The Green Party Frogblog waxes lyrically about Cuba albeit with the statement "While I’m not endorsing Cuba or Castro...", whilst noting that it has "an almost complete lack of democracy" (but not ever mentioning the complete lack of freedom of speech, no independent press, the use of mental hospitals as political prisons and its execution of political prisoners) it says:
"I’m always amazed that we don’t give it more credit for some of the amazing feats it has achieved, given it’s enforced isolation from the world. It has an enviable literacy rate and trains an astonishing number of doctors"
So why believe that? Who knows what the literacy rate is? In North Korea it is apparently very good too, Ceausescu's Romania used to proclaim great statistics for health, education and standards of living - all lies though, because that's what totalitarian states do. Are Cuba's doctors any good? Who knows?
As long as Cuba bans any form of free speech, free press and independent journalists investigating any aspect of life there, including interviewing local residents without them fearing reprisals - you can't really say much about Cuba other than it is an authoritarian one-party state.
13 August 2008
What else did Winston do?
Oh really you DO have to laugh. Winston making speeches condemning National for its rather heavy handed electricity reforms in the late 1990s, which NZ First voted for as National's coalition partner AND fully supported.
The NZ Herald describes this delicious irony, which of course Winston tried to evade assuming his largely elderly audience aren't au fait enough with the history of the energy sector to remember what he did when he was Deputy Prime Minister.
So just to aid in jogging Winston's memory:
New Zealand First promotes electricity reforms - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 07/04/1998
A better deal for electricity consumers - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 07/04/1998
He also agreed on the scoping of the part privatisation of TVNZ
Terms of Reference for TVNZ Scoping Study - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 05/05/1998
In his 1998 budget he announced opening up the ACC employer account to competition and the abolition of tariffs on imported motor vehicles - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 14/05/1998
He announces how NZers get first call on the privatisation of Auckland airport - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 04/06/1998. He has other press releases promoting it.
So Winston, given you supported the electricity reforms, supported privatising Auckland airport, supported a study into part privatisation of TVNZ, supported ending import restrictions on motor vehicles - going to rail against other moves to increase competition and reduce the size of the state?
The NZ Herald describes this delicious irony, which of course Winston tried to evade assuming his largely elderly audience aren't au fait enough with the history of the energy sector to remember what he did when he was Deputy Prime Minister.
So just to aid in jogging Winston's memory:
New Zealand First promotes electricity reforms - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 07/04/1998
A better deal for electricity consumers - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 07/04/1998
He also agreed on the scoping of the part privatisation of TVNZ
Terms of Reference for TVNZ Scoping Study - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 05/05/1998
In his 1998 budget he announced opening up the ACC employer account to competition and the abolition of tariffs on imported motor vehicles - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 14/05/1998
He announces how NZers get first call on the privatisation of Auckland airport - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 04/06/1998. He has other press releases promoting it.
So Winston, given you supported the electricity reforms, supported privatising Auckland airport, supported a study into part privatisation of TVNZ, supported ending import restrictions on motor vehicles - going to rail against other moves to increase competition and reduce the size of the state?
Abortion: should there be a wider debate?
Abortion has for a long time been in the political "too hard basket" in New Zealand. It is a subject that fires up two considerable minorities of people, passionately, with a degree of bitter hatred on both sides. Many are aware of how in the USA this has seen violence be exercised by opponents of abortion.
The debate has long been dominated by fundamentalists on both sides. Conservatives who believe that replicating human cells have the status of a human life no different from any other and feminists who believe that a foetus inside a womb is simply part of the mother's body, and she must have absolute control over that. I believe a majority of people reject both views.
However, the legal status quo in New Zealand arguably gives scope for both views to be disenchanted, but not enough for them to be particularly agitated.
Anita at No Right Turn describes the issue well.
The law as it stands looks like it confines abortion to categories that I believe the majority of New Zealanders would agree with. They come down to putting the woman's health above the foetus, permitting abortion in cases of rape and incest (as cases where the woman has been violated) and the more troubling case of endangering the woman's mental health.
However, the practical effect of this has been to interpret "mental health" far beyond that which was intended by some of the legislators at the time.
No Right Turn argues that there needs to be a political debate about this, because the application of the law depends entirely upon the people selected for the Abortion Supervisory Committee. No surprise where that blog would take the issue, but my views on it are not as liberal. In fact, the one point I would assert first and foremost is that given the depth of feeling about abortion, and the moral outrage so many have, the state simply should not fund abortions. It is highly inappropriate for people to be forced to pay for something that so deeply offends them ethically, and which in itself is about drawing a line somewhere between the extremes I described.
If the debate is to start, it needs to avoid, as much as possible, ethics driven purely from religion or from identity politics, and look at what the salient issue is - when does a human being exist and what rights does it have. I find the notion that a dollop of replicating cells are equivalent to a baby to be ludicrous, but I also find the notion that an 8 month old foetus is disposable due to inconvenience to be murderous.
Abortion wont be an election issue. Neither major party wants to fire up one or the other side on this issue, especially when each side names itself something that most people couldn't disagree with, on the face of it - who isn't "pro-life"? who isn't "pro-choice"?
However, a mature debate is important. It is not one to be afraid of, as long as all those involved employ reason, not abuse as their common currency. You see from my perspective, I'm a libertarian - choice to me is fundamental, and as an objectivist, I also value life as the highest value. In addition, it is plausible that had abortion on demand been available at the time I was conceived, I may not be here. That doesn't fire me up, but it makes me think.
The debate has long been dominated by fundamentalists on both sides. Conservatives who believe that replicating human cells have the status of a human life no different from any other and feminists who believe that a foetus inside a womb is simply part of the mother's body, and she must have absolute control over that. I believe a majority of people reject both views.
However, the legal status quo in New Zealand arguably gives scope for both views to be disenchanted, but not enough for them to be particularly agitated.
Anita at No Right Turn describes the issue well.
