Ding dong Ta Mok is dead

Another one, one of the worst, of the murderous butchers of Cambodia is dead.

.

Ta Mok, believed to have directed the most deadly of the purges of the Khmer Rouge regime, died on 20 July after falling into a coma.

.

Words cannot describe the brutality and cruelty this man was a part of - the movie the Killing Fields showed, believe it or not, a sanitised version, the book Survival in the Killing Fields by Dr Haing S Ngor (who played Dith Pran in the Killing Fields) tells it all.

.

Dr Haing S Ngor survived the brutality that Ta Mok inflicted with his comrades, supported by Maoist China, while leftist pinup boy Noam Chomsky claimed stories about the Khmer Rouge horrors were "concocted by the CIA".

.

In order to survive Dr Ngor had to pretend to be an illiterate taxi driver, when he was in fact, an obstetrician. His wife died in childbirth as he watched and could do nothing, because had he revealed his medical skills, he would have been murdered for being "too clever". The Khmer Rouge only valued uneducated labourers, everyone else was a capitalist exploiter or had "foreign allegiances". Dr Ngor, escaped, told his story, the book and movie were made, and then was murdered by a streetgang who demanded the locket around his neck (which contained a picture of his late wife). He refused - the thugs who killed him are in jail.

.

Unfortunately, Ta Mok never saw justice. 2 million Cambodians died due to the Khmer Rouge, Ta Mok is responsible for plenty of them.

.

Nobody should forget what happened in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 - it was the logical end point of radical collectivism and anti-capitalism. The individual was explicitly nothing, money was abolished, any form of foreign education or intellectualising (besides Maoism) was reason to kill. People who used their hands not their heads were worshipped and lauded, everyone who used their minds was put into slavery or killed. Individual homes and all private property was abolished - you lived together, worked together, slept together (not that way), ate together and then had to criticise each other and yourself. Who else thinks money is the root of all evil?

.

Shame Chomsky didn't visit Cambodia like Scottish Khmer Rouge apologist Malcolm Caldwell did mid revolution. Caldwell was killed by members of the Khmer Rouge keen to "embarrass" the regime - justice indeed.

Hizbullah says children they kill are martyrs

Yes, these are the people that so many are willing to appease. Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, on Al Jazeera is reported as saying that the two Arab children killed by one of Hizbullah's rockets in Nazareth were "martyrs for the Palestinian cause".

.

Pig.

.

That's a great excuse. Of course, if they were Jewish, Christian or atheist children, he would damn them to hell. By the way, that goes for your children too.

.

You see Hizbullah's patrons, Iran - that nice regime that has not been meetings its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and wants to wipe out Israel and the USA, should know about children being martyrs. It used to send teenagers into war.

.

In addition, on May 23, 2005, Amnesty International reiterated its calls to Palestinian armed groups to put an immediate end to the use of children in armed activities: "Palestinian armed groups must not use children under any circumstances to carry out armed attacks or to transport weapons or other material". In 2002 current Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said "At least 40 children in Rafah became cripples after their hands were blown off by pipe bombs. They received 5 shekels [slightly over $1] to throw them". Not Hizbullah? No, but its spiritual allies.

.

and yes. I know Israeli attacks have killed children in Lebanon. There is a difference though. Israel wont call them martyrs for its cause, and wont celebrate their death. Israel doesn't want to wipe out Lebanon. Israel was not the party that started this conflict - Hizbullah did, and it is responsible for putting at risk Lebanese civilians who live near the sites where it launches attacks.

Credit card carbon

According to the Daily Telegraph, UK Environment Secretary David Milliband has proposed carbon “smartcards” whereby people would have a set allowance of carbon which you would need to use (or buy more from others) to spend on energy, transport and well anything I guess. He doesn’t say anything, even though he should. After all, a tin of pineapples could well have used more energy in its production and transport than a drive to the shops.
.
As usual, the analysis is one sided. Carbon dioxide emissions are bad and must be stopped. It isn’t asked WHY the emissions happen. You’re emitting carbon dioxide now, should you pay for that?
.
Milliband says that people on low incomes would benefit because they could sell credits. Sell them to do what? They can’t have a car, or travel, or buy an appliance that uses energy. Marvellous – they might be able to buy a turnip. Then there are those buying them. What happens if it is your work that flies you overseas, does a company get credits or does work buy credits off of someone else, or use yours and if it can’t, can you not go inspect that project underway?
.
For starters, it isn’t carbon per se, it is carbon dioxide, and that is not the only “greenhouse gas”. Methane is another significant one, but let’s not have the science get in the way of a great way for government to control what you buy.
.
Secondly, who is going to value the “carbon content” of what you buy. What regulatory body will carbon rate shoes made in Indonesia (were they shipped or flown?), bread made in the local bakery (did they use gas or electric, do they get credits for selling products made using carbon like GST or is it double counted, so that the power generation carbon is paid by the power company, the bakery and the bread buyer?), Sky TV transmissions, or how about that bus when you’re the only passenger (do you pay marginal costs or total costs, will it vary per trip?).
.
Thirdly, what happens to migrants and the new born. Do children get an allowance too, is it the same? Does it encourage people to breed (yay we can use the new kids carbon allowance to pay for the new car) which is hardly environmentally friendly? When do they get control of it, does everything you buy for someone else have to use your carbon credits or theirs, if yours does that mean the end of gift buying (Happy Birthday Mum, I bought you some plants because it’s the only thing I could get credit to come visit you in my car).
.
Fourthly, what happens to exports and imports? Does it kill off exports because it would make them uncompetitive? Do imports get hit even though you may have no idea what carbon content there is for something made in Peru? Does it create a new class of smuggler?
.
Fifthly, do people or companies undertaking activities that remove carbon dioxide (e.g. planting trees) get credits? If so, do inspectors come round and assess the value of your tree? Does it mean major companies will buy up forests en masse? Does it mean the government owning national parks has credits it can dish out to its friends or spend on things it likes doing? What if the government hasn’t enough, does it tax you some credits as well?
.
Finally, do energy companies have to buy credits if they discover more hydrocarbons? If so, does it mean the hydrocarbon industry may as well give up now, what are the consequences for global wealth and income?
.
You see it is part of the Green religious faith that the main problems in the world are transport and energy, ignoring that these are also two of the most fundamental pieces of infrastructure for civilisation to function. Without energy, it’s cold (or hot) and dark with little way for people to control their environment, without transport you are stuck with what you can get within walking distance. The “twin evils” are in fact what makes the world go round – unless you are living as a subsistence farmer in Africa, in which case you would dream about having such things. It might be nice if they stopped interfering in the energy and transport markets in ways that promote the retention of inefficient technology and practices - that might make a bit of a difference.

