The UN? Hardly, given the Security Council gives Russia a veto - like the USSR had throughout the Cold War. It is blatantly powerless.
The so-called "peace movement"? Yes, they may get upset at Russia, but really some will be glad there is a powerful challenge to the US as the only superpower. The "peace movement" is only interested in surrender of fighting, it would have surrendered East Asia to Japan, continental Europe to Nazi Germany, South Korea to North Korea, just as it surrendered South Vietnam to North Vietnam.
There is only one option - the USA, bolstered by NATO. NATO's rejection of Georgia and Ukraine's membership bids recently was done partly out of fear of "upsetting Russia". There are other reasons to withhold, but still progress membership. Georgia is paying the price for it.
It isn't quite a new Cold War, but Russia is flexing itself. If it gets away with effectively annexing parts of Georgia, it may try again against Ukraine, it almost certainly will claim more of the Arctic, and may treat Belarus more as an extension of itself - particularly if Lukashenko can be deposed.
The only way to deter this effectively is for states which are friendly to the values of freedom, liberal democracy and open transparent government to be aligned with NATO - and for NATO's implicit nuclear umbrella to be extended to them.
This wont impress the left, many of whom miss the USSR - but it is in all our interests once and for all to contain Russia's ambitions. Russia is today a fascist state, with a governing party that faces no real challenge, a media either owned by the state or those compliant with the state, and a leadership aggressive, militaristic and with little hesitation to spill blood. If it wants to be treated as a civilised country it needs to treat its neighbours with respect, even if most of its citizens are comfortable with being pushed around by the bullies who run it.
14 August 2008
13 August 2008
Charles engages in anti-GM hysteria
One of the UK's biggest beneficiaries, Prince Charles, is in the Daily Telegraph today saying:
"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.
He's also a widely esteemed biologist and scientist of course, oh no that's right, he talks to plants and embraces a wide range of religions. Qualifications for the future Head of State to express such controversial views surely.
Hasn't this untrained bludger off of European taxpayers disqualified himself from being a future apolitical head of state often enough?
"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.
"And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."
He gets hundreds of thousands of pounds of subsidies every year from Brussels, subsidies that prop up your farms against competition from more efficient farmers in other countries, from South America to Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand.He's also a widely esteemed biologist and scientist of course, oh no that's right, he talks to plants and embraces a wide range of religions. Qualifications for the future Head of State to express such controversial views surely.
Hasn't this untrained bludger off of European taxpayers disqualified himself from being a future apolitical head of state often enough?
Why do the Greens let Cuba off?
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.
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)