I'm not anti China

Blair Mulholland has an excellent post on how those protesting against human rights abuses in China are NOT anti-Chinese. In response to a NZ Herald report of a planned demonstration by supporters of the Chinese Communist Party authoritarian regime he said:
.
"I support China; a China with free speech, freedom of the press, and freed political prisoners, that I will also be going to Aotea Square - to protest against these people and their support for dictatorship. "
.
Good for him! I encourage all of you, across the political spectrum who believe in these fundamental rights to join him. If China was free, the Beijing Olympics would be a cause for celebration around the world - like the Olympics were in Athens, Sydney, Atlanta, Barcelona and Seoul.
.
The Chinese Communist regime is using its domestic media monopoly (protected literally at gunpoint) and substantial wealth to spread utter lies that the protests are some sort of racist anti-Chinese attack. It claims that people in the West are jealous of China's economic success, which is laughable given that China still has an average GDP per capita a fraction of that of developed countries. After all, the Olympics were held in Seoul, South Korea and people didn't protest that - because South Korea had, finally, thrown off its authoritarian regimes and dictators.

The Daily Telegraph reports on websites set up in China to boycott Western companies like KFC and Carrefour (French supermarket chain), and the absurd "anti-CNN" site. Given CNN does not broadcast freely in China (the government there blanks out anything it doesn't like) it is bizarre for anyone to claim that Chinese people in China actually can know what the Western media says. Free speech is unknown in China as is a free press, but hey it's "anti-China" to expect the Chinese people to have these privileges.

You'll notice the anti-CNN website is itself rather bigoted because those who disagree are "ignorant Westerners", a post it attacked was quite reasonable in pitying those who only get the Chinese government side of the story. He also noted, imagine if Chinese created an anti-CCTV website in China. No. The naive are being led astray, and the mighty forces of those who have a vested interest in the Chinese Communist Party are fighting free speech.

Chinese Ambassador to the UK Fu Ying continues the claim that China is being demonised by the Western media. No. India doesn't get demonised, and it is big, a nuclear power and growing fast. That is because Indians have free speech, free press and liberal democracy. She reasonably said:

"Coming to China to report bad stories may not be welcomed but would not be stopped, as China is committed to opening up.

China is far from perfect and it is trying to address the many problems that do exist. It would be helpful to the credibility of the Western media if the issues they care and write about are of today's China, not of the long-gone past."

Fine. How about letting the Chinese people speak up? How about letting them express openly their concerns about government policy, about corruption, about crime, about pollution? How about NOT executing or imprisoning people who disagree with you?

China has gone a long way since the dark days of Mao - I endorse it and I like China. China has reincorporated Hong Kong and it remains a fantastic example of what China could be. Taiwan itself is very much also a great example. You see civilisation does NOT mean using force against those who disagree with you. Civilisation does NOT mean providing aid, trade and support for those who murder (regimes in Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe being some of China's friends with much blood on their hands).

That's what I want to see from China. I want a China as a world power that is open, that has a vibrant free press and media, that unleashes the dynamism of the Chinese people to disagree, argue and be open among themselves. To do this, the Communist Party has to accept criticism, it has to separate the state and the party, and it has to fight hard to make the Chinese judicial system independent.
.
Is someone who wants this for China anti-Chinese? Sadly even CNN still reports some protests as being "anti-Chinese". Is it any surprise that when that phrase is used that Chinese people get upset?
.
I hope those who protest in Australia do not just protest for Tibet, as important as that is - this should be about China's own domestic freedoms and China's support for murderous regimes elsewhere. I also hope that Chinese who don't support the Communist regime are not scared by those waving People's Republic of China flags.
.
Remember when those who say they are pro-Chinese wave the flag of Chairman Mao, they are waving the flag that represents over half a century of political repression, torture and murder. The Communist Party is not China.

Hillary wins but for what?

Hillary Clinton's win in Pennsylvania is seen by her as showing there is life in her campaign - she won by just enough to remain credible. Perfect from the point of view of someone who doesn't want her OR Obama to win. The left leaning New York Times has widely been reported as describing her campaign as "even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it..... It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

Ouch. The New York Times endorsed her before too.

It hits out at Obama as well "Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign....When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience."

Indeed.

However Hillary has worked her life for this. She is so hungry for power that she wont give in. It is fundamentally disturbing how hungry for power she is. She lies, she evades and pretends to be who she is not. She is strong on foreign policy, but weaker on trade and advocates a grand programme of growing the federal government, with tax increases. She is an electoral liability to the Democrats, which is why so many Republicans can't wait to have her as the candidate. Nothing will get the Christian right, who do not see McCain as their great ally, out to vote like keeping Hillary out of power. If the Democrats are stupid enough to let her win the candidacy then may they reap what the sow.

