McCarten aligns with paramilitaries and fascists

Former genius Alliance President Matt McCarten (who presided over the demise of the party from power) has sadly shown himself to be a predictable vapid cheerleader against the US government and the Georgian government in his latest article in the NZ Herald.

McCarten's thesis is rather convulated:
- Georgia starting the bombing and killing in South Ossetia (true);
- Georgia was killing Russian peacekeepers (well if you call the Russian Army, uninvited by Georgia and uninvited by the UN, peacekeepers - but Matt seems to think the UN isn't important on this one);
- Ossetians are a different culture and language, and didn't want to be in Georgia (true, but South Ossetia contained Georgians too, who Matt ignores);
- A peace agreement was reached giving South Ossetia autonomy with Russian peacekeepers (false, Georgia surrendered against strong Russian backing of South Ossetian paramilitaries, but agreed to cease fighting with a coalition of Georgian and Russian peacekeepers. Georgia retained control of some parts of South Ossetia).
- There was a wider agreement that countries bordering Russia wouldn't join NATO or allow foreign military bases on their soil (false, Ukraine already had one it is Russian)
- "American political consultants" (you know, the devil incarnate) were creating and managing "anti-Russian" parties, like the one led by Mikheil Saakashvili. Somehow this is sinister
- Saakashvili's party swept to power which is when "the real mischief began" according to Matt. Matt ignores that this happened following massive public protests against rigged elections, following many years of corrupt government that had strong military backing. He conveniently ignores that - far better that a corrupt pro-Russian government rigs elections and arrests political opponents, than a popular uprising forces its resignation;
- The US backed the new, far less corrupt, far more savoury government and provided military backing. (Shocking really, I mean Russia supporting Belarus isn't on Matt's radar) It also supported Georgian membership of NATO, surely a sinister move if ever there was one - if you support Russia.
- Georgia supported the war in Iraq. No doubt sinister as well, except when maybe you consider that Georgia is rather close to Iraq. It borders the predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan, so perhaps Georgia would have an interest in Iraq being stable and democratic - but then Matt would have preferred Saddam Hussein had stayed in power, so we know where he lies on that point.
- Georgia "provocatively" allowed "the West" to build a pipeline through Georgia between Turkey and the oil fields in the Caspian Sea. Funnily enough these oil fields are Azeri and Turkmen oil fields. Maybe Matt thinks Russia should have a monopoly on oil pipelines from its neighbours? Why does he support Russian oil companies over Western ones?
- The West allowed Kosovo to be granted independence, upsetting the Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Russia, admittedly after some years of Serbian suppression of a wide range of civil rights in Kosovo. Given Georgia did nothing of the sort in South Ossetia you might wonder why Matt thinks this justifies Russian intervention;
- Georgia's intervention in South Ossetia is "suppressing its independence movement" and to end South-Ossetia's "semi autonomy". Again, the contortions this takes by McCarten are incredible. For starters, the intervention followed some months of an internationally backed plan to grant South Ossetia full autonomy under the Georgian government. A plan opposed by Russia of course, Matt's new "victims". Some South Ossetian politicians engaged on this, others wanted to protect their arms and drug smuggling financed regime.

So having decided that the corrupt, undemocratic Georgian government before Saakashvili was "good", Saakashvili because he was US educated and backed was "bad", that Georgia choosing to allow an oil pipeline linking Turkey to Azerbaijan and other countries around the Caspian Sea justifiably "provoked Russia", that Georgia was trying to destroy the brave Ossetian people's independence - when it was actually seeking to grant legal full autonomy, and, to be fair, correctly identifying Georgia started this conflict - McCarten sees all that is going on as a grand conspiracy of the evil US privately owned mass media!!

He says "Most of the global news networks are owned and based in the US, and therefore tend to set the news agenda worldwide." This is of course rubbish, since when was Reuters, the BBC, ITN, NHK, AFP owned and based in the US. The US is important, but his vision of some grand conspiracy of privately owned news agencies is nonsense. However if he went to Russia he might find it different, but Matt is curiously silent about freedom of the press in Russia. He thinks the likes of the main US TV networks, and newspapers "become a mouthpiece for their government's policy". How utterly absurd! Since when has the US news media as a whole been favourable towards Bush?

