The priorities of the Greens

Given my earlier post about Camp 22 in North Korea, I was heartened to see the Green Party is keen on protesting to foreign embassies.

*

However, it is telling that the Green Party has not written to the North Korean embassy in Canberra (which also covers New Zealand) to protest the children imprisoned in Camp 22, working dawn to dusk and beyond hours of slavery (you'd think they'd care). No, it is to protest Australian federal government treatment of Aborigines, which includes forced immunisations (which I disagree with), compulsory health checks under threat of welfare cuts (which I agree with, if you are accepting other people's money they it should be conditional) and "market rents" (horrors!).

*

When will the Greens start campaigning for political freedom in North Korea? Unlikely, given they link (bottom of page) to a website of one of New Zealand's "friends" of North Korea (who doesn't rock the boat by talking about difficult issues like child slavery). It would be nice if the left universally condemned this and called for action - but all they call for is nuclear disarmament and for China and the US to do the same (because you can North Korea to not keep any, given how transparent a society it is!!!).

Guilt merchants of the 21st century

Few things infuriate me more than musicians getting onto a political bandwagon that most of them know little about, with the primary goals of:

• 
  
  Assuaging their consciences for their self imposed guilt of being very wealthy;


• 
  
  Attention seeking, because it wouldn't look cool to not seem like you give a damn, raising sales of their albums as a result;


• 
  
  Telling people off for living their lives the way they choose, whilst themselves making token gestures in that direction.

Most of those doing this are either in the politically naive bracket (also known as stupid), or simply like telling others what to do. They believe that instead of simply being musicians, they have a duty to "change the world" through their messages.

It can't always be wrong. Music has a place in political dissent, when it is about fighting genuine oppression, as with totalitarian government and free speech. However, it is a fact of globalisation that it costs so little to produce music and distribute it, and audiences can be so large that musicians can make a fortune out of one album. Those musicians who performed at Live Earth are wealthy because of property rights, contracts, independent judiciaries and capitalism. They are not grateful for that. I can only assume they either feel (notice they feel more than think):

- Very lucky to be wealthy and successful (in which case if others are less lucky they might want to share their luck); or

- Know they've worked hard to be successful, but think they better support causes to encourage people to change behaviour to make the "world a better place.

Madonna's personal wealth is more than the GDP of about five countries - but for all of the socialist pontificating she's not going to give hardly any of it away. She's far too career obsessed to be a true socialist.

Most of the criticism of Live Earth has been because it was boring or the carbon footprint created by the concert. Frankly, I don't give a damn about either of those things. I didn't go, and the obsession with carbon footprints is becoming almost a religious crusade. I know someone who will give a telling off for flying instead of going by train.

The sort of guilt passed out by climate change evangelists is akin to a sort of Catholic/Protestant judgmentalism. The new sins are now:

- Flying;

- Driving;

- Leaving appliances on standby;

- Using incandescent lightbulbs;

- Not recycling all you can.

In the past you might have been pilloried for:

- Swearing;

- Having sex before marriage;

- Masturbating;

- Not going to church;

- Not standing up for elderly people on the bus;

- Getting divorced;

- Being single at age 25 for women (unless a nun), 45 for men (unless a cad or entertainer, because we all know, you know!);

- Criticising the Royal Family.

I don't know what element of humanity has this overwhelming need to judge others, to set rules and humiliate those who don't follow them. There are others of course, the obsession with judging people's lifestyle related to health is the other one. Smokers, people who eat "the wrong foods", people who don't exercise are all subject to the judgment machine.

Why isn't it a sin to tell others how to live their lives?

Getting personal

Bloody 'ell...

*

Well it started with Maia having a bit of a rant about an employer who wouldn't allow a union to hold a meeting on the work premises. She said (sic) "Bosses are theiving parasite dogs, thieving and parasiting is how capitalism works. "

*

Now setting aside that this is language that was used in Maoist China, the sort used when Red Guards were lynching people. Also setting aside the second half of that sentence, which is a simplistic view of capitalism. The first half of the sentence is vile bigotry. It is akin to saying "Black people are thieves, Jews are parasites, homosexuals are child molesters". Why? Because it assumes all managers are thieves and parasites. Charming really. Some on the left might say "you can't help your race, sex, sexuality, but you can avoid being a boss". Well yes, that's the excuse given by those defending what Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all the other bloodthirsty socialists did. By saying this, she's saying that plenty of people I know, including family and friends are (sic) "theiving parasite dogs". Now she has said she means "employers", which makes it ok apparently.