ALPURT toll road might not be viable

According to the NZ Herald, the Order in Council approving tolling on the motorway extension from Orewa to Puhoi has been amended, in that the Minister no longer needs to be satisfied as to the financial viability of it as a toll road.
.
It is not a surprise for two reasons.
.
First, ALPURT has been green-plated. Transit deliberately increased the cost of the project because it believed that if a toll road is built it should be of better quality than the similar untolled road. It put a tunnel in where a gully would have done the same job, and made it all four lanes instead of four and three lanes (the latter makes sense, but the tunnel was green-plating). This is even though the toll on ALPURT wouldn't actually pay for the full cost or even more than half of the cost of the road. A road that once was costed by Transit at just over $90 million in 1999 is now $360 million. Part of that is inflation, part of that is the inflation of the contracting sector due to the government spending up large on roads.
.
Second, the tolling of ALPURT was politically driven. Transit sought a whole programme of toll roads to be built, including the Tauranga Harbour Link. These would share the cost of the back office and billing systems to operate tolling (which is to be fully electronic free flow with no toll booths). Now with only one and Transit having funding to build the toll system for a whole set of roads, it isn't quite the economies of scale of transactions Transit had hoped. You might think it is odd that road users pay for the cost of building a tolling system, after all shouldn't a tolling system pay for itself? Yes, good question. One that hasn't been properly answered.
.
So you see when road users finally pay to use ALPURT as a toll road, they will be using a road other road users have paid for too. Yes every motorist paying fuel tax and road user charges is paying for a road that they have NO right to use. Interesting that. It would be fine if the fuel tax and road user charges used to pay for ALPURT equalised those used by the people USING the road, but this is a subsidised toll road, green-plated for political reasons.
.
Will it work? Will it be well used and popular? Will it be empty with people not wanting to pay to use it? or will many use it, fail to pay and face unpopular penalties for not paying a couple of dollars? We can only hope that the new Land Transport Agency - a big government bureaucracy can make it work. Bureaucracies are good at customer service after all....

Future of petrol tax?

Here's a thought. Bearing in mind the report in Stuff today about regional fuel tax being rethought, should the way people pay for roads move away from fuel tax?
.
At the moment diesel vehicles pay for road use through road user charges. Now there are some problems with it, but it means you pay directly for the distance you travel. You pay more by weight so the more damage you cause the road, the more you pay. However the system used in New Zealand, while once revolutionary, is being superseded in other countries by an electronic system that allows charging by time and place.
.
Now there are plenty of governance issues that ought to be resolved first. For starters who sets the charges and where does the money go. Charges should be set on a reasonably economically efficient basis, to make a commercial return on running roads - and the money should go to road companies. However I don't want to focus on that for now... but on the technology and the practicality of it all.
.
Tolls sound like a useful option, but they are really only practical on crossings or motorways which have few alternatives. So that in itself is no solution except for maybe the occasional road - Auckland Harbour Bridge could be tolled and that could pay for another crossing which could be tolled too, for example.
.
Congestion charging is more useful, but again you have to be careful how it is applied. It could replace rates funding for cities, but shouldn't be used to pay for public transport. Public transport users should pay for that. If done well, congestion charging can reduce delays and mean road users are paying to use scarce road space. However London is not the way to do it for New Zealand.
.
Longer term it would be better if everyone had the option of road user charges, in an electronic form. The first step would be changing the current road user charging system to vary by location, weight and time (if only night and day), so that trucks and diesel cars would pay closer to the costs of using different types of roads - motorways, urban streets, lightly sealed rural roads and unsealed roads. It would also improve enforcement and mean trucks pay according to route, like trains have been. More accurate charging of trucks, buses and diesel cars wouldn't be a bad thing, especially if the money was better linked to the cost of maintaining and building roads. The second step is to offer it to all other vehicles. You pay by distance and road you're on, and you get a fuel tax refund - a full fuel tax refund (including the GST on fuel tax).
.
Meanwhile fuel tax can continue to increase, but more and more people would move off of fuel tax onto road user charges, because they would vary only according to what was needed to maintain and upgrade roads. There would also be a change as to how road improvements were funded, because it could be linked directly to money raised from road users on that road. No longer could improvements be made on empty roads, and improvements on busy roads would be less likely to be delayed.
.
However there is little sign Labour wants to move away from fuel tax, in wanting to introduce regional fuel taxes for petrol and inexplicably, diesel (for which half is not even used on the roads). National in 2005 supported moving from rates, motor vehicle license fees and fuel tax towards tolls and road user charges.
.
Can National get this right? Does it want some help?