McCarten has shown himself at best to be ignorant, about the only fact he has stated is that Georgia started the war. However he is silent on Russia's occupation of Gori, well beyond South Ossetia, its apparent bombing of a railway bridge at Kaspi also well outside South Ossetia, reports of South Ossetian paramilitaries looting Georgian homes, torching them and abducting young women after driving others out, and of course silent on Russian sabre rattling against Poland.

McCarten is just a rather vapid anti-American socialist, rubbing his hands with glee that Russia can take on any country that supports the USA. He claims to care about Ossetian independence, but ignores Georgian attempts to grant autonomy, and is naturally silent about Russia's suppression of Chechnya's independence. He prefers to align himself to the quasi-fascist militaristic Russian state, that has little free press, that does have mass media that echos the government, that runs elections that are far from free and fair, and which threatens nuclear attacks on... Poland.

Why does the mainstream media give this obvious idiot such time?

Terry Heffernan the Nat??

Seriously, this guy is a National Party candidate?

National's profile of Terry Heffernan curiously evades his chameleon like past, one that is notable in New Zealand politics for having been a candidate for five different political parties, four of which would cause serious concern about one's capability.

Terry Heffernan's political career started and was most well known in the Social Credit Political League, later the Social Credit Party. Yes the a+b theorem, Douglas Credit, loony tune, funny money, Skoda driving, grey zip-up shoe, safari suit wearing, bearded teachers and Mangaweka milkmen of Bob Jones fame. The party of nutters.

He stood in the Christchurch Central by-election in 1979 for Social Credit, the election that saw Geoffrey Palmer enter Parliament for the first time. Heffernan came second but with only 18.4% of the vote it was an smashing victory for Labour (and overwhelming embarrassment for National in third). However, Terry boxed on, he was determined to get into Parliament to spread the word of monetary reform.

He stood, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times for the Social Credit Party/Democratic Party in the seat of Wanganui. 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990. Admittedly in 1987 he came second by only 27 votes against Labour's Russell Marshall (who was paying the price for the government closing the unprofitable EastTown railway workshops) (Wanganui, like Rangitikei, East Coast Bays and Pakuranga were odd locations for the loony funny money movement to grab hold of people's brains and cast them to one side).

OK so he was with Social Credit. Stood five times with them. Surely that's enough to get the lunatic politician label? He apparently was once lader

Well in 1993 the "Democratic Party" stood Terry as Alliance candidate in Wanganui. So yes he followed the Democrats to the Alliance. The Alliance in 1993 stood for a decidedly socialist vision of New Zealand, with higher taxes, renationalisation, strong state control of the economy and to increase welfare benefits and make all education and healthcare "free".

Terry Heffernan stood a full on left wing platform. He lost against Jill Pettis.

In 1996, he decided that socialism and funny money weren't his thing, he went to NZ First. He stood in Albany for NZ First, where admittedly he came second against Murray McCully. McCully got just under 50% of the vote and Heffernan around 17%, so whilst he could claim success with Labour coming fourth, that was it. He was 28th on the NZ First list so unlikely to get far unless the party got over 20% of the vote.

Terry Heffernan stood on a platform with Winston Peters, who was campaigning spreading alarm about Asian immigration, and on an avowedly anti-privatisation, nationalist manifesto.

So, now he stands for National. National describes his past as "In a former life, Terry has been involved in active campaigning in a number of elections, coming close on more than one occasion to unseating a front-bench Labour Cabinet Minister. "

Former life? He's not reincarnated is he? He only came close on on occasion, and he ran against a front-bench National Cabinet Minister too.

So the Nats have selected a seven times failed candidate who spent most of his political career opposing National, advocating everything from funny money to socialism to anti-immigration nationalism. Yes he's been a member of the Nats for 11 years now (that's meant to give you comfort).

Will the people of Banks Peninsula boot out Ruth Dyson for this far too enthusiastic seeker of political power? I mean really, after seven tries at Parliament wouldn't you just give up and get the point?

Olympic glory for NZ and British athletes

Well it seemed bleak earlier on in the week, when Togo had a medal and New Zealand didn't, but now a more respectable 21st on the medal tally as of the time of this post shows there is some excellent talent in the NZ Olympic team. Having said that, it would be nice for them to beat North Korea which is at 20th! (Though North Korea might notice its compatriots in the south in 6th place).