The law as it stands looks like it confines abortion to categories that I believe the majority of New Zealanders would agree with. They come down to putting the woman's health above the foetus, permitting abortion in cases of rape and incest (as cases where the woman has been violated) and the more troubling case of endangering the woman's mental health.
However, the practical effect of this has been to interpret "mental health" far beyond that which was intended by some of the legislators at the time.
No Right Turn argues that there needs to be a political debate about this, because the application of the law depends entirely upon the people selected for the Abortion Supervisory Committee. No surprise where that blog would take the issue, but my views on it are not as liberal. In fact, the one point I would assert first and foremost is that given the depth of feeling about abortion, and the moral outrage so many have, the state simply should not fund abortions. It is highly inappropriate for people to be forced to pay for something that so deeply offends them ethically, and which in itself is about drawing a line somewhere between the extremes I described.
If the debate is to start, it needs to avoid, as much as possible, ethics driven purely from religion or from identity politics, and look at what the salient issue is - when does a human being exist and what rights does it have. I find the notion that a dollop of replicating cells are equivalent to a baby to be ludicrous, but I also find the notion that an 8 month old foetus is disposable due to inconvenience to be murderous.
Abortion wont be an election issue. Neither major party wants to fire up one or the other side on this issue, especially when each side names itself something that most people couldn't disagree with, on the face of it - who isn't "pro-life"? who isn't "pro-choice"?
However, a mature debate is important. It is not one to be afraid of, as long as all those involved employ reason, not abuse as their common currency. You see from my perspective, I'm a libertarian - choice to me is fundamental, and as an objectivist, I also value life as the highest value. In addition, it is plausible that had abortion on demand been available at the time I was conceived, I may not be here. That doesn't fire me up, but it makes me think.
Who is TVNZ scared of offending?
Blair Mulholland posts on a music video TVNZ wont show, because it depicts kids drinking milk in an adult party environment. Go have a look and see if you find it more corrupting than anything else TVNZ shows kids. Ask yourself whether the state owned broadcaster should be making those decisions.
Ask yourself why there should be a state owned broadcaster at all!
Ask yourself why there should be a state owned broadcaster at all!
China is changing
I'm less surprised that, Lin Maoke, the little girl shown singing in the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, was lip syncing, because Chinese Communist politicians decided the little girl REALLY singing, Yang Peiyi did not meet the criteria that "The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression" (reports CNN). The Communist Party of China has been lying to its people and the world incessantly for the past sixty years.
What is most notable is that the General Music Designer of the ceremony actually revealed the fact, and revealed it on Chinese state radio, and it was reported, and presumably with little consequences for the man concerned - Chen Qigang.
This is the kind of honesty and openness unknown in the China that Sue Bradford went to 35 years ago, and dare I say even 10 years ago. Chinese bloggers are debating it and some condemning it. China is changing if one looks closely.
It goes without saying that the replacement of the child for one "cuter" is rather distasteful to many of us, who find the idea that some aging communist official could deem the appearance of a child to be not good enough for the nation to be abhorrent. I'm sure those who made this decision are hardly picture postcards of beauty themselves, in fact they have proved themselves to be so.
However, allowing this debate does show a change, one that is positive, and which puts China well ahead of the likes of Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and Burma. May debate on other official decisions flourish.
What is most notable is that the General Music Designer of the ceremony actually revealed the fact, and revealed it on Chinese state radio, and it was reported, and presumably with little consequences for the man concerned - Chen Qigang.
This is the kind of honesty and openness unknown in the China that Sue Bradford went to 35 years ago, and dare I say even 10 years ago. Chinese bloggers are debating it and some condemning it. China is changing if one looks closely.
It goes without saying that the replacement of the child for one "cuter" is rather distasteful to many of us, who find the idea that some aging communist official could deem the appearance of a child to be not good enough for the nation to be abhorrent. I'm sure those who made this decision are hardly picture postcards of beauty themselves, in fact they have proved themselves to be so.
However, allowing this debate does show a change, one that is positive, and which puts China well ahead of the likes of Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and Burma. May debate on other official decisions flourish.
12 August 2008
Georgia: a simple lesson
After the collapse of the brutal Tsarist empire, Georgia proclaimed independence, with a more moderate leftwing government led by the Mensheviks, until the murderous Red Army invaded and absorbed Georgia into the USSR in 1921.
The USSR ceded some of Georgia to Turkey, with nearly a third of the entire territory of Georgia moved into Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republics. From then it was under the tyranny of Moscow, until 1991.
On independence, Georgia went through a coup deposing Zviad Gamsakhurdia as President, replacing him in due course with former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who was President for eight years. While he ruled a corrupt state, he allowed freedom and civil society to flourish, leading the way for the Rose revolution in 2003
After independence, in 1991, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia became flashpoints for nationalist movements based on Russians seeking to join the Russian Federation. In both provinces, Georgia lost control and many tens of thousands of Georgians forced to flee in the bigoted tribalism that ensued.
Ossetians and Abkhazians have terrorised and murdered Georgians, and vice versa. Nationalists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have spread the same sort of vile bigoted tribalism as is still seen in the Balkans, claiming Georgia will inflict genocide on them - which is nonsense. Georgians in those territories equally claim the locals will do the same to them.
Georgia has now poured gallons of petrol on the embers of those who say "genocide", by attacking South Ossetia. Now Russia is claiming "genocide" and helping the knuckle dragging nationalists terrorise Georgians.
The USSR ceded some of Georgia to Turkey, with nearly a third of the entire territory of Georgia moved into Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republics. From then it was under the tyranny of Moscow, until 1991.
On independence, Georgia went through a coup deposing Zviad Gamsakhurdia as President, replacing him in due course with former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who was President for eight years. While he ruled a corrupt state, he allowed freedom and civil society to flourish, leading the way for the Rose revolution in 2003
After independence, in 1991, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia became flashpoints for nationalist movements based on Russians seeking to join the Russian Federation. In both provinces, Georgia lost control and many tens of thousands of Georgians forced to flee in the bigoted tribalism that ensued.