40 years since the Wahine

New Zealand's biggest shipping disaster in recent history happened 40 years ago on 10 April. Patrick Dunford's blog reports on the details surrounding that tragedy. It was in the twilight years of the Wellington-Lyttelton ferry service on the long gone Union Steam Ship Company. I remember being taught vividly about this at school in Wellington, it left quite a mark on people in Wellington around at the time.
.
The Wahine, along with Tangiwai and Erebus, was one of the three major transport disasters since World War 2. They all seemed to show how small New Zealand's population was (and still is) in that so many knew someone or knew someone who knew someone who was part of it. Indeed, today you can't take a ferry from Wellington to Lyttelton, or an overnight train from Wellington to Auckland or take a sightseeing flight from Christchurch to Antarctica.

Broadband Think Big - so where is the demand?

Well as David Farrar posts there has been a lot of positive about National's proposal to make you pay for a network you may never use. Even some snarking from the left, which of course means nothing, because as Owen McShane pointed out on Kiwiblog - Labour (and the Greens) want to pour over a billion dollars of your money into public transport that hardly anyone will use, and which will lose money and make hardly a dent on congestion in Auckland.
.
So in some ways you can see that spending $1.5 billion on broadband makes more sense that on railways. No study asserts that Auckland rail improvements will generate new income or even generate net economic benefits.
.
However, it is important to remember Telecom's (ha!) network of twisted copper pairs is not the only telecommunications network to many homes in the country. In Christchurch and Wellington (including the Hutt Valley and Kapiti, but not Porirua except a small part of Whitby) almost all homes have access to, not fibre to the kerb but the next best thing - a hybrid fibre coax network. What this means is that fibre optics provide the backbone, but this is broken out into networks for streets with coaxial cable, which is far higher capacity than twisted copper.
.
This network is TelstraClear's and it sells cable TV services and highspeed broadband over that network. In Christchurch it offers 25 Mbps, and 10 Mbps in Wellington.
.
So I want to ask, given TelstraClear isn't the majority provider of broadband in either major city, given it is technologically more advanced than current ADSL services, why aren't Wellington and Christchurch enjoying the rapacious economic "boom" promised by National?
.
Meanwhile, the reaction from other parties is instructive:
.
ACT has actually shown some principles and argued that (funnily enough) it is Think Big all over again (gee who said that first?) . Rodney Hide said:
.
Who will invest now, when National is promising one or other company a $1.5 billion investment subsidy?.... Telecommunications has suffered hugely from government-induced risk and an uncertain regulatory environment. National has thrown the existing regulatory framework back into chaos.... It’s 'Think Big' all over again, with John Key 'picking winners' in an industry remarkable for its innovation. He has set an arbitrary goal of 75 percent "Fibre to the Home" by 2014 with no clear analysis of the costs and benefits. And it's a backward step for competition in the industry as the $1.5 billion subsidy will deliver a state-sponsored monopoly."
.
Indeed Rodney, well done, although he didn't explicitly say ACT rejects it, it was as good as doing so. Naturally Libertarianz rejects it out of hand.
.
NZ First is just stupid saying National wants to do a deal with Telecom. It's almost as if its geriatric voters don't understand the idea of open access or competition. Nonsense that home phones are dear (with unlimited free calling) and cellphones are expensive is just plain old fashioned pig ignorance.
.
Peter Dunne likes it, but then he worships the cargo cult of Transmission Gully - another $1 billion waste of money that needs general taxpayers to prop it up. He funnily said ACT "delivered a standard libertarian rant", ah we can dream Peter. You deliver the standard "government should spend other people's money" rant.
.
So I do wonder, should National sacrifice Transmission Gully in favour of transmitting broadband? Or should it just remember whose money it is?
.
Oh and for all the arguments about lifting GDP - here's one, for National - cut spending and cut taxes! That means company tax at 20% not 30%, the top tax rate not at 39% but at 20%... it means New Zealand being attractive for investors, businesspeople and professionals.
.
It's called the level playing field - you might even find telecommunications investment increases then.

John Key's Thinking Big

eh heh heh heh, well done John Boy. I can almost hear Sir Robert Muldoon chortling away. National's gone back to the 1970s. Welcome back the words "subsidies"and "state socialism" all shrouded in the word "investment". It's revolting.

.

