Portrayal of Maori on media is fair, but...

Stuff reports According to a study commissioned by the Broadcasting Standards Authority undertaken by Te Kawa a Maui, the School of Maori Studies of Victoria University of Wellington:

"programmes examined were considered fair; while balance was not always achieved in individual stories, broadcasters generally attained balance over time; and the programmes were almost all accurate. Correct pronunciation of te reo continues to be seen as very important."

Now the BSA is hardly an instrument of capitalism and the VUW School of Maori Studies the same - so are the claims that mainstream media (TVNZ, TV3, National Radio and Maori broadcasting) are biased against Maori perspectives (whatever they are, since Maori are not a homogeneous political entity) going to evaporate?

Would a study about whether the media was equally unbiased between statist solutions or criticisms of government policy and non-statist say the same? I doubt it. Most TV and radio journalists are from the left, and believe the solution to problems comes from banning, compulsion and spending more of other people's money.

Brash and racism

There has been plenty about Frogblog's statement that Brash made racism acceptable in New Zealand and linking Orewa to Cronulla. David Farrar has responded with many comments in reply, but my key point is this, and it is the reason Brash got so much support - NOT anti-Maori racism, which exists but not at the levels the Maori Party and the Greens think (which should please them):

Why is it racist to want the state to have laws, and for its tax and spending policies to have no correlation whatsoever to race?

Why is it NOT racist, to give special funding, or special consultation rights to individuals purely because of what their ancestry is?

Why should anyone be judged on their ancestry, at all?

Why not judge individuals on their deeds, alone?

Racism is mindless collectivism, and it exists both with the fascist/neo-nazi "right" (as seen in the brainwashed blonde twins) and with the neo-Marxist collectivist "left", and with religious fundamentalists of ALL creeds (Islamic, Christian, Jewish etc.).

Most on the "left" are proudly anti-racist and get fired up when they think of apartheid, the old racist laws of the American south, Nazism and the corporal punishment of children speaking Maori at school.

What they don't realise is that most people on the liberal "right" have the same passionate loathing of racism.

Remember the nazi teenage blondes?

David Farrar posted the pic of these cute young teen racists a while back.

Julian Pistorius has found a series of articles about them, apparently they form a racist folk band called Prussian Blue . Unfortunately there is another band called Prussian Blue, a British folk band which is NOT neo-nazi.

There is an anti-Prussian Blue blog, but unfortunately it is unlikely that these girls will get any serious exposure to thinking more carefully about the world until they leave home. Remember, most of what they get from the non-racist world is hatred and anger, which wont inspire them to think twice about racism.

The racist Prussian Blue allegedly plan a tour to Australia - um, great timing?

Internet regulation for national content?

This man wants the EU to regulate the Internet.

I don’t mean child porn or bomb recipes, I mean regulating it for “cultural content” you know the same sort of rules that Labour and the Greens long argued about for TV, to ensure minimum levels of national content? It seems that with the arrival of hundreds of TV channels, the European Commission finds it harder to justify special rules for broadcast TV -so now it wants rules for all audiovisual media to be consistent.

Under the aegis of harmonisation, and consistency across media, the EC, instead of simply calling for the abolition of such rules, wants to extend them - because, after all, bureaucrats produce nothing.

Martin Selmayr, a European Commission bureaurat said that rules on broadcast TV may apply to the Internet, "This might involve requirements in terms of the catalogue they offer," says the quote from Macworld. A further report says that it may cover material that may “incite racial hatred” or seriously impare the “physical, mental and moral development of minors”. An excuse for more censorship – after all, what is the moral development of minors? What is a minor in the EU, when the age for sexual consent varies between 13 and 17? European bureaurats aren't keen on free speech (although Europeans aren't keen on much censorship, as any visit to an Amsterdam sex shop will demonstrate!).

One thing is for sure, that in cultural terms, the Internet has it all – and the users choose what they want to see. You can read about objectivism, literature, rugby, felching or the rambling of Chairman Mao.

The only place for the law online is to cover actual crimes, such as when intellectual property is stolen, when computers are used to initial force through hacking, and when recordings of victims suffering crimes are produced and distributed (images of child pornography).

It is worth noting that the same bureaurat also advocated taking control of the internet from ICANN to a new UN type intergovernmental bureaucracy – a less efficient more political one. It isn't broke, so don't fix it - if the Internet had been left to bureaucrats it would never have grown and developed, they would have been far too concerned with trying to make sure it didn't do all sorts of things they want to control.

EU agricultural subsidies for the wealthy

The Times from London now has some figures showing the absurdities of agricultural protectionism in Europe. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is an abomination and French farmers receive more than British and German farmers combined from this obscenity.

Bono and Bob Geldof would have done better campaigning to abolish the CAP in order to assist the poor of the developing and developed world, than to bleat on about aid.

The Times reports:

131,000 French farmers receive €20,000 or more a year from the EU. 3,200 get more than €100,000 per annum, the biggest beneficiary was a rice farmer who got €866,290 in 2003. How can European taxpayers justify that?

French farmers received €7.38 billion in subsidies in 2003.

The average French farmer receives €16,693 per annum in subsidies – this is more than five times what the average person in the world receives in income.

Prince Albert of Monaco receives around €300,000 a year in subsidies for his farms. The Queen and Prince Charles also get subsidies for their farms.

Rémy Pointereau, a French senator, received €121,000 last year, and Luc Guyau, an ally of President Chirac, received €50,000 in subsidies.

Cees Veerman, the Dutch Agriculture Minister, received €168,000 for farms in France and €22,000 for farms in the Netherlands.

In Denmark, four Cabinet ministers received money from EU farming subsidies in 2004, as did the husband of Mariann Fischer Boel, the EU Farm Commissioner.

70,000 French farmers receive no subsidies from the CAP.

One word for all of them - parasites!

This exposes the utter bullshit of the arguments of poor French farmers that will get kicked off their farms unable to fend for themselves, since 70,000 fend for themselves now (admittedly in a protected market). It also exposes the level of political disinterest there is in some European quarters to end this outrageous waste of money.

3 steps for the EU:

1. Abolish agricultural subsidies;

2. Abolish restrictions on agricultural imports;

3. Abolish tariffs on agricultural imports.