*

Now Maia can be a Marxist as much as she likes (though she says she is not, which is a bit like saying the leader of the BNP isn't a Nazi or Rodney Hide isn't a libertarian or the ocean isn't made of water because there are other things floating in it), she's not a Marxist-Leninist (she hasn't read Lenin) she says, although she uses the language and says things like "Despite all these reservations, the Americans of the 1940s and 1950s I most admire were all in the Communist party." and then "There are two acceptable answer to the question 'Are you now or have you ever been?': 'Yes' or 'fuck off I'm not telling you'." liking Che Guevara the man who said he would have fired the Soviet missiles into the US from Cuba had they been under his control (so she likes a warmongerer, nuclear one no less!) and said Cuba should model itself on North Korea. It's her right to express her views supporting authoritarian politics. Occasionally I agree with her, like here, here, here and here. More often than not I disagree, but this isn't the point.

*

Clint Heine and James both disagreed and said this. Now setting aside whether she is a bludger or not (I have no idea myself), clearly they were taking the piss out of her in a very intimate way, given they think she is nuts. Now I find her comment about bosses to be vile, and I find her almost complete insensitivity to the totalitarian nightmare of communism (and those who supported it) to be inexplicable, but one of her big issues is rape. Rightly so, rape is an abomination, as are all other forms of initiated violence. I am certain both Clint Heine and James agree - it's part of their politics. Some on the left will refuse to believe that, and that is more a reflection of their own bigotry than anything else. Maia has since said "" To talk of 'fixing' a woman with a sexual act and ignore her desires is to threaten rape. I'm aware that James, and Clint had no intention of taking any action, that discussion of sexual violence is just words to them. But the effect, and the intention, is to police women's behaviour, with threats about what will happen if we don't conform." I don't believe the intention IS to "police women's behaviour", I believe if a male had said something similar there could also have made a sexual reference, and there is no intention to use force.

*

Unfortunately, for those imbibing on structuralist leftwing post-modernist politics, it is difficult to believe that there are people who do think that people should be left to do as they like, as long as they don't use violence or fraud against others. They believe the world is set up for men to run everything and to trivialise rape or encourage it. Funnily enough most men I know despise rape, because it IS violence, and the spinoff are women who fear men, and the extremists who apply bigotry to men as a result. The same bigotry they wouldn't tolerate towards women. There are rapists, men who want to commit rape or trivialise it - that's about as funny as trivialising murder or assault more generally.

*

Notwithstanding that, given her sensitivity to rape, it wasn't clever and playing the ball instead of the woman isn't something I do unless someone directly advocates violence. She wasn't being threatened with rape - she was constructing that from insults, because she assumed that was where they were coming from. She assumed it was, it wasn't intended to be. My initial response was that it was, and i was wrong. Threatening violence to solve political problems is wrong, throwing insults her way in such an intimate manner is wrong as well - but let's not forget that some of Maia's heroes are advocates of violence too.

*

In conclusion yes the two of them (Clint and James) were being childish, and didn't advance the core argument anywhere by taking the piss (in a way that was easily too intimate), but fueled the fires of others on the left and right. However, it doesn't excuse the McCarthyist nonsense in response (calling for a google bomb). Just because Maia chooses to be anonymous and Clint Heine doesn't does not mean that there should be a Maoist witchhunt. If she or others embark on this then frankly it shows how vindictive and abusive THEY are. I believe he did not threaten with violence, to be tried by a court of bloggers for doing so is almost as abusive and vile as anyone who DOES threaten with violence.

*

By the way, if Maia, Idiot Savant and others on the left think it is only women who get threatened online they should open their eyes.

*

I've had the following on mine:

".Hope some muslim brother blows you up in suicide bombing in London to thank you for your support of muslim cause. " as one example. I guess that's not important if you don't live in London, and think of war and terror as some far over event that is the fault of Bush and Blair - it's great comfort to those of us who daily know that we are considered legitimate targets. Initiating violence is wrong, and I have yet to see evidence that any on the libertarian "right" of the NZ blogosphere believe otherwise.

*

There should be no political argument that one or several people initiating violence against other individuals is wrong - but then, there is.

Why Live Earth really is unimportant.

The international act of mutual onanism didn't interest me, in fact my girlfriend bought a car that day - because her access and mobility are more important than self righteous multi-millionaires (none of whom catch the tube) telling her what to do.