For a while now I’ve hoped that given I will dance merrily when Labour loses office, I’ll relax knowing that a National government led by John Key will do a little better. This is even though the list of things that could be better has shrunk on a weekly basis.
.
National was once the party of big government investment into infrastructure. Many wont remember the age when oil was at record prices and that the economy was being strangled by the threat of disrupted oil supplies and inadequate electricity.
.
So came Think Big- a phrase that lives in infamy for anyone with economic rationalism in their veins.
.
Taxpayers paid for a gas to gasoline plant at Motunui. I remember how Rob Muldoon and Bill Birch cheered it on, saying it would produce half of the country’s petrol. By the time it was completed, it was reportedly cheaper to convert all vehicles in NZ to CNG and LPG. The cost of building it was written off as government debt before Petrocorp was sold. The plant is no longer in operation. One wonder if the public would have paid for gas conversion kits themselves if the government of the day didn’t have marginal tax rates approaching 66%. However, central planning lost.
.
Central planning lost again when, after years of badgering by the Railways Department, the National government decided to approve the Railways borrowing to electrify the central part of the North Island Main Trunk railway (Hamilton to Palmerston North). Apparently the export boom of the late 1970s had strangled the capacity of the line (which through that segment is particularly steep and windy) and electrification would allow longer and faster freight trains. NZ$350 million was the final cost of electrification. However whilst it seemed a good idea at the time of high oil prices, another move by the same government eliminated the capacity problem. You see the railways had a capacity problem whilst having a legislated monopoly on almost all freight consigned for distances of over 150km. So in 1983 that monopoly was removed, and funnily enough the railways lost about 18% of its freight tonne-kilometres carried relatively quickly. Problem solved. Furthermore having corporatised the railways (Labour didn’t start it), the newly business like Railways Corporation had a study undertaken which demonstrated it had enormous scope to cut costs and increase productivity, through measures like eliminating guards vans. So more could be carried without pouring concrete and stringing up wires. That same corporation commissioned the then Coopers and Lybrand to investigate if the electrification could be an economic investment, but it concluded it would lose money even if electricity were free.
.
As a result of that the Labour government of the time bailed out the Railways Corporation (for the first time since its creation) by taking over the entire debt for the electrification. It is notable that the sale price of New Zealand Railways on privatisation roughly equated to that debt. Another failure for central planning.
.
So now the National Party thinks it knows best again announcing that it is forcing YOU to pay NZ$1.5 billion to “invest” in a broadband “fibre to the kerb” network. This will be one of the biggest handouts to an industrial sector since Think Big. The term “invest” is thrown about with abandon by politicians who want to use your money, after all “spend” is honest but sounds less worthwhile, “subsidise” is more honest but it’s a bad word. So it’s invest. I’m sure we can all come up with things that we’d like to force others to “invest in”. Of course unlike roads, this network wont reach virtually every property now, will it? You'll all pay though!
.
So what is this all about? Well besides all the hype about generating jobs and investment (yes heard it all about Think Big too, and Jim Anderton hyped it up about his own Ministry of Economic Subsidisation), Key says this new socialist programme (which it is) involves five principles:

- The network being open-access (like the roads, and every peak period in Auckland you see how that works);
- ensuring the investment does not see already-planned investments cut back (of course not, after all the government building a network in competition to your own, or one you could use instead of building one. Why would it? Of course it will, we’ve already seen how local loop unbundling killed Telstra Clear’s investment programme in hybrid fibre-coax broadband/cable tv networks);
- ensuring increased broadband services (meaningless. It’s like saying I hope building this road means more freight and people get moved); and
- making sure we do not end up lining the pockets of incumbent industry players (ohh the “boot into Telecom” point. No, you’ll line the pockets of the contractors who build it and whoever has the job to manage it. You see they wouldn’t have had to do it unless you’d taken money off of other people and forced them to pay for this.
.
So it’s time to ask some questions:
.
1. What would happen to broadband services if this DIDN’T happen? Wouldn’t those who would benefit immensely from it continue to buy existing services creating a market for new infrastructure?

2. Has Labour’s socialisation of Telecom’s local loop hindered and will it continue to hinder private sector investment in alternative broadband technologies? If so, wouldn’t it be wiser to let Telecom make money out of its own network and for competitors to build duplicate ones? (hey if its such a great investment it will happen wont it? If it’s not why are taxpayers paying?)

3. What other barriers exist to private sector roll out of broadband, such as the RMA and local authority preciousness about overhead wiring?

4. Who would run this broadband network, what happens if it goes wrong? Will it charge to make a commercial return on investment?

5. Why is telecommunications so special it needs a massive subsidy from the rest of the productive sector?

6. Are those who will benefit from faster broadband willing to pay for this, and if not, why should everyone else do so?

7. What could the rest of the productive sector do if the money, that was their’s in the first place, was handed back to them in tax cuts?

8. Why shouldn’t software, fruit growers, painters, watchmakers, publishers, plumbers, taxi firms, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms, caterers, hoteliers etc etc get a handout too?
.
Finally, John Key’s claim that “One hundred and fifty years ago the government had the vision to build railways and highways to facilitate the movement of goods” is nonsense. There were no railways in New Zealand 150 years ago for starters, the first was opened in the 1860s but construction didn’t really take off till the 1890s. Some were built by private enterprise, such as the line from Wellington to Palmerston North, and much of the line through Arthurs Pass. Many of the railways built were marginal and served, well nowhere. Noticed Waikaia, Waikaka, Eyreton or Tokarahi on the list of great booming towns? No – they were all lines built for political reasons, to prop up land prices and win elections. The government funded railways were actually primarily funded by local and provincial governments, as were the roads. Central government had little to do with it. Local governments did this as they could raise money from land released for sale and developed. There was no such thing as national highways until 1922.
.
So there you have it. Will ACT resist this Think Big attempt to bribe the IT sector? David Farrar, as always liberal on most things, is singing the praises of this enormous handout to the sector he is involved in, rather disappointingly.
.
After all, is the telecommunications sector so strapped for cash that it can’t invest? If it is a matter of wont rather than can’t then why not ask why rather than make everyone else step in?