Ossetians and Abkhazians have terrorised and murdered Georgians, and vice versa. Nationalists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have spread the same sort of vile bigoted tribalism as is still seen in the Balkans, claiming Georgia will inflict genocide on them - which is nonsense. Georgians in those territories equally claim the locals will do the same to them.
Georgia has now poured gallons of petrol on the embers of those who say "genocide", by attacking South Ossetia. Now Russia is claiming "genocide" and helping the knuckle dragging nationalists terrorise Georgians.
Georgia is not in the right - it is willing to force people within its "territory" to submit to its rule, and as a result it has inspired Russia to be the bullying bear we all knew it to be. Russia could now invade and conquer Georgia, although it is too clever to be that blunt. However it will effectively annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia and know the world will do nothing. Don't be surprised if you hear stories of Georgians fleeing both regions, and massacres - don't be surprised if these too are exaggerated, but essentially true in substance if not scale.
It vindicates NATO not admitting Georgia, but it also raises the spectre of what happens when NATO does not expand. I believe it was a mistake to reject Georgia and Ukraine, rather than to specify preconditions for membership. It was a mistake bent on not frightening Russia - a country that only one as distant from reality as Adolf Hitler, would dare attempt to conquer.
Now Russia has flexed its muscles it may look elsewhere - the second Cold War has not begun, but the winds from the east look mightily chilly to those closest to the bear.
Minto's interdependent fist of statism
John Minto is in the NZ Herald today cheerleading on forcing you to pay for university students to be able to live so they can then pursue their dream jobs.
This economic illiterate assumes its cost wont result in a massive change in behaviour, discouraging students from working and encouraging people to become students, because someone else is forced to pay. He says:
"The cost would be about $700 million per year. It's about the same as Telecom's annual profit or a quarter of the New Zealand profit of our Australian-owned banks. Another reason why the sale of these core assets is such an ongoing disaster."
Yes, because if Telecom had been state owned it would still generate a reasonable profit right John? Because it was bound to be as efficient. Of course you wouldn't want Telecom reinvesting profits in upgrading technology or services, no. The Australian owned banks, except for the BNZ and part of ANZ were never state owned either, but Minto like many socialists doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good myth.
Compulsory student allowances are not the "community working together", it isn't about people caring and choosing to support one another, it is the leviathan state saying "pay us or else" on the one hand and "you get money or you don't" on the other.
Minto has no interest in diving into his own pocket to help students, he wants to get the state to threaten the money out of yours. It isn't interdependent to tax those who don't cost the state very much to pay for those who always do.
This economic illiterate assumes its cost wont result in a massive change in behaviour, discouraging students from working and encouraging people to become students, because someone else is forced to pay. He says:
"The cost would be about $700 million per year. It's about the same as Telecom's annual profit or a quarter of the New Zealand profit of our Australian-owned banks. Another reason why the sale of these core assets is such an ongoing disaster."
Yes, because if Telecom had been state owned it would still generate a reasonable profit right John? Because it was bound to be as efficient. Of course you wouldn't want Telecom reinvesting profits in upgrading technology or services, no. The Australian owned banks, except for the BNZ and part of ANZ were never state owned either, but Minto like many socialists doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good myth.
Compulsory student allowances are not the "community working together", it isn't about people caring and choosing to support one another, it is the leviathan state saying "pay us or else" on the one hand and "you get money or you don't" on the other.
Minto has no interest in diving into his own pocket to help students, he wants to get the state to threaten the money out of yours. It isn't interdependent to tax those who don't cost the state very much to pay for those who always do.
Reasons to be on the DPB
So here's a test I'm applying to think about this one - what of the following are a good reason to claim the DPB? I am talking of women here for sake of simplicity.
1. Woman gets pregnant (accident or deliberate is neither here nor there since it is impossible to prove one way or the other), father doesn't want to know. Woman wants to keep the child (I mean as in raise, not adopt) and become a mother. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.
2. Woman gets pregnant, in de facto relationship, relationship ends for whatever reason. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.
3. Woman gets pregnant, whilst married. Couple separate or divorce. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.
4. Women gets pregnant, father of child died. ANSWER: Couple should have made provision for life insurance, other whilst welfare state remains, DPB remains until youngest child of that father, is of school age.
5. Any of the above scenarios, father too poor to pay for child. ANSWER: Father still responsible to pay proportionate child support, mother claims unemployment benefit whilst welfare state exists.
Quite simply, if people choose to breed, which includes taking the risk of breeding, they bear the consequences of it. At the moment the consequences are to be paid and to be not responsible for paying.
If this is moral then I'd like supporters of the DPB to answer why those who raise children by their own financial means shouldn't stop working and just let the state pay - except of course, there wouldn't be any money then to do so!
1. Woman gets pregnant (accident or deliberate is neither here nor there since it is impossible to prove one way or the other), father doesn't want to know. Woman wants to keep the child (I mean as in raise, not adopt) and become a mother. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.
2. Woman gets pregnant, in de facto relationship, relationship ends for whatever reason. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.
3. Woman gets pregnant, whilst married. Couple separate or divorce. ANSWER: State should pursue father as being legally obliged to provide adequate support to pay for child.
4. Women gets pregnant, father of child died. ANSWER: Couple should have made provision for life insurance, other whilst welfare state remains, DPB remains until youngest child of that father, is of school age.
5. Any of the above scenarios, father too poor to pay for child. ANSWER: Father still responsible to pay proportionate child support, mother claims unemployment benefit whilst welfare state exists.
Quite simply, if people choose to breed, which includes taking the risk of breeding, they bear the consequences of it. At the moment the consequences are to be paid and to be not responsible for paying.
If this is moral then I'd like supporters of the DPB to answer why those who raise children by their own financial means shouldn't stop working and just let the state pay - except of course, there wouldn't be any money then to do so!
