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.
13 August 2008
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.
Who is TVNZ scared of offending?
Blair Mulholland posts on a music video TVNZ wont show, because it depicts kids drinking milk in an adult party environment. Go have a look and see if you find it more corrupting than anything else TVNZ shows kids. Ask yourself whether the state owned broadcaster should be making those decisions.
Ask yourself why there should be a state owned broadcaster at all!
Ask yourself why there should be a state owned broadcaster at all!
China is changing
I'm less surprised that, Lin Maoke, the little girl shown singing in the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, was lip syncing, because Chinese Communist politicians decided the little girl REALLY singing, Yang Peiyi did not meet the criteria that "The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression" (reports CNN). The Communist Party of China has been lying to its people and the world incessantly for the past sixty years.
What is most notable is that the General Music Designer of the ceremony actually revealed the fact, and revealed it on Chinese state radio, and it was reported, and presumably with little consequences for the man concerned - Chen Qigang.
This is the kind of honesty and openness unknown in the China that Sue Bradford went to 35 years ago, and dare I say even 10 years ago. Chinese bloggers are debating it and some condemning it. China is changing if one looks closely.
It goes without saying that the replacement of the child for one "cuter" is rather distasteful to many of us, who find the idea that some aging communist official could deem the appearance of a child to be not good enough for the nation to be abhorrent. I'm sure those who made this decision are hardly picture postcards of beauty themselves, in fact they have proved themselves to be so.
However, allowing this debate does show a change, one that is positive, and which puts China well ahead of the likes of Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and Burma. May debate on other official decisions flourish.
What is most notable is that the General Music Designer of the ceremony actually revealed the fact, and revealed it on Chinese state radio, and it was reported, and presumably with little consequences for the man concerned - Chen Qigang.
This is the kind of honesty and openness unknown in the China that Sue Bradford went to 35 years ago, and dare I say even 10 years ago. Chinese bloggers are debating it and some condemning it. China is changing if one looks closely.
It goes without saying that the replacement of the child for one "cuter" is rather distasteful to many of us, who find the idea that some aging communist official could deem the appearance of a child to be not good enough for the nation to be abhorrent. I'm sure those who made this decision are hardly picture postcards of beauty themselves, in fact they have proved themselves to be so.
However, allowing this debate does show a change, one that is positive, and which puts China well ahead of the likes of Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and Burma. May debate on other official decisions flourish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)