Greens want something else banned

Stuff reports now plastic baby bottles...

yawn.... Sue Kedgley says "Scientists do not know what levels are safe and what levels are not," she said. Much like governments, water, butter and most things.

please, someone put together a list of everything the Greens want to ban or make compulsory, and then the one of everything they want to REMOVE regulations for....

Seriously - the cryptofascist Green party is the new statist party of the country. So illiberal it isn't funny - Sue Kedgley IS Nanny of Nanny State. Even more than Helen Clark.

Ken friends with advocate of domestic violence

For all of the excuses that the left can make about Ken Livingstone's left wing affiliations, nothing tops how utterly repulsive is him embracing the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The Daily Telegraph reports that Qaradawi described "homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating in certain circumstances".

.

He also was reported as advocating the use of Palestinian children as suicide bombers and "once claimed that Asian tsunami victims were punished by Allah because their countries were centres of perversion".

.

Funny friend to have when you go around the gay community talking about minority rights. He was an "honoured guest" of City Hall, and Livingstone's excuse is that he "doesn't support Al Qaeda" or terrorism against the West. However he does support terrorism against Israel, and he does support men bashing their wives and would happily see homosexuals oppressed.

.

It's quite vile, and of course that means Muslims 4 Ken cheer him on. However, it is one thing to talk to Muslims and respect their right to live in London peacefully, another to tolerate a man who advocates violence. Muslim votes don't depend on you embracing those who embrace violence Ken - or if they do, then something is sadly wrong with the London Muslim mainstream!

Chavez - subsidiser of the rich

Those on the left whose collective tongues are felching the legacy of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's wannabe dictator should pause for thought with his latest venture - subsidising movies made by Hollywood stars who are also sycophants for authoritarian socialism. Danny Glover, Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn and Harry Belafonte are all receiving this. Chavez is spending £9 million on films made by Hollywood stars - five times the Venezuelan film sector's annual budget.

.

This follows his earlier gifting of cheap diesel to Transport for London courtesy of Ken Livingstone to subsidise London buses.

.

So socialism is about... subsidising the richest city in the world and the richest actors in the world.... great!

.

Such a hero of the poor

Hillary Clinton's odious campaign

Camille Paglia, celebrated post-feminist, has written in the Sunday Telegraph as to why women should not support Hillary Clinton. Some of the best quotes are:

.

"Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark."

.

"In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform."

.

"The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights"

.

having said that, she will lose and the blame that will attributed is that the USA is sexist, it will be so much noise that the truth will be somewhat lost:

.

"If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon."

.

Add that to Christopher Hitchin's damning indictment of her in Slate, and you really do wonder, why do the Democrats tolerate this continuing?

.

She is a vile, calculating, power hungry fake. She would rather Obama lose against McCain than win, and the idea anyone can trust or believe this shell of a human being is beyond me. Why would ANYONE cheer her on - except, of course, Republicans?

Africa has to get over colonialism

At last the Sunday Times reports that the African Union has called for some action over Zimbabwe, if only for the election results to be released. It has been the depressing legacy that those who govern Africa have not wanted to be accountable to the world, or each other, or even their own populations. Thabo Mbeki's disgraceful legacy is one of death and complicity with murder in Zimbabwe. Fortunately both a trade union and the South Africa court system have some sense of right and wrong. In what seems to be the most moral action by any waterfront union I've ever known, South Africa's watersiders refused to unload the Chinese ship of arms destined for Zimbabwe, and a court ordered the ship to leave South African waters. I needn't mention how China continues to act internationally to provide sustenance and the means to murder to murderers - that is worth protesting more than Tibet, but I digress.

.

Colonialism was the first and perhaps one of the only major movements that the UN advocated in its early history - colonialism was a "bad" through and through, so colonial regimes were deemed bad and post-colonial ones "good". Sadly far too many of Africa's post colonial governments have been any advance over their predecessors. The legacy of Idi Amin, Bokassa, Mobutu and Nyerere range from murderous to simply incompetent. Mugabe has followed the spectrum starting with incompetence and moving to the murderous.

.

However he is seen by African leaders for being a hero, for fighting the racist Ian Smith regime. This neglects that even South Africa's racist apartheid regime stop providing support to Rhodesia in the latter years - something South Africa's government wont do now for Zimbabwe. However colonialism is over. Long over. Africans are not let down by the West half as much as they are let down by their own governments - government which, in many cases, are simply legalised gangs of kleptocrats who barely maintain a semblance of authority.