So what does the left DO about the poor?
National's very modest DPB policy has provoked cries from Helen Clark that it is beneficiary bashing, from the Greens that this is "denying kids having their parents at home" (because taxpayers earn money at home of course), and Idiot Savant saying it's "beating up on the poor".
Do the left really think those on the other side of the spectrum hate the poor, want to do violence to them, want to let them starve and laugh? Are they that detached from reality that they think they have a monopoly on compassion?
Well the truth is that most of them can't claim a monopoly on compassion since they themselves have none. When the Nats introduced some modest tax cuts in the late 1990s, did the left say "we'll donate our extra tax cuts to welfare beneficiaries?". No, they did their usual demand that the "state should care" and demand that everyone be forced to care.
This time it's the same old story. With some distinct exceptions, far too many on the left sit in their Wadestown, Parnell or Mt. Victoria homes, sipping fine wines, chattering amongst themselves about how "awful" those nasty National, ACT people are - how they are racist (Idiot Savant of course thinks racism is when the state ceases to care about race) and how sexist they are, and how they probably want to laugh at poverty.
You see you can take two approaches if you care about people in poverty:
a) Leave it to your taxes and the state to do a fine job of lifting people out of the cycle of poverty, despair and lack of aspiration;
b) Donate to charity, participate in charities, give of your time, money, other property, wisdom to help.
So if you care, what do you do? It's about whether you think a bureaucrat handing out a benefit is more valuable than donating a bunch of books for kids in homes without them, or more valuable than donating time to helplines for kids in need, or more valuable than teaching adult education classes in literacy for next to nothing.
So next time someone on the left says "more money should be spent" on the poor, ask what that person is doing directly for them? Ask them if they have donated every tax cut they ever got to charity. Be astonished if you get answers little more than an uncomfortable, "Umm... well" and maybe an admission to the odd donation.
Then you'll realise that the amount they care for the poor is inversely related to the amount they hate the rich.
Do the left really think those on the other side of the spectrum hate the poor, want to do violence to them, want to let them starve and laugh? Are they that detached from reality that they think they have a monopoly on compassion?
Well the truth is that most of them can't claim a monopoly on compassion since they themselves have none. When the Nats introduced some modest tax cuts in the late 1990s, did the left say "we'll donate our extra tax cuts to welfare beneficiaries?". No, they did their usual demand that the "state should care" and demand that everyone be forced to care.
This time it's the same old story. With some distinct exceptions, far too many on the left sit in their Wadestown, Parnell or Mt. Victoria homes, sipping fine wines, chattering amongst themselves about how "awful" those nasty National, ACT people are - how they are racist (Idiot Savant of course thinks racism is when the state ceases to care about race) and how sexist they are, and how they probably want to laugh at poverty.
You see you can take two approaches if you care about people in poverty:
a) Leave it to your taxes and the state to do a fine job of lifting people out of the cycle of poverty, despair and lack of aspiration;
b) Donate to charity, participate in charities, give of your time, money, other property, wisdom to help.
So if you care, what do you do? It's about whether you think a bureaucrat handing out a benefit is more valuable than donating a bunch of books for kids in homes without them, or more valuable than donating time to helplines for kids in need, or more valuable than teaching adult education classes in literacy for next to nothing.
So next time someone on the left says "more money should be spent" on the poor, ask what that person is doing directly for them? Ask them if they have donated every tax cut they ever got to charity. Be astonished if you get answers little more than an uncomfortable, "Umm... well" and maybe an admission to the odd donation.
Then you'll realise that the amount they care for the poor is inversely related to the amount they hate the rich.
11 August 2008
4 point DPB policy for the Nats
1. Anyone currently on the DPB can claim no more benefit for any additional children whilst on it.
2. DPB becomes same as unemployment benefit when youngest child reaches school age (almost got that one)
3. 1 year warning that no DPB will be granted to anyone unwilling to name (accurately) other liable parent.
4. No one convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence entitled to receive any welfare benefits whatsoever.
Baby steps really
and Helen Clark? Well, when she spends any time appreciating what it is like to work, raise a family and pay taxes, then she might be someone for whom some of us think she might give a damn. Her political career is partly built on support from people who live off of the back of others, which she facilitates.
2. DPB becomes same as unemployment benefit when youngest child reaches school age (almost got that one)
3. 1 year warning that no DPB will be granted to anyone unwilling to name (accurately) other liable parent.
4. No one convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence entitled to receive any welfare benefits whatsoever.
Baby steps really
and Helen Clark? Well, when she spends any time appreciating what it is like to work, raise a family and pay taxes, then she might be someone for whom some of us think she might give a damn. Her political career is partly built on support from people who live off of the back of others, which she facilitates.
Greens seek to nationalise voluntary sector
The Green Party has released its policy on the "community and voluntary sector", which by definition is a sector which, from a libertarian perspective, exists because people choose to participate in it and pay for it (notwithstanding that some in that sector are hardened statists).
The policy, in essence, is about forcing you to pay to support that sector. Phrases like "larger budget allocation", "Enhance mechanisms and resourcing to allow policy input from community organizations", "Fund a sector-led, independent group or group of groups to work with Government".
Then it wants to force you to fund a NEW competitor to Kiwibank "Provide the starting capital for a community owned banking network..."
Remember every time the Greens say "support" they mean to do it by putting their hand in your wallet one way or another.
How is it then a "voluntary sector"?
If you are part of this sector, maybe a car club, or promote free trade, or promote laissez-faire capitalism, or private property rights, or even of a religion, you think you'd get part of this booty?
Takes the Greens to nationalise the non-state sector doesn't it?
The policy, in essence, is about forcing you to pay to support that sector. Phrases like "larger budget allocation", "Enhance mechanisms and resourcing to allow policy input from community organizations", "Fund a sector-led, independent group or group of groups to work with Government".
Then it wants to force you to fund a NEW competitor to Kiwibank "Provide the starting capital for a community owned banking network..."
