Greens and the Khmer Rouge Part 1

Frogblog has posted about the evidence given by Rob Hamill at the trial of Duch, who operated the Tuol Sleng torture and murder prison in Cambodia. A chance, of course, to reflect simply upon the horrors of the Khmer rouge era. Estimates of numbers executed and starved to death by this regime range from 1.2 to 2.2 million people, between a quarter and a third of the population.

The easy target is to throw stones at Keith Locke. It is fairly well known that in his naïve youth he cheered on the Khmer Rouge victory in Phnom Penh as a liberation. Of course he was not the only one, the Lon Nol military dictatorship that had been overthrown was corrupt and brutal. Nobody missed it at the time, it was hoped things could only get better. Few paid any attention to stories coming out of Khmer Rouge occupied territory of the Maoist autarchy imposed on the local population, although images from the early 1970s showed the uniformity and order that they had imposed (ironically published approvingly by a Chinese state propaganda pictorial magazine).

However, my concern is not Keith Locke. He was young and naïve, better to forgive that and his statements about nuclear power only being safe under socialism, and cheering on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, than to dwell a quarter of a century or more later. My concern is also not Sue Bradford, who was cheerleading on Maoist China in the early 1970s, the Khmer Rouge’s chief source of funds, arms and ideology. Imagine if a senior National MP had cheered on Pinochet, Franco or Salazar in his youth and how that would be treated by the Greens, but I digress.

It is this statement

“For us in the West what we have to get our heads around is that the Khmer Rouge learnt their ideology in Paris and were able to seize power because Richard Nixon personally ordered a secret bombing campaign that killed half a million. And that US foreign policy, in particular their determination to never forgive anyone that drives them off, allowed the Khmer Rouge to occupy Cambodia’s UN seat until 1993 rather than the government installed by the Vietnamese invasion that ended their rule.”

This statement evades certain facts, and would make you think that it is all the fault of the West and the US that the Khmer Rouge came to power. This is, at best, a side effect of failed policies, and there are others who can carry far more blame.

Yes the Khmer Rouge learnt their ideology in Paris, at the Sorbonne, along with many other Marxists. Radical Maoism was de riguer among many academics, vile as it always has been. However, the Khmer Rouge was active before the US bombings. Why did the US bomb Cambodia in the first place? Because it was being used by the North Vietnamese as a bypass route to infiltrate South Vietnam. “Neutral” Cambodia was a staging ground for invasions of South Vietnam. The US response was to use bombing and then invasion to close the borders, and buy time. The bombing killed between 100,000 and 600,000 (half a million is a high estimate), and certainly gave the Khmer Rouge propaganda to attract illiterate peasants to fight for them. The US backed the overthrow of Prince Norodom Sihanouk (a very slimy long time friend of Kim Il Sung) and supported a corrupt and brutal strongman called Lon Nol. His antics also helped fuel support for the Khmer Rouge. However he achieved the primary goal, securing the borders of Cambodia and wiping out North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia.

The Khmer Rouge was backed solidly by Mao, China supplying explicit financial and material support. The USSR was more interested in Vietnam. So it was China that enabled the Khmer Rouge to fight against Lon Nol. However, it was Lon Nol himself who was so corrupt, incompetent and cruel that caused many Cambodians to join the fight against him. Note that Prince Sihanouk himself backed the Khmer Rouge as well – the “neutral” Prince backing radical Maoists so he could continue to enjoy the trappings of power. The US did not back the Khmer Rouge, it unfortunately backed its hopelessly incompetent and immoral opponents.

So the US was guilty of foolishness in Cambodia, because its goal in Vietnam propelled victims of its actions (and its friend’s actions) to support the Khmer Rouge. However, to say Nixon enabled the Khmer Rouge to seize power is evading two key points:

1. Had the Khmer Rouge not had Chinese support, it may well have failed to takeover, avoiding the massive loss of life its regime caused.
2. The US from 1970 to 1975 armed, funded and backed the Lon Nol military regime, which whilst bad, fought the Khmer Rouge. Had Lon Nol remained in power, it would have been corrupt, and far from free, but would not have been as murderous. A similar analogy is Korea, where South Korean dictatorships and military regimes ran the country from 1953 through to 1988, but which was far less deadly than North Korea for its people.

The truth is that China provided succour to the Khmer Rouge, the US lamely fought against it, but the biggest supporters of the Khmer Rouge were often Western academics.

The Greens skirt over the Khmer Rouge years. The years when umpteen Western academics embraced the Khmer Rouge, including the fool Malcolm Caldwell who decided to go visit them, and got murdered as a result. The years when leftwing pinup Noam Chomsky declared stories of mass murder and starvation from Democratic Kampuchea as CIA propaganda (the man has slithered in evasion of this statement ever since). This thesis talks of the "Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia" being "Democratic Kampuchea symbolized their wildest hopes and dreams. From the classroom to the politburo, the new Kampuchea was, to these scholars, theory becoming reality" says Sophal Ear.

You see the Khmer Rouge represented the idealistic vision of so many on the left. More on that in Part 2.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia for various reasons, including a border incident, concern over the Khmer Rouge treatment of ethnic Vietnamese (Vietnam knew only too well what was going on there), Soviet support for Vietnamese expansionism (as Vietnam was not backed by China – as was seen in a brief border war between the two in 1979).

You may find it odd that a party that opposed the US overthrowing the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, overthrowing the Taliban dictatorship and includes many who opposed the US kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, so warmly receives (or at least glosses over) Vietnam invading Cambodia.