.

Zimbabwe's coming weeks could cover Africa with glory in how it responds or show it to be impotent in the face of murder and tyranny - Africa has managed Kenya with some success from the brink of disaster, it is time to exit Mugabe and his Zanu-PF Mafia immediately. They disgrace Africa and Africans. So much is happening in Zimbabwe, with people killed, and Times correspondent Jonathan Clayton tells of his ordeal in Zimbabwe.

.

Is the 21st century going to be characterised by acquiescence in the face of tyranny that could so easly be defeated?

Domestic violence

Cactus Kate has an elegant solution for women wanting to avoid hooking up with men who will hit them, but I would add a couple of points:

- Odds are in some communities finding the man who wont hit you is tricky. The answer is to leave, you are better than those that hit you, or those who tolerate being hit;

.

- If you have kids and he hits you then you should seriously consider leaving. Seriously, if you saw your mother hit when you grew up ask yourself if you want your kids seeing the same, or even worst risking the same. If you don't think this is right then you don't deserve your kids. The first duty of any parent is to protect your children.

.

Think, if only women were treated as empowered, not as victims, to tell violent men to fuck off, to not have sex with them, to not breed with them.

.

Sounds too simple? Too easy? Well it already happens, a lot - it needs to happen more. Imagine if it did... Imagine if no mother let her child be raised in a home with a violent man.

Mike Williams has got to go

According to the NZ Herald, he advocated using taxpayer funded resources to campaign for the Labour Party - in other words he thought it was a "good idea" for the separation between state and governing party to be blurred.

.

The blogosphere is pulling him apart, David Farrar doing a better job than most.

.

Helen Clark rejected the idea, it is time for Williams to lie down on the sword and go. He has too many roles in too many government agencies that make his position in ALL of them untenable. This is his record:

- Board member of Transit New Zealand;

- Board member of Ontrack (New Zealand Railways Corporation);

- Board member of Genesis Energy;

- Board member of Auckland Regional Transport Authority;

- Director of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd.

.

It should be beyond question that the President of the governing party should not be advocating a blatantly corrupt practice. He is not fit to be on the board of any government agency, and for good measure should resign as Labour President. Those who question this can't point a finger at Zimbabwe or any other country without being hypocrites.

London mayoral race doesn't inspire

I've never understood those passionate about local government. The world of sewerage, rubbish collection, footpaths, planning, bylaws, parking and strategic visions is far from inspiring. In fact whilst many of these activities are respectable businesses, the deathly bureaucratic insipidness of how local government loves to govern should send shivers down the spine of any person who has a sense of life. I'm not saying there aren't good people in local government, sadly local government dominates some sectors so that professionals in those sectors have few other places to work - roads being one. However, those who get excitement about the potential for local government to make people's lives better are really deluded and possibly ill. Local government is perhaps the least accountable layer of government there is. It generates the lowest electoral turnout, it almost always attracts people of modest achievement compared to national politics and by and large most of what it does is so tedious that only in particularly egregious cases of incompetence does it get media coverage.

.

So in one respect the lack of coverage of any aspects of the English local body elections this year is a blessing - it shows how little time most people have for it. The only contest of interest is the London Mayoralty. One aspect of UK local elections is how national politics is replicated at the local level in that Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all contest such elections, and by and large, local results reflect national polling. So this time round Labour is worried, and the prize of London is coveted by the Conservative Party.

So this is why Boris Johnson was selected. Who else could the Tories choose to defeat the self promoting ego-centric Ken Livingstone than the entertaining quick witted Boris Johnson, known for having his foot in his mouth more often than not, but by and large well loved for being a comedian. Boris's wit and general congenial character means he is a chap likely to give the Mayoralty a good shot, although some of his embarrassing past remarks have seen him be carefully stage managed, rather sadly. Livingstone on the other hand has, pretty much, seemed like a grumpy old sod who thinks he is the centre of all that is special about London, whilst he largely ignores a lengthy set of claims about the use of public resources to campaign and the waste of money by his self selected dubious advisors.

.

For me I simply want Livingstone defeated. He is a ghastly little man who still blames poverty on Margaret Thatcher, is sycophantic towards leftwing dictators like Castro and happily pours money down nonsense such as "city embassies" in Caracas, Beijing and Delhi. His ambition to gain London the Olympics is seeing a monumental waste of taxpayers' money on managing it all, and granting the construction sector a massive windfall. Londoners and UK citizens may wonder how much money would be available to them all in taxes if London had abandoned this folly. A vastly overcrowded city with creaking infrastructure and a booming tourist sector doesn't need the Olympics - but it's a fait accompli I'm afraid. Livingstone has promised all sorts of socialist nonsense from free tube trips at peak times for pensioners, to his enormous public housing campaign. He has nothing good to add, and his attitude to corruption allegations (throwing the word racist at opponents) should seal his fate. Yet Boris Johnson's good qualities - wit and humble determination to do his bet, aren't quite enough to get me excited. I'll rather cheer the end of Ken than have solace with Boris.