Remember every time the Greens say "support" they mean to do it by putting their hand in your wallet one way or another.
How is it then a "voluntary sector"?
If you are part of this sector, maybe a car club, or promote free trade, or promote laissez-faire capitalism, or private property rights, or even of a religion, you think you'd get part of this booty?
Takes the Greens to nationalise the non-state sector doesn't it?
Forgotten Posts from the past: Christopher Hitchens on Solzhenitsyn
"Every now and then it happens. The state or the system encounters an individual who, bafflingly, maddeningly, absurdly, cannot be broken. Should they manage to survive, such heroes have a good chance of outliving the state or the system that so grossly underestimated them. Examples are rather precious and relatively few, and they include Nelson Mandela refusing an offer to be released from jail (unless and until all other political detainees were also freed) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn having to be deported from his country of birth against his will, even though he had become—and had been before—a prisoner there....
To have fought his way into Hitler's East Prussia as a proud Red Army soldier in the harshest war on record, to have been arrested and incarcerated for a chance indiscretion, to have served a full sentence of servitude and been released on the very day that Stalin died, and then to have developed cancer and known the whole rigor and misery of a Soviet-era isolation hospital—what could you fear after that?...
As time went by, he metamorphosed more and more into a classic Russian Orthodox chauvinist, whose work became more wordy and propagandistic and—shall we be polite?—idiosyncratic with every passing year.
more in Slate, about the man who helped expose the death and despair of the Soviet system, who later became a supporter of the post-Soviet authoritarian system that now grips Russia in its cold, dark, strangle of fiction and fear.
08 August 2008
Big ego small man
Who are you going to believe?
Professor Richard Dawkins: BSc Zoology, MA and D.Phil, D.Sc all of Oxford. Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and five honorary doctorates. Author of 9 books
Christopher Hitchens: BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Oxford, contributing editor to Vanity Fair, writer for Slate Author of 17 books and co-author/editor of 9 others.
or Ian Wishart, New Zealand talkback radio host, author of numerous books of limited NZ circulation.
Yes I'm afraid I had to laugh when I saw that Wishart had written a book called "The Divinity Code" in a vain attempt to confront both Dawkins and Hitchens. I wont buy it yet, as I am sure I'll be able to pick it up in a bargain book sale somewhere in NZ next time I'm there.
Dawkins and Hitchens wont be losing sleep, indeed I doubt they will even give Wishart the dignity of bothering to read his book, if they know the man exists at all.
Wishart's website says it all about his credibility, with the hard hitting publications he has endorsing it:
Professor Richard Dawkins: BSc Zoology, MA and D.Phil, D.Sc all of Oxford. Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and five honorary doctorates. Author of 9 books
Christopher Hitchens: BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Oxford, contributing editor to Vanity Fair, writer for Slate Author of 17 books and co-author/editor of 9 others.
or Ian Wishart, New Zealand talkback radio host, author of numerous books of limited NZ circulation.
Yes I'm afraid I had to laugh when I saw that Wishart had written a book called "The Divinity Code" in a vain attempt to confront both Dawkins and Hitchens. I wont buy it yet, as I am sure I'll be able to pick it up in a bargain book sale somewhere in NZ next time I'm there.
Dawkins and Hitchens wont be losing sleep, indeed I doubt they will even give Wishart the dignity of bothering to read his book, if they know the man exists at all.
Wishart's website says it all about his credibility, with the hard hitting publications he has endorsing it:
"A Critically-Acclaimed Writer:
”The closest thing to a John Grisham novel, but it is the real thing” - Waikato Times
A writer who is prepared to tackle the difficult subjects...well researched
and very compelling” - The Advocate
“Wishart..is exceptionally thorough...skillfully blends [an] informative picture” - Evening Standard
“His research is deep and thorough” - Wairarapa Times Age"
Yep, the Waikato Times, Wairarapa Times-Age, global authorities on... the Waikato and Wairarapa. "The Advocate" which surely isn't the gay magazine from the USA. When I type in the phrase to Google I just get "Wishart's quote" hmmm. Could it be the newspaper from Burnie, Tasmania? Could it be the Northern Advocate from Whangarei? Yes probably.
Then the Evening Standard. Wow. A quote that is dotted too, so Googling it doesn't quite work. Must be the Evening Standard in London right? Or am I right in suspecting it is the Manawatu Evening Standard?
Now call me cynical, but I don't regard four provincial New Zealand newspapers to be authorities on a book, and able to tell me whether "research is deep and thorough". Not even the NZ Herald or the Dominion Post, let alone the Times (that's London), Guardian, New York Times or Daily Telegraph, or even the Age in Melbourne. Wishart can't get a good review (or a review?) from a newspaper from any city with a population of more than 200,000.
I know there are thinkers of a religious persuasion who can make cogent, well researched arguments for supernatural beliefs, even though I am unlikely to agree with them, but Wishart?
Save your money, wait till they are piled up like Mike Moore's and Jim Bolger's books have been, in bargain bins - and then have a good laugh.
Then the Evening Standard. Wow. A quote that is dotted too, so Googling it doesn't quite work. Must be the Evening Standard in London right? Or am I right in suspecting it is the Manawatu Evening Standard?
Now call me cynical, but I don't regard four provincial New Zealand newspapers to be authorities on a book, and able to tell me whether "research is deep and thorough". Not even the NZ Herald or the Dominion Post, let alone the Times (that's London), Guardian, New York Times or Daily Telegraph, or even the Age in Melbourne. Wishart can't get a good review (or a review?) from a newspaper from any city with a population of more than 200,000.
I know there are thinkers of a religious persuasion who can make cogent, well researched arguments for supernatural beliefs, even though I am unlikely to agree with them, but Wishart?
Save your money, wait till they are piled up like Mike Moore's and Jim Bolger's books have been, in bargain bins - and then have a good laugh.
