Castro's hopefully dead...

With Fidel Castro unable to attend his 80th birthday celebrations, it is apparent that his death is near, and like other dictators, I wont be shedding a tear for him.
^
Castro is still a favourite for those on the left. They are seduced by a country which, unlike the bleak grey Orwellian states of eastern Europe, is full of Latin culture, a quaintness of the 1950s frozen (how many people “marvel” at old American cars still plodding along patched together repeatedly) and official socio-economic statistics that put Cuba among the best of those in Latin America.
^
With Castro ever defiant against the US, this automatically appealed to those who are anti-capitalist, anti-American and looking for a hero. The very same people of course were supporting a man who was allowing the USSR to locate nuclear weapons on Cuban soil to target the USA. Yes, very peace loving.
^
Those who admire Castro tend to ignore that his promised elections never eventuated. They also ignore how difficult it is for Cubans to leave, always a good test of a government.
^
The Castro regime has executed thousands of political prisoners. The numbers range from 3,000 to 18,000, but why quarrel over numbers – the simple fact is the Castro regime murders its opponents, as has done so with impunity. Those it doesn’t murder, it imprisons, including classifying them as insane and sending them to psychiatric institutions. You see Marxist-Leninists often thought people were insane if they didn’t feel lucky to be under a people’s government or questioned it.
^
After all Article 53 of the Cuban constitution prohibits any independent media of any kind:
^
“the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulated the exercise of those freedoms”
^
In other words, no freedom of speech at all.
^
On top of that in Cuba you need permission to move home because, you see, you hold no property rights over your home, including the rights one has with a lease.
^
Of course none of this matters to the likes of Matt Robson, who sticks his political tongue up the arse of Castro – who turns his back on political prisoners and who ignores the complete denial of free speech in Cuba. The moral equivalency he grants Cuba compared to the US is despicable, he ignores how Americans can be anti-Bush without any consequences, but that uttering words against Castro can be very dangerous. That’s ok, he got to leave, he gets to criticise whoever he wants – prick!
^
The left will bemoan Pinochet’s eventual death as he is unlikely to be punished for the authoritarian brutality he inflicted upon Chile – yet Pinochet voluntarily surrendered power peacefully to a liberal democratic government. Castro has maintained a 48 year long authoritarian dictatorship, but the left fawns over him and ignores human rights abuses by blaming the US.
^
Some on the left will say the Batista regime that preceded Castro was worse. That justifies continuing to be brutal and suppressing dissent does it?
^
Had Castro had his way, I wouldn’t be blogging, in fact there would be no alternative point of view allowed anywhere in the world. He’d have cheered had the USSR launched nuclear missiles into the USA, and cheered when the last bastion of freedom had been snuffed out for socialism.
^
I hope the bastard is dead by the time you read this, I hope his brother doesn’t last and the Cuban government announces reforms to free political prisoners, allow freedom of speech, independent media and genuine open elections. Most of all I hope it allows Cubans to own their lives, to own their property and to live in dignity, not live in a slave state. It is time Cubans did have freedom, the right to not only elect their government, but to vote out their government, to criticise it, to hold it to account, but most of all to live their lives without it interfering in every aspect of it.
^
It is for this reason that I will be popping open the champagne when Castro dies – it will be a great day for freedom, and a great opportunity for the scum who have licked their way up the slippery pole of Cuban politics to redeem themselves.

Let businesses discriminate against customers

What do you think the drinking age means? Does it mean that bars can sell alcohol to anyone down to that age, or is it COMPULSORY to sell alcohol to people down to that age?
^
Well the Human Wrongs Commissariat has said that it is illegal for a Wellington bar to ban 18 and 19yos. Apparently this is true, which is a nonsense.
^
Whose bar is it? If the bar wants to ban 18yos or 80yos it should have the right to do so. Indeed, it should have the right to ban whoever it wants. If 18 and 19yos don’t like it, then they can protest, call for others to boycott it, but they have no right to use the state to force themselves onto premises within which they are not welcome.
^
It’s called freedom – some premises don’t want teenagers drinking there – so let the owners ban anyone they wish.
^
You see this is the fundamental failure of political debate from left and right. Some think it is should be the “right” of an 18yo to go into a bar, regardless of what the owner thinks. Other thinks it should be illegal. In fact, the law says it is compulsory for the bar owners to let an 18yo drink there. It should be none of the above.