The British is also doing well, now in third place! Ahead of team from Australia, Russia, Japan, Germany - all Olympic powerhouses. Quite something indeed, although the teams from USA and China remain far out ahead, and undoubtedly things could change in the week.

However one side of the Olympics I haven't missed is the inane sense of nationalism that TVNZ puts upon Olympic medals - the notion that "we won". What nonsense.

I agree with Oswald Bastable on this:

"there is the collectivist bullshit about NEW ZEALAND winning- like every fat prick in a Lazyboy had anything to do with it...It SHOULD be about individual excellence. The teams sports can generally sod off, although events like team rowing and relays should remain."

The victories are for individual athletes achieving outstanding results against the best in the world. They are not victories for nations, races, ethnic groups, states and least of all governments. New Zealanders can cheer the medalists for their success, be pleased for them and support them - but "we" did not win.

However, don't expect any politicians to understand that - expect almost all of them to want to bask in the glory that should be that of the individuals concerned. Notice the few who wont.

Greens not so green on shipping

A long time ago it used to be that when a ship from overseas sailed into New Zealand waters, it was only allowed to drop off freight that has been consigned from overseas. So, for example, if it arrived first into Auckland, then went to Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton and finally Port Chalmers, it could only offload freight to those ports, and take freight on board that it would be taking overseas again. It couldn't take freight from Auckland to Port Chalmers, for example.

That was called cabotage - it was a form of protectionism that those on the conservative right used to endorse because it protected shipping companies, and those on the left endorsed because the most leftwing (and overpaid and underworked) unions - those on the waterfront and on board ships, were also protected.

This was abolished in the late 1990s, with the main groups bemoaning it the unions, the local shipping companies and Tranz Rail. The same thing happened in the airline sector with Australia, which is why Qantas and Pacific Blue now readily fly domestic routes, to the benefit of all domestic travellers as pressure is brought to bear on price and service quality.

The benefits to shippers have been tremendous, as freight that isn't time sensitive can be placed on ships with spare capacity trekking up or down the coast as part of an international trip. It also has meant it is more viable to keep such ships going to ports at the "end" of the trip, such as Bluff.

From an environmentalist's perspective this should be seen as a win. Ships that otherwise would have burnt fuel running part empty can use this spare capacity carrying extra freight at low marginal cost, instead of being on trucks, trains or on other ships. No need for government owned infrastructure to be used, no need for services to operate specifically for such freight, the spare capacity is there, able to be used. Prices are kept low, the environment benefits, everyone wins (except those higher priced transport operators that don't get the business).

Except the Greens don't see it that way. They would rather these ships keep going from port to port carrying no domestic freight, and instead New Zealand shipping companies or Kiwirail or even truck companies put on services to carry this freight. The reason?

Unions. The maritime unions are the most militantly leftwing the country has and the Greens are rather warm towards them. The well paid jobs these mariners want to keep and grow (only unionised ones of course, the Maritime Union isn't too friendly to workers who don't like their representation) are more important to the Greens that lowering emissions in this case.

So you see the Greens prefer freight charges to go up for shippers, and for ships to operate around the coast carrying less freight, in order to protect their union mates in MUNZ. Another case of it being the Red Party rather than the Green Party?

Peace movement protests against Russian imperialism

Yes noticed those in the free West? Me neither.

While the Daily Telegraph reporting that Russia is moving more troops into Georgia, essentially ignoring the French brokered ceasefire which Russia "pledged to implement" and which Georgia signed, it is becoming clear Moscow is prepared to lie and do as it wishes in what it sees as its sphere of influence. Russia is clearly uninterested in respecting Georgia's borders - it knows that it is highly unlikely that the West would intervene on the side of Georgia.

President Bush said: "Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation," Which also followed the US and Poland agreeing to extend the US anti-missile shield to that country.

Russia subsequently threatened a nuclear strike on Poland with the Russian deputy chief of staff General Anatoly Nogovitsyn saying, according to the Daily Telegraph "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

Oh and back to the main point - there have been anti war protests, in Russia AGAINST the government. The liberal Yabloko party's youth wing held them according to the St Petersburg Times. Good for them, very brave.

Funny how more Russians can protest their own government than the leftwing anti-American peace movements in the USA, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Funny how none of them march against Russia, burning Russian flags, calling for Russia out of Georgia, calling for no threat to Poland. Shows your how much the peace movement cares for peace - isn't that right Green Party?