Councils should have nothing to do with religion
Before anyone brands this as "Islamophobia", let's make it clear Islam and Muslims don't scare me in the slightest. My concern is simple.
In a secular state it is entirely inappropriate for central OR local government to fund, subsidise or otherwise provide any support, promotion or encouragement of any religion, of any kind. So it is from this that I condemn Wellington City Council for its role in what is described as "Islamic Awareness Week".
If Muslims in Wellington wish to promote such a week then fine - let them do so with their own funds, private property they own, rent or have permission to use and have fun.
However it is entirely wrong for non-Muslim Wellington City ratepayers to pay directly or indirectly for the promotion of the religion. It is an insult to those of other beliefs including atheists and agnostics who would prefer that Islam not be promoted or celebrated in any way. It would be the same if it were Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or indeed atheism.
The right to freedom of religion as a private choice, and to express publicly as a form of free speech is fundamental to a free society. However, also fundamental is the right to freedom to criticise religion and to not be forced to subsidise the promotion of any such belief. The only appropriate role for any government in such circumstances is to stand separate - to protect the right of religions to be practised and promoted, within the boundaries of not initiating force or fraud against others, and the right of others to criticise and condemn religions and non-religious philosophies.
In a secular state it is entirely inappropriate for central OR local government to fund, subsidise or otherwise provide any support, promotion or encouragement of any religion, of any kind. So it is from this that I condemn Wellington City Council for its role in what is described as "Islamic Awareness Week".
If Muslims in Wellington wish to promote such a week then fine - let them do so with their own funds, private property they own, rent or have permission to use and have fun.
However it is entirely wrong for non-Muslim Wellington City ratepayers to pay directly or indirectly for the promotion of the religion. It is an insult to those of other beliefs including atheists and agnostics who would prefer that Islam not be promoted or celebrated in any way. It would be the same if it were Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or indeed atheism.
The right to freedom of religion as a private choice, and to express publicly as a form of free speech is fundamental to a free society. However, also fundamental is the right to freedom to criticise religion and to not be forced to subsidise the promotion of any such belief. The only appropriate role for any government in such circumstances is to stand separate - to protect the right of religions to be practised and promoted, within the boundaries of not initiating force or fraud against others, and the right of others to criticise and condemn religions and non-religious philosophies.
Sarkozy insults many countries at once
According to the Daily Telegraph he has been quoted saying "Countries which share a common cultural heritage, such as Germany and Austria, Great Britain and Ireland or the Benelux countries could share a common Commissioner"
By that measure France and Italy should share one, both being near bankrupted economies clinging to socialism, but with a passion for wine, food and love. However, can you see Ireland being represented by an English person? Sarkozy has progressively been losing the plot, will to reform and being interesting in the past year. Disappointing really.
By that measure France and Italy should share one, both being near bankrupted economies clinging to socialism, but with a passion for wine, food and love. However, can you see Ireland being represented by an English person? Sarkozy has progressively been losing the plot, will to reform and being interesting in the past year. Disappointing really.
Bush tells China before he goes there
Yes President Bush laid it into China, appropriately and respectfully, before his visit for the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics. However, the media has been largely quiet about it - no doubt because they almost all hate him and couldn't possibly cheer him for saying something that, if the UN Secretary General or Helen Clark had said it, they'd all cheer.
Indeed. and...
"The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings"
Who could disagree at all? Helen Clark wont say it though, she doesn't want to upset China.
CNN reports China's dictatorship predictably saying "We firmly oppose any statements or deeds which use human rights, religion and other issues to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries"
Yes, it is of course like saying that you can't complain to your neighbour if he is beating up his wife and kids, as it is an "internal affair". It is not an internal affair when people are being murdered for their opinions.
So Bush has done well, he has noted China's progress and welcomes close relations with China - that's more than the loud protestors on the left who were amazingly quiet when China went through its most murderous and brutal period of recent history, under Mao in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
The Olympics hopefully will be a glorious event, for the athletes. Some may bravely make a statement of protest against the authoritarian nationalist spectacle the Chinese Communist Party is trying to portray to the world, but regardless it will be a noteworthy event. China has come a long way, but it doesn't mean we should ignore what more it needs to do to become a civilised member of the world community.
Bush said "we press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs"
Indeed. and...
"The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings"
Who could disagree at all? Helen Clark wont say it though, she doesn't want to upset China.
CNN reports China's dictatorship predictably saying "We firmly oppose any statements or deeds which use human rights, religion and other issues to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries"
Yes, it is of course like saying that you can't complain to your neighbour if he is beating up his wife and kids, as it is an "internal affair". It is not an internal affair when people are being murdered for their opinions.
So Bush has done well, he has noted China's progress and welcomes close relations with China - that's more than the loud protestors on the left who were amazingly quiet when China went through its most murderous and brutal period of recent history, under Mao in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
The Olympics hopefully will be a glorious event, for the athletes. Some may bravely make a statement of protest against the authoritarian nationalist spectacle the Chinese Communist Party is trying to portray to the world, but regardless it will be a noteworthy event. China has come a long way, but it doesn't mean we should ignore what more it needs to do to become a civilised member of the world community.
If it's good enough for Fiji
Both Idiot Savant and David Farrar have blogged about the proposed charter for Fiji, which essentially forms the basis for a new constitution. One of the key elements is replacing racially divided seats with a one person, one vote system.
So you might ask why Idiot Savant defends the Maori seats, and David Farrar will be voting for a party that will also retain them? After all, they both consider this to be a step forward for Fiji.
Why is Fiji special?
So you might ask why Idiot Savant defends the Maori seats, and David Farrar will be voting for a party that will also retain them? After all, they both consider this to be a step forward for Fiji.
Why is Fiji special?
Cindy Kiro's got her hand in your wallet
Yes, further proving the uselessness of the Commissioner for Children role, Dr Cindy Kiro having advocated Stasi like monitoring of all of New Zealand's children, because a small number of parents abuse them, she is now showing her true Marxist colours in calling for the state to take more of your money to give to parents who shouldn't be having children in the first place.