Let me be clear, the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was moral, purely because it ended the Khmer Rouge horror, even though nobody could dare claim that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was free or respected individual rights, it fell short of the mass executions of the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge had been brutal to Vietnamese on both sides of the border. However, overthrowing the Khmer Rouge does not fit well with Green Party rhetoric against imperialism and war, particularly since the government installed by Hanoi was little more than an extension of its own.

The Greens claim the US allowed the Khmer Rouge to occupy the UN seat of Cambodia rather than the Vietnamese installed regime because of a fit of pique at losing the Vietnam War. This is an element of truth evading several facts and with the wrong motive.

The seat at the UN was held by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, shared by the Khmer Rouge, FUNCINPEC and the KPNLF, the latter two being royalist and anti-communist. This was maintained because China and the US both vetoed Soviet and Vietnamese requests for the seat to be taken up by the Hanoi led government. Of course when the Cold War ended, all of this fell away. Vietnam had withdrawn from Cambodia, and the pro-Vietnamese government engaged in a coalition with FUNCINPEC and the KPNLF, whilst the Khmer Rouge tried to continue fighting.

So why the history lesson? Well it is understandable to write about Rob Hamill testifying at Duch’s trial. It is a tragic NZ element to one of the most vile events of the 20th century. Indeed so vile it demonstrates that what is worse than war is government turning on its own people. However, the Greens couldn’t use the occasion to simply deplore the Khmer Rouge, deplore Maoism and condemn totalitarianism and communism. No. It was used to blame the United States, by selective use of the facts and evading the fundamental blame for the Khmer Rouge – Marxist scholars, Chinese Maoists and the embrace of the ideology that individuals only exist for the greater good.

The Greens implicitly endorse the Vietnamese invasion and conquest of Cambodia, because it overthrew a murderous tyranny, but don’t support the US doing the same in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, why would the Greens selectively report history to bash the US? Why not bash China for providing the greater succuour to the Khmer Rouge? Why not bash communism generally? Why ignore the US backing of the Khmer Rouge's opponents over sustained periods? Why not slam the apologists of the regime from leftwing academia (which included your own)? Why not criticise Norodom Sihanouk for letting Cambodia be a vehicle for Vietnamese communist insurgency (attracting US attention), and then being a vehicle for the Khmer Rouge to have legitimacy?

Or better yet, why not shut the hell up about a party and government that represented an idealised vision of a society without any capitalism (money was abolished), without carbon based energy, where everyone was equal, there were no possessions, where peasantry had been raised to the highest level, where everyone was meant to get what they needed, and nobody was rich. Then ask yourself, before the consequences of this vision were obvious, would you too have supported it?

Bullshit on right and left

Right wing bullshit

Well known is the inane bullshit promoted by some on the conservative right that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake or not original or something of the like. It is a very sad sign of the Republican Party that too many of its own kind will latch onto this rather than argue the very valid points about Obama's policies. Arguing against his socialised healthcare and his "spend it up large and hope" big government economy boosting policy seems too hard. I am no supporter of Obama, but I am quite convinced that he was born in Hawaii. Those continuing to ride on this bandwagon will look crazier as time goes on, and show how little they truly have in cogent arguments against the man. It is like "we can't say he's no good because he's black, so we'll say he's not American instead". Mindless, conspiratorial rubbish. In fact, it is the sort of thing that should cost the anti-business, pro-big government halfwit, Lou Dobbs, his job at CNN. Dobbs has long campaigned against free trade, foreign investment, globalisation and conspired against China's economic success. I also guess none of these wingnuts wishes the constitution would be different to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to stand for the Presidency?

Left wing bullshit

On the left is a New Zealand blog that prides itself on being fair, honest and open. No Right Turn is a blog I usually disagree with, but does make some well researched points from time to time. However, to characterise the stupid referendum on smacking (stupid because of the wording) as "New Zealand is voting on whether it should be legal for parents to punch children in the face or hit them in the head with a piece of concrete" is an outright lie.

That was never legal before, and is not legal now, and indeed despite the poorly worded referendum, smacking is NOT punching or hitting the head with concrete. However, it does show how some on the left use language to distort and lie, to get their own way. To demonise their opponents as grossly violent child abusers, rather than average parents who use mild smacking as correction.

Bear in mind I despise smacking, I despise corporal punishment altogether and wish it would never be used - I also despise criminalising those who use it mildly. It is NOT for the state to say that using force against children is wrong. It isn't. It is sometimes in their best interests to protect them (or others) from danger. Which is why I don't have a strong view on how to vote in that referendum. I don't believe smacking is "good parental correction", but I also don't believe it should be a criminal offence, unless it is repeated and physically damaging. I do not endorse the current law, but I equally do not endorse the view by many that smacking is a "good" thing.

So do I vote to endorse smacking, or do I vote to endorse an interfering state criminalising behaviour I don't think should be criminalised? Or do I abstain?

In that same article he cites a New York Times article that is quite disconcerting, about how some disabled children have been physically punished. That indeed is disturbing, but then to say "Just another example of what a cruel and barbaric place the US is". Of course, it really is, a barbaric place that millions try to flee, so much crueler than New Zealand, where all children are raised by loving parents who would never abuse their kids.

Funny how he has never ever blogged about the gulags that keep children as slave labourers in North Korea. He wouldn't, of course, endorse that at all, but why do these Nazi style concentration camps, with summary executions, rampant torture, incarcerating entire families from elderly to babies as political prisoners, NOT get the same passionate attention as does the torture of Islamists in Guantanamo Bay?

Imagine if the political left actually starting protesting on a grand scale about this atrocity. Oh what government does the North Korean regime condemn the most? The USA - guess they are not all that bad then, right?