^

UPDATE: Idiot Savant doesn't think businesses should have the right to turn away whoever they please. Presumably he thinks its ok for barowners to ban ugly people, fat people, thin people, stupid people, blondes, redheads, short people and tall people (because the Human Wrongs Act doesn't mention those) from bars.

National's new line up and it's slide back to Labour's philosophical heartland

Political correctness portfolio is gone, I’m not too upset about that, Wayne Mapp didn’t know what to do with it – and the concept of political correctness is essentially not talking about things that are “forbidden” by the political zeitgeist. In other words, wanting to abolish all laws that are race specific or funding that is racially driven. I somehow think National doesn't know how to handle this.
^
Of the rest? I've ignored those who are ok - business as usual, nothing to get concerned about...

^

Bill English in Finance – well I look foreward to his genius giving us cutting edge economic policies, or John Key writing it all. Go on Bill, impress me - if you can take on Cullen and win, I'll changed my view of you.

^

Nick Smith remains of course, looking after climate change no less. So wait for the new tax and intervention policies from him. He is also spokesman on building and construction. Why? Authoritarian tosser.

^

Judith Collins is spokeswoman for family affairs (besides welfare and veterans' affairs without the apostrophe). Again why? What is she going to do for families? PLEASE abolish the Families Commission and Commissioner for Children's roles. That would be delightful, then wind up the portfolio. So I wait.

^

Murray McCully for Foreign Affairs? So he wants to travel, or you want him out of the way. However, sport and recreation? Leave well alone -that portfolio is unnecessary.

^

Lockwood Smith for Immigration and Revenue. The man who wouldn't confront the teachers' unions when he had the chance - sleepwalking his way to retirement. Courage isn't his forte for several reasons.

^

Wayne Mapp for Defence and Auckland issues? No, you are better than Judith Tizard (but then so is my niece). Auckland doesn't have special issues that require intervention.

^

Chris Finlayson on arts culture and heritage. Should be a brief portfolio, but will it be? (oh Shadow Attorney General, Treaty negotiations - now these matters).

^

Tim Groser for trade. Excellent choice and frankly the only one.

^

Lindsay Tisch. Tourism, small business and racing? Tourism should really just be wound up, it is simply the services sector. Small business? Why small business? Shouldn't it be part of commerce? Racing is just a joke - I'd resign from that Lindsay - nobody needs it.

^

Pansy Wong for ACC and ethnic affairs. ACC is fine, but what is an ethnic affair? I know it is why it exists, but I'm damned if my Scottish parents are going to get much from this.

^

Splitting Maori Affairs between Georgina and Tau is interesting, but then why not? Having two people dedicated to this area can't be bad.

^

Paul Hutchinson has Tertiary Education, Research, Science & Technology/CRIs, but also disability issues? hmmm.. Children? Why is there policy on children? THAT is insidious, but then Hutchinson is a bit of a prick.

^

Richard Worth for economic development. Well given that the Alliance created that portfolio, it ought to go too - what could he possibly do?

^

Kate Wilkinson for consumer affairs and labour/industrial relations. Clearly not a high priority to do anything about labour laws with someone so lowly ranked, but apparently quite smart.

^

Eric Roy for outdoor recreation? Give me a break. Unless it is about legalising outdoor shagging on private property, this has little value. It's about private property rights.

^

Sandra Goudie has internal affairs and senior citizens (!). Senior citizens is another waste of damned time. Stop balkanising people into minority groups - treat us all as individuals! Sandra did oust Jeanette Fitzsimons from Coromandel though, which is something worth celebrating.