^

I thought I'd draw your attention to something else. I mean, whether or not you take a flight, or keep the TV on standby is nothing compared to this. What this describes happens every single day, yesterday, today and tomorrow - and it is telling how few really give a damn...

^

It's called Camp 22, it is about 500 or so square miles in size, or roughly the area of metropolitan greater Los Angeles. 50,000 people are held there. Men, women and children. Entire families, rounded up for the sin of not showing unwavering obedience to their government - this is North Korea.

^

Former guard Ahn Myong-Chol has reported that between 1,500 and 2,000 died annually there of malnutrition - mostly children. He remembers:

^

"One unforgettable image, there were two girls and they were trying to take out a piece of noodle from one polluted water pond where they put the garbage. And one guard kicked the kids into the small pond, and they drowned. The pond was very deep, and I felt really sad about that"

^

“This is the detention center,” he said. “If someone goes inside this building, in three months he will be dead or disabled for life. In this corner they decided about the executions, who to execute and whether to make it public.

^

"And I heard many times that eyeballs were taken out by beating. And I saw that by beating the person, the muscle was damaged and the bone was exposed, outside, and they put salt on the wounded part. At the beginning I was frightened when I witnessed it, but it was repeated again and again, so my feelings were paralyzed. "

^

or how about this tale...

^

"At that time the tunnel was passing near the pig pen of the camp, and about 500 political prisoners were participating and there was one female named Han Jin Duk, 26 years old. I was in charge of giving food to the pigs. And my supervisor, when he saw the woman, she was beautiful. And he raped her, and he was found by the watchman officer. And he was investigated. My superior, his rank was reduced and the woman was sent to the detention center And then I didn’t see her for one year.

...
One day I was going to the place to load the coal, I met her. And I noticed she was exactly that woman, and I asked her, how you could survive. And she told me, that yes, I survived. But she showed me her body, and it was all burned by fire.

...
After six months I met her at the corn storage in Kusan district and found her putting on a used tire on her knees because her legs were cut off. Because of a coal mine wagon ran over her knees. And all she could do now was separate the corn grains from the cob.

..
The reason why she was forced to go to the prison is her father’s elder brother was purged at the Anbyon, Kanwhan Do province. She went when she was 5 years old. All of the family members were imprisoned. Her mother starved to death, and her brother also starved to death in the prison. I met her at age 26. So it means she was in the prison for 21 years. I think she no longer is in the world."

^

You see, this is why I can't get too concerned about CO2 emissions. North Korea imprisons 5 year olds and enslaves them. New Zealand has diplomatic relations with this entity, even gives it aid. An academic has a website on North Korea, but doesn't mention human rights. I guess it is inconvenient to ask about a government imprisoning, enslaving, torturing and murdering children? Now that's an "Inconvenient Truth" isn't it? However, Al Gore doesn't rally for North Korean gulags to be closed.

^

Shouldn't it be an international, unanimous campaign now to demand North Korea free all child political prisoners at the very least? Shouldn't Al Gore, Madonna, Bono prioritise this first? Shouldn't the so called peace movement, the so-called human rights activists and the so-called supporters of civil liberties be protesting outside North Korean embassies in Canberra, London, Paris, Stockholm and the like?

^

and shouldn't the numerous New Zealand sycophants of this murderous nightmare of a tyranny be held to account?

^

Have a look at Camp 22 on Google Earth, some high resolution images are here, and just think what matters.

^

UPDATE: If you give a damn about men, women and children being imprisoned and enslaved because of an accusation of not being politically obedient then go here. Hat Tip to Julian for this video showing you starkly why this matters - it matters as much as apartheid mattered - it matters as much as the Holocaust matters. LINK (Liberty in North Korea) describes itself as:

^

We are a non-profit, non-partisan, non-ethnic and non-religious group formed in pursuit of the following mission statement:
To educate the world about North Korea;
To advocate for human rights, political and religious freedom, and humanitarian aid for North Korea;
To protect the North Korean people where they can be reached;
To empower citizens of the world to take effective action and make a difference;
To bring together and support existing NGOs and other organizations working to achieve the same ends; and
To tell the world the truth.

^

North Koreans are also unfree outside the country, LINK estimates that 12,000 are slave labourers in other countries, mainly Russia, Mongolia, but also Poland and even the Czech Republic.

Virgin - image vs substance

No, not virgins, so the dozens or so pervy people who are searching for something about virgins or anything but virgins, and are now disappointed can go here (R18 seriously NSFW and I'm not banned in China). I'm talking about:

Sir Richard Branson, or "Beardie" as Jeremy Clarkson likes to call him, is a great marketing man. He has built a brand image of excitement, innovation, cutting edge and being, somewhat, the outsider - the new guy who likes to shake things up. It started with Virgin Music, but has moved onto broadcasting, airlines, trains and more. My main experiences have been in travel.