Daily Telegraph odds and ends

Greek woman sets fire to British sexual assaulter: After resisting his advances, after pouring Sambuca on him to cool him down, the guy wouldn’t stop. So the woman set fire to the man, to the cheer of onlookers – gave herself to the Police claiming self defence. The young man’s dad said “He's not the kind of lad that gets himself in trouble – he's a kind-hearted, generous boy”. He now has second degree burns for being a drunken fool.

HIV genome decoded: Scientists at the University of North Carolina claim to have decoded the entire HIV genome, raising hopes of new treatments to neutralise the virus. Given that drug therapy in recent years has significantly extended the life expectancy of HIV carriers, this may well be the next chance for a breakthrough.

Beetroot juice increases stamina: The University of Exeter's School of Sport and Health Sciences has found that a glass a day of beetroot juice can help men work out for 16% longer.

Woman who drink two glasses of red wine a day have better sex lives: You might expect the University of Florence to undertake THIS study. Overall, women who drank two glasses a day scored an average of 27.3 points (sexual arousal points), compared to 25.9 for those who drank one glass and 24.4 for the non-drinkers. Whether this continues to rise with each glass is a moot point, but it no doubt makes the drink feel like it is better! No doubt it also improves the sex lives of the men (and even women) they meet too.

BBC move to cost over £800 million: Whilst businesses sometimes shift from London to the regions to save money, the BBC’s move of the sports department and Radio 5 to Manchester is going to cost money. Proving once again, how unaccountable government organizations can be when the money they have to spent was taken by force by people who may not want its services anyway.

Iran executes 24 drug traffickers in mass execution: The second biggest (known) executor of prisoners continues form (I say known, because there are more than one or two governments that do this rather informally and privately). 219 people are known to have been executed in Iran since the start of the year. The total last year was 246. Of course many don't sympathise with drug traffickers, assuming of course the said individuals had a fair trial, that they were violent and forcing drugs on people or supplying children, hmmm. Oh and Iran has a horrendous drug addiction problem, demonstrating how effective a deterrent this is!

Sonia Sotomayer confirmed as latest US Supreme Court judge: True to those who value what is skindeep over character, most of the publicity about this is that she is a Hispanic woman. That is a first for the US Supreme Court. However, this is also a woman who once said "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life”. Objective is she? The Cato Institute thinks she wouldn’t be in the running if she were not Hispanic.

So what happened in North Korea?

Bill Clinton knows, but he's not talking. The Korean Central News Agency is claiming, understandably, that he apologised:

Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it. Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest request of the U.S. government to leniently pardon them and send them back home from a humanitarian point of view.

However, this has been denied by an official. Obama has also said progress will only be made in relations if North Korea no longer develops nuclear weapons and stops engaging in provocative behaviour. Perhaps Kim Jong Il wanted to make peace before he passes on, what bigger coup would be than for a sitting US President to shake his hand - the great imperialist aggressor recognising it had met its match in the General Secretary of the Korean Workers' Party.

Former US Ambassador the UN, John Bolton, expressed concern that Clinton's visit showed how the US could be blackmailed through its concern for its citizens caught up abroad. The Daily Telegraph fearing that this shows North Korea being rewarded for its ill behaviour - something Bill Clinon ably did as President.

You see, the DPRK-USA "Agreed Framework" under Bill Clinton was that North Korea would be supplied with energy and technology in exchange for giving up nuclear enrichment. A total of US$1.5 billion (contributed by USA, South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others) was spent on light water nuclear reactors and heavy fuel oil so that North Korea could have a nuclear power industry that did NOT produce material able to be used in nuclear weapons.

However, North Korea had its cake and ate it too. It continued uranium reprocessing, continued developing nuclear weapons AND took the technology and oil. Why did the deal happen? The Clinton Administration foolishly thought the North Korean regime would collapse after Kim Il Sung died in 1994, though the evidence for this was fairly slender. Maybe the assumption is the same now, that Kim Jong Il's death will see major change for the regime. That, at least, has more credibility.

You see Kim Il Sung had ruled North Korea with an iron fist since the country was founded in 1948, Kim Jong Il entered the public eye in 1973 and was anointed successor in 1980. Plenty of time to ensure enemies are dispatched before his father died in 1994. It hasn't quite be long enough since then for Kim Jong Un.

So, will we find out what was said between Kim and Bill? Whilst the two women have been fortunate, does this episode provide a chance to break down barriers with this antagonistic brutal regime, or does it bolster it?

Clinton gives Kim Jong Il some propaganda

After arresting two US journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, at the border with China, North Korea has been keen to extract booty from the US for their return. It now seems it has extracted a great propaganda coup, by getting Bill Clinton to meet Kim Jong Il.

The two women were arrested amid the following claims expressed by the Korean Central News Agency, which holds a monopoly on legal reporting from within North Korea:

“The investigation proved that the intruders crossed the border and committed the crime for the purpose of making animation files to be used for an anti-DPRK smear campaign over its human rights issue.”

“At the trial the accused admitted that what they did were criminal acts committed, prompted by the political motive to isolate and stifle the socialist system of the DPRK by faking up moving images aimed at falsifying its human rights performance and hurling slanders and calumnies at it” or so says the Korean Central News Agency.

The TV channel the women worked for is owned by Al Gore (it’s an internet TV channel) and Al Gore had offered to go visit, but the North Koreans refused, wanting a big hitter. So Billy has come to Pyongyang. Not the first ex. President (Jimmy Carter has been more than once), but certainly it will have a significant impact, especially now CNN is publishing images showing Clinton with Kim Jong Il.

You can already see it by the headlining of the article on the Korean Central News Agency website – which tells not of why he is visiting.

The poor women arrested and languishing in a North Korean prison of course face a grim future if not released. Their “crime” of course was to enter North Korea illegally, to report on the scandal of women trafficked to China for money.