^

Nicky Wagner has youth affairs, another seriously dud portfolio

^

However, the Women’s Affairs portfolio is back, with Jackie Blue. Presumably the Nats wont be getting rid of that utterly useless Ministry. It is a Ministry of collectivist feminism, to lobby for funding for women’s health (fuck testicular and prostate cancer, and the lower life expectancy for men), women’s education (girls are doing better than boys though hmm), women’s justice system (men are many times more likely to be in prison than women – it can’t be because it’s their fault because the same doesn’t apply to Maori men does it?), etc etc.
^
The state should not be sexist, it certainly should not have a Ministry that is, by definition, sexist. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs will not help National advance policies consistent with its principles – it hires people who overwhelmingly are pro-Labour. It should go. Other departments do not consult it unless they are similarly ideologically inclined (in which case why bother?), or are told to. MWA, you see, would typically take the view that anything that affected people without much money would hit women harder, and that somehow a policy should do something about it.
^
Indeed it should – it should abolish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, donate the funding in one whole year to Women’s Refuge then give the rest back (as part of a widespread cut in government) in tax cuts. Jackie Blue said "Without any doubt, National will be putting together policies that benefit all New Zealanders, but we will want to make sure that women are not disadvantaged in the process." I guess it is ok if men are then is it? Given she is against hospital vending machines with unhealthy foods and drinks, I am not optimistic that she'll be anything other than a tweedledum to Pete Hodgson. Another school prefect.