Bush vetos stem cell research bill for the wrong reason

George W. Bush’s greatest failing is his faith applied to politics. It is no secret that one major reason Bush was re-elected in 2004 is because he fired up the significant minority of evangelical Christians in the USA to vote. For all of the Democrats who despise Bush, he fired up the hell and brimstone religious conservatives to keep him in power. He hasn’t forgotten them.
.
He has used his Presidential veto the first time in his Presidency to veto a Senate Bill for federal government funding to use human embryo stem cells in medical research.
.
I'm an atheist and I believe it was the right thing to do, but not for the reason Bush believes. The federal government should not be using taxpayers’ money – money taken by force – to fund research that many taxpayers would not choose to fund themselves. That is what the bill was about - it wasn't about allowing stem cell research. That is not prohibited, it was about the federal government funding it.
.
Unfortunately, Bush’s veto had nothing to do with freedom, but everything to do with his own personal view. He believes stem cell research is immoral. It isn’t. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the Bill, and many Republican Senators did too. As typically conservative Senator Orrin Hatch said “A critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living”.
.
Embryonic stem cell research could bring enormous medical benefits to cure diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons disease and spinal cord injuries. This should be wholeheartedly supported – but it should be supported from money given out of choice. I would certainly do so.
.
However, government does not exist to force people to pay for research that offends them. If the federal government was funding research into the “intelligent design theory” it would be widely derided, and rightly so. Similarly if it was funding research into alternative therapies, like reiki or iridology, or how about whaling for scientific purposes. How about government research into whether masturbation was good for you? .

.

How about research being funded by those who support it?

Why democracy is not THE answer

It is generally a truth that democracies don't wage war - this is one reason why the US and its allies have been promoting democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Open transparent democracies do provide A check on government's abusing their authority and attacking their citizens and neighbours. However, many democracies are not open and transparent (South Africa is slipping down that path, Egypt isn't much of a democracy and neither is Russia), and it is A check not THE check. You see, it is fine if the majority want peace and to live in harmony with each other and their neighbours - but what if a democracy votes to destroy a neighbouring democracy? This is what the Ayn Rand Institute rightly points out in its latest Op-ed - because the US promotion of democracy is entirely consistent with Hizbullah being part of the Lebanese government, and with Hamas running the Palestinian Authority.

.

"The essence of democracy is unlimited majority rule. It is the notion that the government should not be constrained, as long as its behavior is sanctioned by majority vote. It is the notion that the very function of government is to implement the "will of the people." It is the notion espoused whenever we tell the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians and the Afghanis that the legitimacy of a new government flows from its being democratically approved.
And it is the notion that was categorically repudiated by the founding of the United States."

.

Exactly. The US was founded on having a constitutionally limited democracy.

.

The op-ed continues:

.

"America's defining characteristic is freedom. Freedom exists when there are limitations on government, imposed by the principle of individual rights. America was established as a republic, under which the state is restricted to protecting our rights. This is not a system of "democracy." Thus, you are free to criticize your neighbors, your society, your government--no matter how many people wish to pass a law censoring you. You are free to own your property--no matter how large a mob wants to take it from you. The rights of the individual are inalienable. But if "popular will" were the standard, the individual would have no rights--only temporary privileges, granted or withdrawn according to the mass mood of the moment. The tyranny of the majority, as the Founders understood, is just as evil as the tyranny of an absolute monarch. Yes, we have the ability to vote, but that is not the yardstick by which freedom is measured. After all, even dictatorships hold official elections. It is only the existence of liberty that justifies, and gives meaning to, the ballot box. In a genuinely free country, voting pertains only to the means of safeguarding individual rights. There can be no moral "right" to vote to destroy rights."

.

Germans elected Hitler and his allies, and they then destroyed German democracy, freedom and went out to destroy millions of people.

.

Democracy is now being used against the US and the West, because it has handed to people on a plate, the tool to legitimise their murderous intent.

.

"But then, if a religious majority imposes its theology on Iraq, or if Palestinian suicide-bombers execute their popular mandate by blowing up Israeli schoolchildren, on what basis can we object, since democracy--"the will of the people"--is being faithfully served? As a spokesman for Hamas, following its electoral victory, correctly noted: "I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. . . . It's not possible for the U.S. . . . to turn its back on an elected democracy."

.

So is it any wonder that some in the Muslim world believe the US is hypocritical. It has been pushing the wrong barrow. It is harder to promote individualism is a world dominated by nationalist, religiously inspired tribalists dedicated to bullying their way around the lives of others.

.

The point about democracy has been made by PC several times and myself. Democracy is not THE answer, at best it is one small component. Government is like an engine on a car, democracy is a steering wheel, but without individual rights - there are no brakes on it.