.

Take one area I DO know. Transport. It is rather hard to tell the two apart except on a couple of points. Boris doesn't like articulated or "bendy" buses, rather passionately. About the only reason to hate them is how they've become the free buses of much of London, as one notices hooded youth tending to enter by the back doors and not flashing Oyster cards to pay. Ken saw them introduced. Ken wants to convert the congestion charge into a punitive tax on big cars, Boris wont. However there is no serious challenge to the status quo. Both oppose a third runway at Heathrow Airport, although clearly there is the demand from travellers. Neither advocate doing anything substantial for roads, although London has perhaps the worst developed arterial road network of any major Western city. London's bus network costs over a billion pounds a year in subsidies, is dirt cheap to users and most buses run with very few passengers on a per km basis. The tube is costing a fortune to recover from years of public sector underinvestment, yet it doesn't cost seriously more while it is overcrowded than at other times. Meanwhile Ken pursues expensive but low impact projects like the East London line extension, whilst renationalising maintenance and management of two thirds of the tube!

.

A lot could be done, but Boris doesn't want to rock the boat. He is waiting for Ken to lose, although he does advocate confronting the transport unions and fighting petty crime. That and being more spendthrift would be nice. However Boris is no Thatcher, he wont cut spending and council tax, he wont privatise what London needs privatising. London will continue to make money from the City and tourists, while bleeding elsewhere and subsidising half of its population and most of the UK, whilst having pitiful infrastructure that barely keeps up. It could be so much better, but socialist Britain wont hear of it.

TAP Air Portugal? 3 stars

I recently flew TAP Air Portugal for the first time, London to Lisbon return, in scum class. No I didn't expect much, and neither should you. Portugal is a nice country, the people are lovely, the airport at Lisbon was better than many, but the airline could do with some polishing. I've reviewed it on my travel blog, which will now include flights and hotels that I experience and think you should know about. The verdict? BA's better - although at least my luggage turned up.

UN “experts” with vile credentials

The reputation of the United Nations is, for most I dare say, one of morality, peace and even handedness. Yet the UN more often than most know appoints so called experts who, in any sane interpretation, would be considered cranks. The sort of people who should be standing on a street corner with a cup whilst they blast out their unhinged nonsense.
.
David Aaronovitch writes about two of them in The Times. Professor Richard Falk, once Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University (I remember reading some of his articles when I was at university) has been appointed expert on Israel by the UN Human Rights Council. Remember this same council selects the likes of Cuba and Libya to be on it to judge the human rights of others. Imagine an organisation of convicted child abusers advising on how children should be protected. It is that hypocritical, that despicable and that fraudulent.
.
As Aaronovitch writes, Falk himself has taken to comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Falk believes “suicide bombers appeared as the only means still available” for the Palestinian “struggle” to go on. Falk also has written a chapter in a book called “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out”, a book authored by David Ray Griffen. The book talks of how no plane ever flew into the Pentagon and how the World Trade Centre came down by a “controlled demolition” (though how they explain the two airliners flying into it is a little harder).

Of course the UN would give this intellectual with some severe problems a job.

Aaronovitch also writes about how the Swiss government convinced the Human Rights Council to appoint Professor Jean Ziegler to its advisory committee. Professor Ziegler has defended Mengistu, the former Ethiopian dictator who was responsible for the famines in the 1980s (Ethiopia once exported food until Mengistu collectivised the farms), Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and Muammer Gaddafi.

However, given Switzerland’s proud history of sitting courageously on the fence being bankers to the Nazis whilst Europe burnt around it, I don’t expect a great deal from the Swiss. Being neutral in what was the defining war between good and evil (and evil and evil) in the 20th century is indifference to evil.

.
The UN of course is not indifferent to evil, just hypocritical beyond words. Of course it was created after World War 2 to stop another such war. However, imagine what harm it would have done if it had existed in advance of that. Would it have stopped the Nazi goosestepping advance across Czechoslovakia, then Poland? Would it have stopped the Japanese empire, which had already enslaved Korea advancing its racist brutal dictatorship along the Chinese coast, past Indochina and in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies? Hardly. Of course a review of the UN would only expose that it is fully constrained by appealing to the majority of states, which are typically quite corrupt and power hungry, and by not offending Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, two of which – China and Russia have been held predominantly by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes since the UN was formed. So the UN is the sum of its members, and many of its members are morally dubious, and some quite evil indeed. However that is another story.

.