Obviously some good will come of the visit if the women are released (without a bribe) and if anything useful can be gained from meeting Kim Jong Il (to get some sense of how well the chap is). However, Kim Jong Il will see it as more important, as Clinton is the highest profile American to visit North Korea in years.

However, one small group of sympathizers of tyranny will be upset. The Facebook group supporting the arrest of the women is here. A vile little North American retard who is either too stupid to read Orwell or too evil to embrace individual rights joins a small coterie of fools who are no better than modern day holocaust deniers.

So once Bill Clinton returns, presumably with the women he sought to recover (he can't fail, can he?) then some questions need to be asked:

1. Were the women be released at no cost to the US taxpayer? (presumably excluding the likelihood that they are already paying to fly Clinton there).
2. Did Bill Clinton ask that North Korea take major steps to reduce its oppression of its own people, in particular cease imprisoning children as political prisoners (from infants)?
3. Will the move have helped to reduce the tension on the Korean peninsula, including the risk of an aggressive war by North Korea?
4. Will Clinton's visit be likely to reinforced the current regime or help encourage liberalisation and reform?

My guess is the answers are no, no, no and reinforce the current regime.

What Obama could say

President Obama thinks saying anything will backfire, than Iranians would rather the USA just keep quiet and see what happens.

He's wrong. While I understand the initial hesitancy, the fear that a country where thousands can be rallied for anti-USA rallies, it shows a surprising reluctance to openly embrace and project the principle that the USA should be able to expound globally.

Freedom.

So he's just an idea as a speech for Obama:

The United States and Iran have many differences, but today I want to talk not of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but the people of Iran who want what we in the United States take for granted.

Freedom.

Clearly many Iranians are concerned about the conditions of the recent general election, concerns that I and many others share across the world. Free, fair and open elections are one way that people can hold governments to account and select governments, but in and of themselves they are not enough. A majority must never be allowed to vote for tyranny over a minority. You see, whatever the outcome of the election, the flame burning in the hearts and minds of many Iranians is freedom, and it is one they are risking their lives for.

Freedom to live your life as you see fit, to not be harassed by the state for your beliefs, what you wear, what books you want to read or for criticising the state. Freedom to be a human being, to think, express your thoughts, to own your life and live it, while respecting the same in others.

It is this simple basic and fundamental idea that drove millions of people across eastern Europe twenty years ago to unshackle themselves from governments that treated their people as subjects to plan, push around and run over in the pursuit of their own narrow vision. In far too many countries, government still do treat citizens as their property and a means to their own ends, rather than ends in themselves.

Iranians, like East Germans, Poles, Romanians, Indonesians, South Africans, Ukrainians, Cubans, Iraqis, Georgians and millions of others worldwide, share the desire for this basic fundamental right – to be free people. Free to be Muslims, Christians, atheists, entrepreneurs, teachers, journalists, scientists, parents or whatsoever they wish, as long as it does not harm anyone else.

It is this vision that I believe is shared by most people across the world, a common bond of humanity, for people to be themselves, not what some politician or preacher wants them to be.

So today, I say to those people in Iran who are bravely standing up, where the state is suppressing freedom of assembly or freedom of speech, that the United States supports you, and all peoples of the world that wish to break the shackles of authoritarianism from their wrists, minds, hearts and dreams.

Not because we want to control you, or make you one of us, but because we know what freedom means – our ancestors fought for freedom in this great country over 200 years ago. We know how precious it is, understand the sacrifices of those who fought for it before, as we value it as much as you do. It should be beyond debates over religion or politics.

For freedom is not simply an American value, it is a human one. The Iranian authorities clearly have the power to do great violence to those protesting for freedom, I urge them not to do so, for history tells us that the more that freedom is suppressed, the more the desire for it builds, and the harder it is for those who fall.

So while the Iranian government seeks to crudely shut down speech, debate, protest and thoughts, the means for communicating freely will remain open, with the internet, with satellite television and shortwave radio broadcasts all providing access to uncensored and open news and debate. The Iranian people will find their own way to freedom, and no violence should be done to them as they do so. History is littered with tyrants who wanted things their way – enough is enough. Let the Iranian people be.

Obama to Muslims: We share common principles

There was some criticism of President Obama choosing Egypt rather than Indonesia for his speech to the Muslim world. Indonesia has a thriving (and recently formed) open fairly liberal democracy with a free press – notwithstanding decades of US support for the Suharto autocracy. It is a far more welcoming example of a country with a high Muslim population than Egypt. Egypt by contrast is a dictatorship, admittedly with much more personal freedom than many countries in the Middle East, it is still dominated by one man, who does not tolerate much questioning of his rule.

So going to Egypt to talk to the Muslim world was perhaps a mistake. However, it is the largest Arab state, the third biggest recipient of US aid, and the first Arab state to make peace with Israel – albeit that relations remain frosty.

So what did he say? His speech in full is here, but overall I found it disappointing, with some flashes of inspiration.

There is some which is positive, reaffirming the alliance with Israel, damning those who would deny the Holocaust, criticising Israel’s continued construction of settlements on the West Bank. He talked openly about the rights Muslims have in the USA, and how their rights to freedom of worship are protected. This was a positive message, one not made often enough in the censored world of much media in the autocracies than control most of the Muslim world.

He made it clear that the USA will “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.” A critical point, but there are sadly more than enough of all faiths who believe in killing innocent men, women and children, and faiths who believe no one is innocent – Islamists who happily seek to murder any in the name of jihad or those Christians who think everyone is a sinner.