Brash's resignation

I am saddened but not surprised that Don Brash has resigned from Parliament. It will be all the better for him personally. He wont join ACT sadly, or Libertarianz even ;-)
^
His legacy is viewed in mixed ways across the political spectrum. To those on the left he was an anathema, and many there have been spitting out the venom they accuse him of starting – when much of what he did was to challenge their comfortable little world. A world view that means that challenges are responded to by name calling, insults and their own bigotry – the bigotry against people who are personally successful, wealthy or foreign. The left talks about the rich the same way as southern segregationists use the word "nigger", it plays the envy card on demand. Most of all, the left were horrified that Brash's views on not giving Maori privilege through government measures, are held by a lot of New Zealanders, and National nearly won as a result. Labour's provincial heartland voted National in droves - Labour was only saved by the big cities and a concerted campaign to scaremonger voters in low income parts of Auckland.
^
To the conservative right Brash was a godsend, though one they initially were wary of. However, he was groomed to say the right things at the right time to shore up that vote. A vote that, while probably topping little more than 8-9% all up (take the 5% max that the Christian Coalition could have cobbled together, and those who are too conservative to vote anything BUT National) was motivated to turn out and vote. Unfortunately, they were his undoing.
^
To the libertarian right he was a godsend too, but in a different way. You see, Brash is, pretty much, one of us on many issues. On economics he believed in minimal intervention, in private property rights and in government getting out of the way. On social policy he was more concerned about delivering quality and choice in health and education, but unlike Libertarianz he believed in retaining a welfare state as a last resort. He was keen to promote a culture which was the antithesis of the New Zealand tall poppy syndrome, one which celebrated success. I heard Don Brash speak at a SOLO conference in Auckland and had some wine with him afterwards. At the conference he engaged in a formal debate about whether or not a government central bank was necessary, he believed it was and that there was competition in currencies between countries, so little need for it within countries. He responded to countervailing arguments intelligently and with good humour.
^
He was was more libertarian than many in ACT. He was socially liberal, with little interest in censorship or the state interfering in people’s private lives. He didn’t believe in legalising drugs, but could understand the arguments in favour of reform. However, most of all, Don Brash could understand philosophy and the application of philosophy to public policy. He could debate intellectually about both. He is a gentleman, and at that time was simply a relatively newly elected MP. The group of us talking to him joked about him becoming leader, which of course he fudged – little were we to know.
^
I have written before about Brash’s achievements. The positives are substantial. He broke the mould of the unspoken politically correct view on Maori. The view that essentially, they ARE oppressed, they need special government help and the law should treat them differently. He questioned that, something that when others mentioned it, they were shot down in flames by those proclaiming “racist”, in their Maoist like intolerance for reasoned debate. Whatever Key and English do to provide succour to the Maori Party, this issue is now out in the open.
^
Brash put tax cuts clearly on the political agenda, he justified them credibly. Credibly because not only the surpluses that Dr Cullen spends, but also because of bureaucratic waste. People believe both that the government is wasteful and that it doesn’t need to tax so much to pay for publicly funded services that most people want (health and education). Tax cuts are no longer just the “give money to the rich”, they are “give me back my money”. It wasn’t the government’s money to spend in the first place.
^
Also important are Brash’s confrontation of the RMA, one of the most anti-private property fascistic pieces of legislation in recent history. The legislation that allows all and sundry to delay what others do with their property, when it has little effect on them. He also confronted the welfare state, the notion that it was acceptable to have intergenerational welfare dependency, and to persist with the notion that it is caring to just keep giving people welfare.
^
Those messages, along with Brash being himself. Being socially liberal, voting consistently for civil unions and prostitution law reform, COULD have won the election. Brash is liberal on social issues, he is not the conservative that some National strategists had him play up to, or that many on the left believed he was. Unfortunately the National Party could not stomach an intelligent economic and socially liberal leader. This is where things went wrong.
^
Brash’s success in boosting support for National with his principled approaches to Maori issues (despite pointless statement on pure blooded Maori that meant nothing), taxation and welfare were seen by both ACT supporters, and the conservative Christian right as providing a platform, not entirely dissimilar from what worked for Bush in 2004. The idea that Brash could rally the largely ignored conservative right to vote National. Those voters had largely been burnt from politics firstly in 1996 when the Christian Coalition failed (thank God!) to get 5% of the vote, secondly by United Future giving Labour confidence and supply, and thirdly by Graham Capill’s revolting hypocrisy.
^
Brash’s made three big mistakes:
^
The first was to deny the Exclusive Brethren. The left has made much of this non-issue, a weird religious sect campaigning against a Labour-Green coalition and supportive of a National led government. That is no big deal, but Labour milked religious bigotry in a manner it would not even THINK of if it were Muslims or Maori spiritualists, to make it look suspicious. Brash should have said, as PC has once said, is the same as Reagan once said “"When people join my campaign, they are supporting me; I am not necessarily supporting them."
^
This would have neutralised it. Unfortunately Brash, a political novice, was pressured by National’s spin doctors and strategists to lie – a typical political response, deny and lie and hope it goes away. It works for Labour, usually, but not the Nats.
^
The second was to talk about “mainstream” New Zealanders and about families, and stumble when talking about race. He did this in order to get publicity and also motivate the conservative base to vote for a man who otherwise, is a liberal atheist. On families, he should have said little more than families are important and a family is any group of people who live together with mutual interdependence and love, and if pushed resist defining it further. He should have steered miles away from talking about the mainstream, alienating gay/lesbian/bisexual people, and Maori. He could have talked about government existing for all New Zealanders, giving no preferences but also no discrimination towards any minority, with the individual being the smallest and most ignored minority. Idiot Savant ripped into him on this, and made some very good points, whoever advised him to talk of this was a fool, and Brash was mistaken for doing this. It hurt National in the main cities.
^
Finally, he simply did not act as himself. He was being protected, no doubt seduced by the promise that those who play the filthy game of politics knew better than he how to attract votes. In fact, it was his honesty, his gentle respectful manner, his combination of intellectual rigour and liberalism that attracted much support when it showed. When he was trying to be a politician, he got hounded for it - he's not convincing when he doesn't really believe in what he is saying.
^
The left attacked him for being racist, until it realised that a large number of New Zealanders were also concerned with the prevailing bureaucratic view that you daren’t criticise any special government programmes/laws for Maori. The left attacked him as being only for the rich, until the National policy did not remove the top tax rate introduced by Labour, and large numbers of New Zealanders saw they would benefit from modest tax cuts (and knew that Labour’s surpluses were hardly sign of a government unable to fund the core services they wanted the state to provide). It was epitomised by Helen Clark calling Brash cancerous and corrosive, while Labour bemoaned the depths to which NZ politics had dropped – ignoring that Labour was supplying at least half of the ballast, and in enormous denial about forcing the NZ public to fund its pledge card.
^
Of course Winston Peters, who actively played the race card in several elections regarding immigrants, is now Minister of Foreign Affairs. I’ll let the leftwing blogosphere reflect how principled and moral Helen Clark and the Labour Party really is given it chose Winston and NZ First, when it could have chosen the Greens or the Maori Party. It will simply blank that out though as being irrelevant - which it wouldn't be if National was in power - the hypocrisy of tribal politics.