^

Travelling on a Virgin Trains Pendolino train in first class reminds me of what the Virgin brand is about, image more than substance. The sort of style that leaves dirty teaspoons at the table, the sort of style that means sometimes you can’t get scrambled eggs with the full breakfast because the menu says fried eggs, even though the menu also says scrambled eggs with salmon ("I'll have to check with chef"). Honestly, how hard can i be for a fare that can be as high as £168 one way? Virgin has a whole range of products I have had reason to consume or deal with:
^
-Virgin Trains
- Virgin Atlantic Airways
- Virgin media
- Virgin radio
- Virgin mobile
^
My problem with the Virgin Group is not that its products are awful, mostly they are not. Sometimes it is outstanding, much of the time it is ok, sometimes it is awful. It is the inconsistency that is annoying. However what particularly irks me is Sir Richard Branson’s play with the media, and how seduced the media is by his antics. He’s very clever, the name, logo and the style and way he gets media attention is pretty clever. For years he played the underdog ticket, and still does. He played it against BA with Virgin Atlantic Airways, little guy against the big former state owned monopoly.
^
He has done it more recently with Virgin Media (essentially the former NTL/Telewest cable TV/broadband network here in the UK), moaning about how Sky wanted more money for Virgin Media to keep rebroadcasting content that Sky produced/commissioned/owned the rights to. Branson bleeted about being the consumer’s friend, when anyone who subscribes to Virgin Media must sign a minimum 12 month contract and has no right to use anyone else for national/international calls using the phone service. Virgin Media has lost this battle somewhat, despite slick advertising, Sky has picked up new subscribers by offering broadband as well. Style over substances hasn't really won. Virgin Media's High Definition TV offering is also style over substance, as it only relays some on demand programming and BBC's HD channel. Sky by contrast offers another 9 HD channels and video on demand. Virgin Media in its previous incarnation as NTL had shocking service. Call centres that wouldn’t answer, that weren’t helpful. Cutting off the phone even though you paid your bill because you made calls that went over the “limit” allowed, and meaning you use your mobile to call a call centre that made you wait. The public clearly are not enchanted with Virgin Media more than the previous brand, no wonder there are negotiations to sell Virgin Media.
^
Of the Virgin group, Virgin Radio bothers me the least. It’s ok, it’s on AM everywhere outside London (and digital radio, but I haven’t bought one of those yet) and I don’t pay for it. Virgin Records similarly is an outlet, which may or may not have what I want. Nothing special, but nothing wrong with it either. However it is owned by SMG, not Virgin Group (although retains the name/logo etc). Virgin mobile is a slightly different story, only in that the coverage of the network it is reselling in the YK (no, it doesn't have a network of its own not here or elsewhere, it resells T-Mobile's network) is inferior to Vodafone. You might notice that a lot of what Virgin does is not really about being innovative, it resells what others offer. T-Mobile is one, the trains are another (it only leases the trains bought by and financed by a rolling stock company), the cable TV service Virgin Media is, partly, another.
^
Virgin Atlantic Airways is something else though. On one side of the ledger are Virgin Clubhouses, outstanding airport lounges, especially the one at Heathrow. You can get massages, haircuts, the works, full cooked meals before you board the plane. On arrivals you can much the same as well. That’s brilliant, though BA does have lounges that offer a lot of the same (and when Terminal 5 opens BA may give Virgin even more a run for its money). Similarly, Virgin Upper Class sits between first and business class in terms of quality, and offers sleeper suits, on board sit down bars and massage therapists on board the plane. If you've tried Air NZ's new business class then you've experienced the Virgin Atlantic Upper Class seats (Air NZ is using them under licence). Pretty good right? Well…. it would be if the cabin crew were of a consistent standard. Virgin Atlantic clearly has, as one of its selection criteria for cabin crew, age and looks. The vast majority are relatively tall young women who look good in short skirts. While this certainly has appeal to a portion of the City Banker crowd who fly Virgin, in terms of service consistency it doesn’t really work. Virgin Atlantic crew are the spectrum, from very good to moody tarts. The ones that gossip in their regional accents swearing in the galley, and who don’t bother going out of their way to provide service. BA service tends to be more consistently good.
^
However, Virgin Atlantic in economy class is pretty dire. On the surface it has a handful of little extras that sound good. The inflight entertainment system, fully interactive is rather impressive, though less so now that virtually every airline outside the USA has it or is installing such systems (it is akin to the Singapore Airlines system, which is hardly a surprise as Singapore Airlines owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic). There are inflight amenity kits for economy class passengers (earplugs, eye masks, toothbrush/toothpaste) which is a nice touch. Finally there is a choice of three mains for meals. This is where substance is lacking.