He clearly tried to reach out to moderate Islam by claiming “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” Yet surely without Islam, Al Qaeda would not exist, Hamas would not exist, in fact terrorism would be confined to far more localised actions and not united by a religion that can be used to justify waging war on non-believers. Afghanistan would be far safer if it was full of objectivists, for example! If the US is to promote peace it can do no better than to promote respect for individual rights, and to let Islam wither.

However, while Obama sought a new beginning, talking of ending a “cycle of suspicion and discord”, some of the language he uses is a cause for concern.

He wants to “fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”, which begs some obvious questions:
1. What is a negative stereotype, compared to a negative fact – i.e. when Islamic regimes employ violence against their own citizens for matters that should be free will, such as apostasy, criticising Islam, homosexuality? Who decides what is a stereotype and what isn't?
2. How does this fit in with the fundamental right of free speech in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution? Can nobody poke fun at Islam anymore? What of negative stereotypes of atheists or those of other religions?

Obama suggested that there needed to be mutual respect. Indeed there does, between individuals, and by governments of individuals. However, will Muslim states even allow people to promote other religions, eliminate apostasy as a crime and allow the promotion of atheism?

The mutual respect he calls for is based on “the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings”. Whoa hold on a minute. “America” as a political/philosophical concept is embodied in one document – the Constitution of the United States. “Islam” is embodied in the Koran, how DO they overlap?

What of those common principles? Well you can say the USA was founded to achieve justice, but the philosophical basis underpinning justice is what is important - justice in the concept of fundamental freedoms, not submission to a deity. Something that Obama carefully sidestepped away from.

The United States is based on the premise that government does not exist for God, or the rulers, but as an instrument of the people. That government exists to protect their rights, and explicitly guarantees rights of free speech, assembly, association, religion, bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to jury trial etc. etc. The fundamental underpinnings of government that protects individual rights, and has a superstructure of separation of powers, liberal democracy and government to serve the people.

Islam, the very word, has its roots in the Arabic word Aslama, meaning to “submit”. Islam demands individual submission, the USA demands the state be submissive to the rights of the individual. How different could you be?

Yes, it is possible to distil elements of Islam that would be seen compatible with individual rights, it is easy to acknowledge that in the USA Muslims are free to live their personal lives compatible with Islam, as long as they respect others to do the same. However, beyond that Islam and secular individualism ARE in competition, it is quite naive to suggest that a secular government protecting individual rights (the idea of the USA) can be compatible with an Islamic government demanding submission to Islamic law.

Obama may have been better to suggest that the values expounded by the USA are universal, apply to all individuals, and that they allow Muslims to practice their religion, and promote it, as long as they respect others to do the same. Indeed, relatively secular Egypt is in some respects a partial example. One can be Christian or atheist in Egypt relatively easily, although the law still has some elements of Sharia, and by no means is one free to criticise the government openly.

On Iran he simply wanted it to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but also talked about the abolition of nuclear weapons. Without context to that, it is a meaningless concept – and for me that context is one where all countries relate to each other more like western countries do, where the idea of military action of any kind between each other is inconceivable.

He appeared supported democracy in a more optimistic way than I would have expected “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” The freedom to live as you choose is the closest he has got to yet on individual rights, which is more than democracy – something that should be welcomed.

As is his belief that “we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.” Although what respect means is obviously a bit unclear, and sadly his further statements don’t help “No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.” Respecting the rights of minorities is NOT respecting the rights of individuals, and a spirit of compromise when it comes to individual rights is hardly tolerable. Besides, every dictatorship in recent history has talked of the interests of the people. Russia would meet this standard, and even China may claim power through consent and happily claim the rest to be true.

His words on faiths bringing people together are relatively benign, and he encouraged women having rights, which in Egypt they do have more than most states in the Middle East.

Overall, his message was clearly intended to be one of goodwill, but it falls far short of promoting the idea that Islam should only exist within a framework of individual rights. He is badly mistaken to claim overlaps between the USA and Islam, but more disturbingly to want to fight negative stereotypes about Islam – he is effectively endorsing laws to harass Danish cartoon makers, for example. His view of democracy gave enormous room to move to allow for continued repression of individual rights, as he talked only of rights for minorities – which of course can be defined by governments themselves. So the verdict? Not hopeless, but maybe 4 out of 10. Clear messages on Israel, against Holocaust denial, against terrorism and alluding to freedom are welcome, along with clarity on what rights Muslims have in the USA, but he did not have the courage to explain what the USA is about – nor did he expound democracy as being besides the point if fundamental individual rights are not respected.

Is it that Obama does not understand what the US is about, or does he simply lack the courage to explain it?

Obama sticks a finger up New Zealand

The Obama Administration, true to form, has decided to subsidise dairy exports. Given the Bush Administration sought global agreement to abolish agricultural export subsidies (and the EU - meaning the French - didn't want to), it demonstrates a great leap backwards for international trade.

Yes, all you fawning cheerleaders of the great leftwing change merchant, he's basically told the efficient dairy industry in New Zealand to go fuck itself. Federated Farmers have already responded calling the US dairy lobby a "compost heap" (which has made Lindsay Perigo smile).

Ironic that Maryan Street is calling for strong protests, because I'd put a bet that she and the rest of the Labour caucus cheered Obama's election, despite his record in supporting higher agricultural subsidies being clear.

Yes, it shouldn't surprise. The Obama Administration is no friend of free trade, which means it is no friend of the economies of other countries. It's a friend of big fat taxpayer thieving mud rolling stinking pork - change you can believe in? Yep, if you believe in subsidising inefficient producers to screw US taxpayers, and efficient dairy producers the world over.

Thanks for nothing Mr President.

Chrysler bankrupt but wait...

it's not that simple as the BBC reports

You see Chrysler isn't going bankrupt, being wound up and sold. It is Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

No.