You see some see the UN as being a repositary of virtue in international relations, or some authority that should be listened to or respected. However, it is none of the sort. The most recent appointments of an "expert" on Israel who is a conspiracy nutter, and an advisor on human rights who sympathises with Robert Mugabe continue to deny it any real claim to morality. Until the UN or its member states unite against such repulsive individuals having any role within it, it will remain a place where those who are great achievers and those who cheer on murderers are treated the same. Anyone who looks to that for inspiration or guidance will surely be lost.

Maori party's despicable sophistry

A chap who shares part of my name has posted on SOLO about the Maori Party's attempt to place criminal gang members on the same level as Jews in Germany in the 1930s.

.

The Maori Party has had a free run, because of the rather vacuous notion that it is difficult to criticise a party that attempts to define itself as being of a people rather than a philosophy. Except it IS a philosophy. It is nationalism, collectivism and with the possible exception of Pita Sharples on a good day, morally dubious. It has a highly privileged position in having part of Parliament defined on the same basis as it defines itself.

.

Having said that, who doubts that, if he believes he needs to, John Key will sell out his principles and policies to the Maori Party for power. Actually sorry he wont do that anymore than I can sell out my ownership of the Isle of Man.

Mbeki and China accessories to Mugabe's bloodshed

As despicable as Robert Mugabe's despotic machinations are to cling to power, steal and prop up his blood thirsty cronies, whilst bulldozing the bodies of ordinary Zimbabweans into the dust, a close second comes to his buddy - Thabo Mbeki - not an appeaser but a partner in the crimes against Zimbabwe. Mbeki by rights, should be persona non grater in international circles. However, South Africa at the moment chairs the UN Security Council, which doesn't particularly surprise me. After all, when Libya gets selected to go on the Human Rights Council it confirms the moral vacuousness of the UN, which has the moral heights of its lowest member.

.

The UN, after all, including the People's Republic of China, repeatedly condemned apartheid as an hienous system - not hesitating to comment or pass resolutions regarding the internal affairs of South Africa - but not Zimbabwe.

.

So Gordon Brown's call for "the world" to stop Mugabe stealing his election finally shows some backbone, supported by France. China regards this as an "internal matter", but then again China is far from the world's repositary of moral authority. Mbeki chaired the UN Security Council meeting where Brown made this call, and did not mention Zimbabwe. Mbeki despicable betrayal of Zimbabwe seen by his reported "snub" of Brown afterwards and condemnation of "loud diplomacy". Of course loud diplomacy was fine under apartheid - but Mbeki presumably supports the halving of life expectancy, the murders, the electoral fraud, or he insanely believes his wealthy thug of a friend that it is all a conspiracy. This may explain it, given Mbeki's retarded views on AIDS and HIV, he may simply be an idiot who is friends with a bullying fraudster.

.

Mbeki's role as "mediator" for Zimbabwe is completely ridiculous. It would be like appointing Mussolini to mediate between the Nazis and the Jews. Morgan Tsvangarai has called for Mbeki to stand down in this role - it is critical that this gets widespread support. Mbeki is known for believing AIDS isn't caused by HIV, but by poverty. This ludicrous notion has undoubtedly killed many South Africans who believed that, with HIV, they could act with impunity.

.

He says claims of serious violent crime are exaggerated, apparently 50 murders a day - the second highest rate in the world, isn't bad enough for Thabo Mbeki. Perhaps 100 a day, well apparently Zimbabwe's death rate isn't an issue. He is a quiet man who not only is in denial about his own countries biggest problems (AIDS, crime and now electricity shortages), but is an accessory to murder and a constitutional coup by Mugabe and his Zanu-PF thugs. South Africa's post-apartheid moral leadership of the continent has been lost because of its siding with one of the continents biggest living kleptocratic thugs. It is complete evasion to claim, as Guardian columnist Blessing-Miles Tendi does that this is about South Africa respecting state sovereignty and non-intervention - South Africa is intervening, it choses to let constitutional law in its neighbour to proceed. It treats and warmly embraces the man undertaking it - Thabi Mbeki is embracing a murdering tyrant, and that makes him only one step better.

.

Meanwhile the latest step is China - as it seeks to claim the moral highground over the Olympics- is now shipping arms to Zimbabwe, as a Chinese ship has docked in Durban South Africa for transhipment to Zimbabwe. If you wanted another reason to oppose the Beijing Olympics, then enjoy noting that while Zimbabweans starve, Zanu-PF, the army and the police can put them out of their misery with Chinese made arms. Of course, South Africa wont stop the arms shipment will it?

Helen Clark defends Winston Peters?

So the PM thinks that it is notable that Winston Peters doesn’t trust National. Well that’s hardly a surprise, but she selected a man who leads a racist party to be Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What would immigrants, particularly Asian ones, think of how cozy Clark is being with Peters?

and more importantly, why should anyone trust the Prime Minister when she has to deny the tactic promoted by Mike Williams - Labour Party President - member of various government boards - to use the public sectors' resources for political campaigning?