^

The food itself is vile, bland and is rivalled by your average Tesco readymeal. Drinks are served in tiny glasses and you’ll be lucky if the drinks trolley comes round again (I didn’t get wine apparently because I needed to ask for it, so I got no drink). Once the short skirted ones (never seen a male Virgin Atlantic flight attendant, ever!) have done their jobs, they disappear and lurk in the crew quarters (which on the A340 Airbuses appear to be cunningly situated downstairs I think!). So service disappears. Then there is the seat. Virgin Atlantic squeezes lots of seats on its aircraft (all long haul) with a seat pitch of 29-31”. Want to know what that’s like?

^

Air NZ on a domestic 737 flight averages as slightly better, imagine that for 12 hours London-Hong Kong. Ryanair manages a similar standard. BA is a little better with a standard 31”, but Singapore Airlines and Air NZ go for 32-34” depending on aircraft type (Singapore gives more room on 777s, but Air NZ gives more on 747s). Virgin Atlantic economy truly is cattle class.

^

On a better note, its premium economy on the other hand has just been upgraded to new wider seats with more legroom, and from appearance looks better than Air NZ's. Finally, Virgin Atlantic had an annoying little slogan called “4 engines 4 long haul” to imply that airlines that had twin engined planes for long haul flights were less safe. Utter bollocks of course, because any modern twin engined plane can fly on one engine safely for considerable distances, and have done so across the Atlantic and between Europe and Asia for many years.
^
Now I come back to Virgin trains. Virgin Trains receive tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers money each year to operate trains on one of the main lines out of London to Birmingham and Manchester. These trains run one of the busiest rail routes in Britain. It is quicker by rail than by air (taking into account airport transfer and check in and luggage pickup times) and by road between those cities. Virgin trains charges up to £168 one way in first class between London and Manchester, and £109 in second class. There is a high proportion of business traffic, which explains why four out of nine carriages are first class. Virgin touts how environmentally friendly it is and all that, but wont invest in more trains without taxpayers coughing up, even though it is faster and charges a not too insignificant fare for the trips.

^

Furthermore it regularly fails to provide the complementary refreshments expected in first class (sorry can’t do breakfast today, the skillet is broken or the coating is worn off, or we didn’t load the eggs), and you get nothing in compensation (oops I forgot, you can apply for compensation and the onboard shop attendant refuses to accept the compensation voucher because it doesn’t have the word “Virgin” on it, and just acts like a Soviet era worker denying that it’s his fault). How about the sockets for the laptop power that don’t work, and the response is a shrug that it is a maintenance problem, presumably because Virgin doesn’t check everything to make sure the train is fully functional.
^
Branson of course never experiences anything like this when he takes the well publicised trips on his trains. I needn't spend much time wondering why.

^
Virgin group have been innovators in some senses, Virgin Atlantic was the very first airline to introduce 180 degree flat reclining seats in business class (albeit it was a clunky recliner that went all the way back in those days), and certainly helped put pressure on BA to do better, and vice versa. However, mostly, Virgin is a sexy brand name that has not much more behind it than the colours and the pazazz of Branson. Virgin Blue some years ago promised domestic flights in New Zealand. This, of course, was media bluster and wont ever happen in my view. Pacific Blue was going to slash prices to and from Australia, and it now prices hardly any differently from anyone else (and frankly, if you pay the same with Qantas, Air NZ or Emirates you can get a better seat, get fed with free drinks and entertainment).
^
It’s a shame really. Virgin trains are ok, but nothing special. Virgin Atlantic is pretty good up the front, but with variable service and economy class that really is scum class because of almost criminally tight seating. BA, on balance, is better in most respects. Virgin media could be really good, if it had the flexibility and helpdesk service that was better than the UK standard (which isn’t high). Such a powerful brand, and such mediocrity. It isn't a brand for grownups sadly.

^

UPDATE: It appears the Department for Transport has found a more grown up firm to run some of the routes Virgin Trains have been running. I mean, hot meals in first class, free wi-fi. Who'd have thought. Go Arriva!