US taxpayers will pour US$8 billion into the "new" Chrysler, to be 20% owned by Fiat, 8% owned by the US Federal Government, 55% by VEBA (union trust fund), 2% owned by the Canadian Federal Government and Ontario government jointly.

6 out of 9 member board will be appointed by the US Federal Government.

"No jobs will be lost in the short term" and No Chrysler plants in the US will close, says President Obama. So opportunities for efficiencies are where?

It already had a US$4.5 billion loan from the Federal Government.

The lesson is simple in the USA of Barack Obama - if you have a big enough business, don't worry, you wont take the consequences of bad decision making, everyone else will.

Obama's boondoggle of "fast rail"

The Obama Administration is pouring US$13 billion of money into developing a high speed passenger rail system. Sounds great doesn't it? Obama talked of how countries like Japan and France have been doing it for decades, but the US hasn't, and it is about time that it did.

Sadly this money is going to be wasted, and it isn't going to deliver anything remotely like a high speed rail system for the USA. Why?

The USA is vastly different from France, Japan, Italy, South Korea and other countries with high speed rail systems for one obvious point - size! Japan has profitably developed high speed rail because it has tens of millions of people living very short distances down densely packed corridors. With the exception of the Boston-New York-Washington DC Northeast Corridor, the distances in the US are too vast for rail to begin to compete with aviation for travel time. That rail route in itself is profitable, but sadly under the Federal Government owned AMTRAK is milked to cross subsidise other politically driven routes.

Obama's money will be bad money after bad. It wont build any high speed rail routes because it isn't enough money. The money will go to improve existing lines, at best upgrading lines as fast as the Northeast Corridor, which is nothing like lines in Japan and France. Speeds in Japan and France are In the US it is 145 km/h, in France it is 320 km/h, in Japan 300km/h. High speed rail in the US is slower than most main lines in the UK, which are at least at 160 km/h and typically faster.

Obama has basically lied that this money will deliver the US high speed rail like in those countries. A country that is far bigger will get trains less than half the speed of the countries where high speed rail works. It isn't enough money, and what it will do is next to nothing.

More importantly, rail can never be competitive with aviation over medium to long distances, and the diversity of origin/destination patterns means it wont be useful over short distances in most cases. Obama wont set it free to be profitable and slash all of the politically driven loss making routes that excite far too many members of Congress.

In short, he's wasting money on a feel good project, lying about what it will deliver and pretending it will make any noticeable change in the US economy or the environmental impacts of transport.

It's not change - it's the same failed policy of the Carter Administration on transport.

I'll leave to Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation to explain further. As Randall O'Toole says "Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees."

Aucklanders are about to get something just like that.

USA and North Korea celebrate 15 April

For Americans some are protesting it as Boston Tea Party day, a day to protest taxes, as it is the day for the final lodging of tax returns for the Federal government. A tax code that is mind numbingly complex, give the likes of lawyers and H & R Block completely unproductive jobs helping people avoid the heavy hand of the US Federal Government pursuing its number one goal - taking money off of US citizens to pay for its activities. NOTHING the US Federal Government does is pursued with such relentless threats and assuming guilt (with you having to prove innocence) like it pursues tax.

CNN reported "CNBC personality Rick Santelli went off on Obama's policies live on air. "The government is promoting bad behavior," he said, his voice loud. He asked why Obama would make Americans who pay their bills subsidize the mortgages of "losers." Santelli said he wanted a tea party to happen in Chicago, to stand up and angrily demand "No more.""

The Ayn Rand Institute explains more clearly what the problem is:

"Today, thousands of Americans are joining modern day tea parties, named after the Boston Tea Party of 1773. They are protesting a government that, in the wake of today's financial crisis, is rapidly strangling their freedom, with endless bailouts, mounting regulations, reckless spending, and the promise of a crippling tax burden. Correctly sensing that the American system is being discarded, they seek to battle this trend by taking to the streets to register their outrage.

But today's statist onslaught is the result of a deeply entrenched set of ideas about the proper purpose of government. Virtually everyone today believes that unrestricted capitalism is immoral and dangerous, and that the government's role is to actively intervene in the economy in order to achieve the "public good." So long as these ideas remain unchallenged, and no positive alternative is offered, no protest will be able to change the country's course."

That is why a moral defence of capitalism is essential.

Don't expect the man who has engaged in the biggest exercise of fiscal child abuse in world history to do much substantively about it, he is part of the problem. President Obama is promising a simpler tax code according to the Wall Street Journal:

"It will take time to undo the damage of years of carve-outs and loopholes," Obama said. "But I want every American to know that we will rewrite the tax code so that it puts your interests over any special interest."

However, his record in combatting the special interests of his party is so far nil.

SO what about North Korea? Well 15 April is the birthday of President Kim Il Sung. Yes he has been dead since 1994, making North Korea the world's first necrocracy according to Christopher Hitchens. It's a public holiday in North Korea.

Just thought it was a curious parallel.

Obama invents a new language

Drew M on Ace of Spades HQ reports that Obama said whilst in Austria “There’s a lot of -- I don’t know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics"

Yep, you'll be hearing how unwordly and ignorant the US President is now, just like when he said the car was invented in the USA, just like all the finger pointing at George. W. Bush for his gaffes.

Oh no - somehow it isn't cool to point out Obama's mistakes is it? However, many of his supporters didn't know better either.

(Hat Tip - Tim Blair)

Say no to knighting Ted Kennedy!

The execution by the "Real IRA" of two British soldiers in Northern Ireland comes days after the British government announced that Senator Edward Kennedy is to get a knighthood, for of all things, services to Northern Ireland.