^
Aucklander at Large rightfully points out the personal toll politics imposes on people. It is high, and it is a game for the merciless, I hope Don Brash enjoys a break from it - and takes the opportunity to comment on the sidelines when and where he believes he can make a contribution.

Helen Clark speaks on ANZUS and nuclear ships

My mistake, I didn't notice who said it, it was hard to tell.
^

Stuff reports “National Party leader John Key says there will be no nuclear powered ships entering New Zealand's harbours as long as he leads the party and he accepts the ANZUS treaty is dead.”
^
Well of course Bolger started this, when he didn’t need to. Now John Key is clearly trying to cozy up to the Greens.
^
Come on John, give me one evidence based reason why nuclear powered ships should not enter New Zealand harbours? I can’t wait. You’d rather surrender to the scaremongering cabal of unscientific leftwing nuclearphobes, the same ones who will go to France, Japan and other countries and consume nuclear power without a second thought. The same ones that hardly uttered a criticism of non-Western nuclear powers, while constantly blaming the USA, UK and France for nuclear weapons – because, you see, they were morally equivalent to the USSR and communist China.
^
ANZUS? Well yes it is dead, he says he is just acknowledging it. Well that isn't necessary John, unless you clearly don’t want to align yourself with the war on terror. No, far easier to take the cowards’ approach. Be “independent”, don’t look like you are aligned to the US, because so many in the media, universities and the like are anti-USA, anti-capitalist, whilst saying nothing about the likes of Matt Robson going to Cuba to felch lyrically about how great that one-party authoritarian state is. When you catch the tube several times a week John, you understand what the war on terror means - it means every day I am a potential target, along with a million others, including thousands of New Zealanders. However, far easier to surrender the argument and pander to the "it's the American's fault Islamists murder innocent civilians" view.
^
So there we have it – John Key, surrenders to unscientific nuclearphobes and
ambivalent on the war on terror. He want to be more bi-partisan on foreign policy. Why stop there? Why not economic policy, education policy, Maori policy? Indeed enough of confrontation and division - "let's think about not what divides us, but unites us" (as David Lange once said). By the way John, how many votes do you think this issue cost National? Seriously?
^
I’ll wait to see whether David Cameron or John Key is worse… the jury is still out, Cameron is well ahead, but Key is having a sprint. Think I'm wrong? Well don't take it from me, no other than Jordan Carter sees the replacement of Brash with Key as a victory for the left philosophically and politically. He calls it "a strategic victory for Labour and for social democratic politics".

^

Sadly, I believe he is right. However, when National moves into Labour's ground it traditionally wins - witness 1949, 1960 and 1975. 1990 it won partly due to disenchantment with Labour, but it also attracted back most of the pro-market vote Labour won from the New Zealand Party in 1987. However, whatever party implements centre-left policies shouldn't matter to Jordan. His philosophy is where National is heading, and he shouldn't care if his tribe wins or not, as long as the status quo - that Labour supports - is largely unchanged.