The NZ Herald reports her poverty plan and it is stark in its adoption of the tired old solutions of "gimme more money", and nothing imaginative about incentivising better behaviour among delinquent parents. What does she want?
- To make you pay for other people's children to have MORE pre-school and after-school care. Nice, subsidise more breeding. After all, you MIGHT have thought about the cost of that before you had a child?
- She wants solo parents to be able to earn more before losing the benefit, which of itself may not be a bad idea, but then having an income tax free threshold would help this too (but lower taxes don't figure in the big Nanny State world of Cindy Kiro)
- To make you pay for HIGHER benefits, HIGHER accommodation subsidies, because again you're responsible for other people breeding.
- To abolish penalties for not naming childrens' dad/s, because YOU can pay for that deadbeat's kids, don't let the state go to the effort of making him responsible. What were you thinking you lazy, rich, heartless pig?
Cindy Kiro has nationalised all of the children in New Zealand in her mind, so it's only fair to her to make everyone pay for everyone else's children. Never mind thousands of families see a good third or so of their income go in taxes to pay for deadbeats who breed with little concern about where the next dollar is coming from or the condition the kids will grow up in. It's HER responsibility, as the big sister of the nation to embrace these children by leaving them with their irresponsible parents and get more money pilfered from single people and families that look after themselves.
It's socialism and it is the problem, not the solution.
On top of that how utterly despicable is it for her to use the election to push an avowedly political platform, a leftwing platform that you can be sure the Greens will largely embrace, as will the Maori Party, Labour will selectively embrace and endorse but say some is too expensive, and it puts the Nats and ACT on the back foot to argue against a public servant.
If the Nats can't put their foot down and abolish this clearly quasi-political role, then they aren't worth spitting on. However John Key has said nothing about this control freak in the past, so...
The NZ Herald reports her poverty plan and it is stark in its adoption of the tired old solutions of "gimme more money", and nothing imaginative about incentivising better behaviour among delinquent parents. What does she want?
- To make you pay for other people's children to have MORE pre-school and after-school care. Nice, subsidise more breeding. After all, you MIGHT have thought about the cost of that before you had a child?
- She wants solo parents to be able to earn more before losing the benefit, which of itself may not be a bad idea, but then having an income tax free threshold would help this too (but lower taxes don't figure in the big Nanny State world of Cindy Kiro)
- To make you pay for HIGHER benefits, HIGHER accommodation subsidies, because again you're responsible for other people breeding.
- To abolish penalties for not naming childrens' dad/s, because YOU can pay for that deadbeat's kids, don't let the state go to the effort of making him responsible. What were you thinking you lazy, rich, heartless pig?
Cindy Kiro has nationalised all of the children in New Zealand in her mind, so it's only fair to her to make everyone pay for everyone else's children. Never mind thousands of families see a good third or so of their income go in taxes to pay for deadbeats who breed with little concern about where the next dollar is coming from or the condition the kids will grow up in. It's HER responsibility, as the big sister of the nation to embrace these children by leaving them with their irresponsible parents and get more money pilfered from single people and families that look after themselves.
It's socialism and it is the problem, not the solution.
On top of that how utterly despicable is it for her to use the election to push an avowedly political platform, a leftwing platform that you can be sure the Greens will largely embrace, as will the Maori Party, Labour will selectively embrace and endorse but say some is too expensive, and it puts the Nats and ACT on the back foot to argue against a public servant.
If the Nats can't put their foot down and abolish this clearly quasi-political role, then they aren't worth spitting on. However John Key has said nothing about this control freak in the past, so...
The dire social underclass
I forget to read Dr Michael Bassett's incisive columns as often as I should. Around a month ago he wrote about the underclass in New Zealand and what sustains it.
He tells some stark truths that are far too uncomfortable for policy makers:
"The criminals share several things in common. They are almost all from families where there is one parent on welfare, too many kids from several fathers in the household, inadequate supervision, easy prey from relatives or de factos, and access to alcohol and drugs. Far too many are Maori. The kids exist because they carry an entitlement to a benefit stamped on their brows, and the parent doesn’t care about their welfare for which the taxpayers give them money."
and
"Domestic violence rises on the days of the week when there is enough money to purchase drugs and alcohol, while for the rest of the week hard luck stories emerge about people resorting to food parcels and there being no lunches at school. The Child Poverty Action Group gives us a sermon about poverty and argues for more money for the parents, which sensible people have long-since worked out would go on more alcohol and drugs."
Contrast him to Dr Cindy Kiro who DOES play the "give them more of other people's money" card. The whole article is worth a read. He leaves one of his most damning lines for the media:
"Before going home to their trendy pads in Ponsonby and Herne Bay, the media treat this social crisis like soft porn – titillating details of one tragedy after another. There’s no proper analysis of the cause of the problems. No brains engaged."
How can anyone on the left seriously believe that throwing money at the problem is the solution? How can they ignore the absolute poverty of responsibility, role models, attention, love and aspiration endemic in far too many parts of the country? They have nothing to do with money - as much of the world is poor, but has stable family units, responsible and dedicated parents and esteem to grow onwards and upwards - this was seen in the Great Depression.
It is about ethics, culture and philosophy - and the philosophy of "it's everyone else's fault", "capitalism makes everything unfair so I'm angry and torture my kids", "everyone else owes me a fair life", is bankrupt.
It's about time those who peddle this are confronted, exposed and policy change radically - they've had their chance, and it has failed, miserably.
He tells some stark truths that are far too uncomfortable for policy makers:
"The criminals share several things in common. They are almost all from families where there is one parent on welfare, too many kids from several fathers in the household, inadequate supervision, easy prey from relatives or de factos, and access to alcohol and drugs. Far too many are Maori. The kids exist because they carry an entitlement to a benefit stamped on their brows, and the parent doesn’t care about their welfare for which the taxpayers give them money."
and
"Domestic violence rises on the days of the week when there is enough money to purchase drugs and alcohol, while for the rest of the week hard luck stories emerge about people resorting to food parcels and there being no lunches at school. The Child Poverty Action Group gives us a sermon about poverty and argues for more money for the parents, which sensible people have long-since worked out would go on more alcohol and drugs."