How ironic.

The "Real IRA" sprayed the two soldiers with bullets, including the two men delivering pizzas to them, one of whom was a Pole. They then approached the shoulders and shot them dead on the ground.

Charming.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the sectarian barbarians say Northern Ireland is still "occupied", even though most people in Northern Ireland are glad for peace, and even had the audacity to say that targeting the two pizza delivery men in their bombing was justified because they were "collaborating". What sort of peculiar insanity is it, except the kind of warped Orwellian doublespeak to say that a couple of young men simply making a living were in some way "collaborating" with the Army.

Furthermore, whilst Gordon Brown rightfully described the incident as "evil and cowardly attacks", Sinn Fein (you know, the other IRA's political wing)'s leader Gerry Adams didn't say it was evil.

No. It was "wrong and counterproductive" and "Those responsible have no support, no strategy to achieve a United Ireland." So as the Daily Telegraph's Philip Johnston says it is about tactics, not morality. How could it be, Adams happily believed in executions and violence for decades.

So what about Ted Kennedy? Well quite simply, the Senator for many years was one of the chief agents to raise funds and moral support for the IRA. Simon Heffer describes the honour as a snub to those murdered by the IRA.

We should never forget the support granted by NORAID to the murder and violence in Ulster. Kennedy's positive role in persuading the IRA to give up terrorism is little redemption for the decades he was funding it, and was only due to Al Qaeda's actions on 9/11 which make terrorism suddenly impossible for US citizens to support.

A growing movement is against giving this hypocritical amoral lowlife any honour, see here.

Andrew Roberts in the Daily Mail gives a damning overview of the life of this scoundrel, including his reckless actions in killing Mary Jo Kopechne and being expelled from Harvard for cheating at exams.

Ted Kennedy exemplifies the worst of politics in the United States - a fraud, a thieving conniving pork barrel peddling image merchant who has supported murder and violence. A nasty piece of work if ever there was one. The last Labour government granted Nicolae Ceausescu a knighthood, which was stripped from him a day before his execution. Kennedy is no Ceausescu, but it would be nice if Gordon Brown and this Labour government remembered what an enemy to the UK that Ted Kennedy has been.

Obamaphile kiwis can go suck on...

This.

Yes the Obama administration has ceased discussions on a Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand. Of course the Green Party will be delighted, but the other parties in Parliament (with the possible exception of the Maori Party) should be disappointed.

There was little NZ media coverage when Obama supported a US$40 billion boost in agricultural subsidies back in May 2008, opposed by John McCain.

So he is playing to form, a form that too much of the fawning media ignored, because of the significance of his race. Now you're seeing that he is hardly a friend of the NZ economy, as he does not come from a background interested in free trade.

The negotiations were about a multilateral open trade deal that would include Chile, Singapore, Brunei, and hopefully reports that it is a suspension mean it is a temporary cessation.

My advice to John Key after the election that Tim Groser ought to be heading to Washington as soon as he can after the Obama inauguration can only be re-emphased.

Clint Heine expresses his disgust too.

UPDATE: The Standard ignores the Labour party (as Phil Goff was hopeful it could still proceed) and isn't disappointed at all, showing continued economic illiteracy. Apparently the Standard thinks you should be taxed for wanting to buy something that isn't Noo Zilnd made. How damned ignorant does someone living in an export dependent country have to be to oppose free trade?

Obama's second rate gift to Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown's trip to visit Barack Obama was of no great significance, but what has got the UK media talking is the disparity between the thought and imagination put into Gordon Brown's gifts to Barack Obama and his family, and what Obama gave in return.

Gifts from Gordon Brown to Barack Obama:
- an ornamental desk pen holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slavery Naval vessel HMS Gannet;
- framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to symbolise Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans;
- first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.

Barack Obama's gift to Gordon Brown:

- A 25 DVD set of classic American films including ET, Psycho and Lawrence of Arabia (barely American at all of course). The Daily Mail has the whole list.

Gifts to Malia and Sasha Obama:

- a TopShop dress for each of the daughters and matching necklace;
- Six books by British childrens' authors as yet unpublished in the USA;

Gifts to Fraser and John Brown:

- Two models of the Presidential helicopter Marine One, apparently identical to ones available on Amazon.com at US$15 each.


As Iain Martin in the Daily Telegraph says "Oh, give me strength. We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic. Even Gordon Brown will have seen those films too often already." Anyone could have compiled that gift given half an hour on Amazon.com or in a major music/DVD shop.

One suggestion is that the DVDs may even be for Region 1 NTSC format for the US, not playable on a standard DVD player in the UK, I wouldn't be surprised.

On the gift to the Browns' children, the Times suggests it was a last minute purchase "having an aide pop to the White House gift shop for a piece of merchandising does not imply a great deal of thought" and more telling that the one official photo showing Sarah Brown and Michelle Obama meeting is hardly flattering, and may indicate how frosty the exchange was.

Of course if Bush had done it, we'd (rightfully) never hear the end of it (such as when Bush gave Brown a jacket)

It's a minor gaffe, but one helluva insult to the United Kingdom and Gordon Brown. Maybe it's because the new US Administration has aides who are thoughtless and unimaginative, but for Obama to accept a series of thoughtful generous gifts from the UK taxpayer and to give something as common and meaningless as a DVD pack is in astonishingly bad taste.

