Police, known to be negligent. She even acknowledged in her press release that "I realise some parents will be horrified by the idea that their children will have regular checkups at key stages of their lives" but it was justified by protecting the kids. Given Sue spent many years gleefully supporting China under the rule of Mao (and drifting away when it started opening up), you can see what her role models are.

Sue Bradford's express belief that nobody should be "forced" to work for a living as she embraced the dole. In other words, why shouldn't everyone just sit on their arses and do nothing and magically food, clothes, electricity, homes, everything you consume will magically appear. Given she long led the self-styled "Unemployed Workers' Union" (quite the oxymoron), you have to wonder how hard she thought anyone should look for a job?

She also demanded the nationalisation of the voluntary sector, by forcing taxpayers to pay for it - which of course, means it is no longer voluntary is it?

Sue Bradford's opposition to Air NZ's efficiency drive which includes cutting staff, she said it wasn't bailed out to become a "mean anti-worker" company. Of course it wouldn't have needed to be bailed out had the likes of Sue and the Greens not rallied wholeheartedly against Singapore Airlines (or any foreign company) increasing its shareholding in the company.

Sue Bradford makes a little news that the SIS was spying on her which a naive reporter thinks it amazing. Hardly a shocker. Trevor Loudon long ago outed her lifelong communism here here and here.

So freedom? Nothing to see here. Prosperity? Nothing to see here.

The truth is that had Sue Bradford's politics had her way some time ago, then none of you would be reading anything other than state approved literature, you'd be working for the state , assuming the People's Republic of Aotearoa had survived the difficult period after 1989. She was a member of the Workers' Communist League in the 1980s after all. Charming really, not that the mainstream media can cope with people having been communists, since the little darlings don't really understand it.

So the Greens and we are all safer without her in Parliament, and this may be a fit of pique at Metiria Turei being selected over her (though Metiria is almost indistinguishable in her views) which of course hardly means the Greens are free of their corrosive, pro-state violence view.

What have others said:

Phil Goff “I admire her passion for the causes she fought for, even if I didn’t always agree with everything she said,” Well at least he wasn't fawning.

The Youth Union Movement cheered her on for increasing youth unemployment by raising the youth minimum wage to the same as the adult. Cheerleaders for Marxism as they are. Finsec and NDU share similar sentiments.

Barnados and Plunket has nailed its colours to the mast of an every interfering state, so maybe some wont be donating so much in the future. Plunket of course was set up to be a eugenics organisation (which it never admits).

Tariana Turia and the Maori Party loved her, birds of a feather they are.

The Maritime Union, the most hardened Marxists of the union movement, and most featherbedded (the single biggest reason why the NZ shipping industry has shrunk to what it is) also embrace her because she advocated protectionism.

Might it be time for the government to stop funding her training camp for radicals in Northland?

EU votes to increase CO2 emissions

Bastards. Propping up their inefficient and environmentally unfriendly dairy sector.

Poor little diddums EU dairy farmers are going to get £15,000 each paid for by me and other taxpayers, because they can't cope that demand for their products has dropped and commodity prices have dropped.

CO2 emissions? Yes, well Lincoln University had a study (since removed from its website) claiming that even with the effects of shipping, dairy products from NZ produced half the CO2 emissions per tonne compared to UK farms (which are typically more efficient than many continental farms).

So really, shouldn't the EU have the fingered pointed at it when it starts telling others what to do? On trade, the environment and helping developing countries?

Get rid of the colon in this headline

I don't think providing a training ground for future candidates and Labour MPs is a benefit everyone else should be forced to pay for. Do you?

Give Maryan Street a laugh with this line though "The problem with voluntary membership was that those benefits were not apparent to students attending university for the first time and they may not believe they provided value."

But we'll take their money, make them join and tell the world that we represent the views of students anyway. All for one and one for all right?

If the Nats fail to take this to where it should go, it will show how utterly bereft of any principle the National Party is, that it will keep privileging organisations that support National's opponents. For that is what student unions are - training grounds for the left. Training grounds for those who want to keep National out of power. If you can't put them on the basis that students wont be forced to join them or pay for them, then what can you possibly call yourself?

Minto the socialist hypocrite

Plenty have commented on this nonsense, but my point is more simple.

If John Minto cares so much about the poor, why isn't he letting such people use his ample home for free?

He is one of New Zealand's loudest under achievers. He fought against apartheid, but largely keeps his mouth shut about the theft and corruption of his former mates at the ANC - as if it is any surprise that a bunch of African Marxists wouldn't also be kleptocrats.

He makes Matt Robson look centrist by comparison, but at least there is now a benchmark for hardline Marxist columnists in New Zealand (Robson and Trotter being the other obvious ones). The prick has openly promoted the communist Workers Party (sic)and the hysterical conspiracy theorist driven Residents Action Movement (sic) (which couldn't even convince all its members to vote last election, getting less votes than the minimum number of members to be a registered political party). Both parties so stupid they can't even use apostrophes in their names because their own members would be incapable of knowing how to use them.

RAM supports George Galloway, great friend of Syrian Dictator Balshar al-Assad, and Islamist terrorist groups working in Iraq.

The Workers Party is communist, supporting Castro, Che Guevara, the growing authoritarian rule of Hugo Chavez and is sympathetic to communists in Korea.

So you can see how much of a friend to human rights and freedom Minto is. He is a friend to those who embrace dictatorship, mass murder and totalitarianism.

John Minto, wants the state to be a thief on his behalf, and loves those who sympathise with killers. Nice.