Contrast him to Dr Cindy Kiro who DOES play the "give them more of other people's money" card. The whole article is worth a read. He leaves one of his most damning lines for the media:
"Before going home to their trendy pads in Ponsonby and Herne Bay, the media treat this social crisis like soft porn – titillating details of one tragedy after another. There’s no proper analysis of the cause of the problems. No brains engaged."
How can anyone on the left seriously believe that throwing money at the problem is the solution? How can they ignore the absolute poverty of responsibility, role models, attention, love and aspiration endemic in far too many parts of the country? They have nothing to do with money - as much of the world is poor, but has stable family units, responsible and dedicated parents and esteem to grow onwards and upwards - this was seen in the Great Depression.
It is about ethics, culture and philosophy - and the philosophy of "it's everyone else's fault", "capitalism makes everything unfair so I'm angry and torture my kids", "everyone else owes me a fair life", is bankrupt.
It's about time those who peddle this are confronted, exposed and policy change radically - they've had their chance, and it has failed, miserably.
07 August 2008
The Greens rate the Nats!
Yes well after my scoring of the Nat’s 10 point blueprint, the Greens have done the same and, curiously enough, have taken the opposite tack from me on most issues. The Greens don’t take John Key on his very moderate words, they exaggerate them so that the Nats appear to be better than I think they are. So, just for fun, I thought I’d review the review of the Green Party. Why? Because the review says more about the Greens than they may think.
1. An ongoing programme of tax cuts. I thought that this was positive but vague, but no – the Greens have a different way of looking at it. They see taxes as “being whether the government is spending enough to achieve its democratic mandate and the tax is not too onerous for the people paying it”. Which on the face of it seems ok, doesn’t it? Well, it could be “enough” or “too much”, but the Greens rarely seem concerned about too much spending, unless it is roads. The issue of tax is more curious. What does “too onerous” mean? Clearly “onerous” is ok, and more importantly the idea that the people consuming government provided services pay for it is completely off the radar. It’s pure socialism – government spends money and then it squeezes it from those it can get to pay, whether or not it is “onerous”, whether or not you actually use the services provided by the state.
2. Bring discipline to Government spending, and 3. Rein in excessive growth in the public service
Now why would you ever disagree with the government spending money prudently and why would you not want a value statement like “excessive growth”? Quite simple, you want more government, more state. The Greens are priceless on this though:
Surely these two are very hard to reconcile with a promise not to cut government spending. Bureaucrats are not evil, faceless, money suckers. On the whole they are put there because they achieve good things efficiently.
In the world of the socialist, cutting government spending is “wrong”. However saying bureaucrats are not evil, faceless, money suckers is missing the point. Evil is a strong word, but I believe some are – some like Cindy Kiro who earns a significant salary and is seeking to nationalise children with some Orwellian monitoring system. Money suckers is very true, because after all what are many bureaucrats producing?
This “achieve good things efficiently” cuts to the heart of the difference between socialists and liberals. Why are they good? How is it efficient? If it were good why must people be forced to pay for it? If it is efficient, why has commercialisation and privatisation resulted in enormous cost savings to carry out the same tasks in many sectors? Since when has big government been more efficient than small government, except when it restricts freedom?
4. Launch an attack on gangs and the P trade they support. Now I appreciate the concern of the Greens there that the “war on drugs” is unlikely to be successful, but there needs to be an appreciation that there are genuine concerns about drugs and criminal gangs. Gangs are not just another form of whanau as some make themselves out to be, but similarly the Nats only have tired old failed solutions.
5. Introduce a bill to reform the Resource Management Act The Greens will oppose this naturally, since this is a key plank in their policy to stop development as much as is possible, regardless of private property rights. The Greens will scaremonger about this, even though it will see little useful happen.
6. Invite the private sector back to the table. A welcome move of course, but the Greens want to frighten you by asking whether this is about health, education or conservation. Who cares? Why is the private sector “bad” and the beloved state sector “good”? Again it is socialist ideology, big government is about doing “good things efficiently”, no doubt the private sector is “bad things done inefficiently”??
7. Raise education standards. I thought this was bland and meaningless from the Nats, but the Greens have concocted a bizarre plot “John Key means that he will test primary school kids more often so that the failures can be re-identified and then, umm… well moved aside I guess” Yes, there is some grand neo-liberal plot to kick the less bright out of school, it is against the grand socialist plot to reward the less bright with pass marks, guaranteed minimum incomes, guaranteed university places and jobs to do “good things efficiently”.
8. Grow the amount of superannuation paid to senior citizens each week. Well the Greens love this, more state money being spent on people. Never mind that it discourages people for saving for themselves, hell tax them more and we can give more to, their parents and grandparents! No, the Greens ask for MORE money to be found from the money tree to pay to “struggling beneficiaries”.
Socialism = where you get the money you need without having to do anything for it, because we take it off those who did.
9. Repeal the Electoral Finance Act. Bleh, Greens want their “citizen’s assembly” a nice proxy for an event which busy people who own or run businesses wont have the time to participate in because they are earning money to pay the onerous taxes the Greens approve of, but the beneficiaries and others who shouldn’t be expected to work hard for a living can do so, and skew the result. Nice.
10. Hold a binding referendum on MMP. Yes the Greens are bound to oppose this, hardly a surprise for any small party.
So there you have it – the Greens want more government spending, think taxation should be onerous (not “too” onerous though), think that improving education standards is a dastardly plot and that bureaucrats do “good things efficiently”. It would be fair to say Labour is a rather watered down version of that.
Now if only we could have an election based on two opposing views of the role of the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)