Obama's deficit, spend and tax budget

So President Obama has released his budget. If you believe the hype it would be different, well I guess it is:

- US$1.75 trillion deficit. You just can't begin to imagine how big that is. 12.3% of GDP. He's going to reduce it to US$533 billion by 2013. Wont hear him talking about mortgaging children though;
- He wants to spend US$3.6 trillion, around US$25,000 per taxpayer. However he says he doesn't believe in big government;
- He wants to spend US$634 billion on a health care reserve fund, to introduce socialised health care, though you might wonder whether if every taxpayer spent that around US$2000 a head on health insurance they would be more than covered;
- He wants to increase taxes on the rich (spit on them all of course) those earning over US$250,000 to around 40%;
- He wants to cut military spending, largely as a result of withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan;
- He wants to create a cap and trade programme for CO2 emissions that the Federal government will profit from.

Change you can believe in? Or is it just change people are left with when they and their children face this monumental debt to repay? He says he doesn't believe in big government. Who is he kidding?

Obama slippery when cliched

So President Obama has done another apparently "inspiring speech". Count the cliches:

- We will rebuild, we will recover;
- What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more;
- Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here;
- Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity;
- But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater;
- History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas;
- For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.;
- For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill;
- Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our cause.

Blah blah. What REALLY is he doing? Propping up state education, subsidising the alternative energy sector and "reforming" health care. THAT's his plan. He shows NO understanding of why the economic crisis has occurred, making it an excuse to pursue his statist plans for energy, education and health.

He talks drivel about how the economic crisis occurred. "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before". So what? That didn't create the recession, the price of oil is right down again.

"The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform" It is also some of the best health care in the world, people don't languish on waiting lists and while it needs reform, he remains empty on what that means. It isn't going to be free for free.

"Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for" Indeed, but he opposes competition in the education sector.

"we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before" yes and you've cut spending and Federal debt, hang on... oh and yes all individuals are to blame aren't they, justifies anything you do.

"we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election" You mean like when you spend a fortune of future taxpayers' money to bail out businesses and "invest" in subsidies? What's this "we"?

"Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market" such as? Nice leftwing rhetoric and that's it.

"People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway" However you want to bail them all out from their stupidity yet you talk responsibility??

"I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t" However I don't mind it at all, and don't have any other solutions.

"I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships" and will do so more in the future. You're guessing.

"More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit" Generating what economic benefits? Yep you don't know do you?

"I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent." That website is so shallow it isn't funny.

" the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education" Unlike property rights, law and order, roads, services, manufacturing and primary production. Why these three? Nothing.

"Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders" Code for "I'm an economic nationalist who believes in picking winners with subsidies".

" I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America." China's laughing, Al Gore is wetting himself in onanistic frenzy in his mansion.

" I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it. None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward." Easy to spend other people's money to prop up a failed sunset industry AND claim to be an environmentalist doing it.

"an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy" I believe the phrase "his country" would be more accurate if "his" was replaced with "young" and country had only one syllable.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans" Note the term "break". As if they get out paying less than everyone else, when they pay much much more. The use of "children" to tug at heart strings.

He promises to cut spending, yet spends more. He talks of warning of protectionism, but has been caught out promoting it, and as a Senator positively voted for it. He talks about recovery, but is seeking to support the unionised federal education system, and fails to understand that government hinders growth and investment.

It's slippery, devious and it isn't change - it is a born again Carteresque socialism that believes in spending your way out of disaster, and talks about debt, without doing anything about it. He talks about avoiding earmarks, but so much of his recovery package was about propping up many Democrat cause celebres.

Obama can make a speech sound good, can plaster it with cliches that inspire the shallow personality cult followers, but behind it all should scare people. Scare them that the President thinks the crisis is about renewable energy, upgrading government schools and healthcare reform. He's so far off the mark it isn't funny, and his collectivist rhetoric should send chills down the spines of those who DON'T believe they borrowed too much, DON'T want to commit to another year of education and DON'T believe they owe anyone anything because of their existence.

UPDATE: Mark V. rightly points out in the comments that Obama's statement implying the USA invented the automobile is false, as it was invented in Germany and credited to Karl Benz. Will the left damn Obama for being ignorant and non-worldly for this mistake, as they would have thrown at Bush, or will they forgive the messiah, like he was forgiven for referring to 57 states? Of course, it will be forgotten and anyone reminding you of it in around 3.5 year's time will be treated as racist.

Obama subsidises home owners

CNN reports that the Obama Administration is going to spend US$75 billion to rescue property speculators whose mortgages are worth more than the value of their homes. Those who didn't enter the property market, or entered it more wisely, are subsidising those who were foolish, who thought the market would ever increase. Those who didn't take out mortgage repayment insurance will be subsidised by those who did.

The Obama administration is rewarding irresponsibility and poor decisionmaking by fleecing the children of those taxpayers. Moreso, he is inflating the property market, making it yet harder for new entrants to it. An administration that ostensibly cares about the cost of housing is pushing prices up for new home owners.

Change who can believe in?

President Obama said that those who would qualify are people the bank are not interested in - which of course, makes it ok to take from the general public to help them out. He said "no sale will return your investment". Well of course not, bad investments SHOULDN'T return you anything. Governments using their fiat money have supported the inflation of the property market as a ghost prosperity allowing people to borrow against their homes, and to encourage speculation for those wanting to make gains. It caused the problem and is unwilling to let the housing market deflate to its rightful level. It is willing to offer even more credit, so presumably people can engage in subsidised bargain hunting.

So Obamaphiles, hope your children are grateful they are paying more in taxes to pay the debt of property speculators. No humour in that is there?

Yes we can!

As US comedians find it hard to parody the new personality cult President, it is unclear exactly why other than sympathy, fear of being called racist or just not being imaginative.

Tim Blair in the Sydney Morning Herald asks why this is the case. However he did also find that the Japanese are laughing at him - though, admittedly, if you know Japanese this will be funnier for more than 30 seconds.





(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)