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?

So you want a new Prime Minister?

Well New Zealand, after nearly nine years of Helen Clark telling you what to do, Michael Cullen spending a third of your money, buying back an airline that would've survived had he just let Singaporeans buy it, buying back a railway that would've survived (albeit smaller) had he just let it be, and pouring a fortune into growing the bureaucracy and improving health care (noticed that?), you want a new team.

Clark has been getting support from Mr. Anderton, and on and off the Greens, United Future and NZ First. So really you wont want to be giving any of that lot a chance will you?

So now that you've come looking you need to say what you want in a new Prime Minister. You know he (unlikely to be a she this time round) will bring a whole new team on board, which other than the word "new" isn't saying much until you judge what they will do. So what do you want to change?

Oh. You're just "fed up with the current lot"? You want to "give the other lot a go"? Yes I understand you don't like Labour and Clark (besides that third of you who either notice all the money that Labour took from others to give to you, or don't trust anyone else), but what do you want to change?

Too much tax? Well that John Key fellow says he'll cut that, don't ask how much, he's not saying yet.

You don't like the government wasting money? Well John Key wont shut down any departments, he says he'll be more prudent, but he doesn't really want to do much different at all.

You don't think health care is getting better? Well John Key wont do much different either, he's still running it all bureaucratically, making everyone pay the same whether they look after themselves or not.

You don't really know WHAT you want do you? You don't seem to want less government, you don't seem to want more government, you don't want to make your own decisions about education, healthcare and retirement.

You just want different people, same policies right? That must be why you're choosing National.

Because if you wanted to go to the left, the Greens would be doing well.
If you wanted to have less government ACT and the Libertarianz would be doing well.

Funny lot you are really - and what's the bet that after three more years you'll be complaining that things aren't any better. However, I guess TVNZ and TV3 news pander to your rather banal view of the world - you're convinced governments can "fix things" rather than being the cause of the problem, you're convinced you can't be trusted to choose the schools for your kids and for the funding to follow the kids, you're convinced that you're better off letting politicians and bureaucrats sort out health care rather than buy your own insurance, and you like being made to own power companies, accident insurance, postal company, banks, airline, railway and covering the losses of any of them.

Not only that you seem to want the government to take more taxes to spend on building a telecommunications network you might not use, even though elsewhere in the world the private sector seems happy to finance and do it themselves. You want the railway that you almost never use to have more money spent on it than it is worth, because you want to subsidise moving coal, milk, logs and containers. You want to pay for an emissions trading scheme that wont make a jot of difference to so-called climate change.

So you're not voting for change are you really? You just want new faces.

Where does the bear's paw hit next?

With Russia now comfortably ensconced in parts of Georgia, complaining when the US sends a military transport to Tbilisi airport (why should it be of concern to Russia if a sovereign neighbour has a friendly neighbour visiting?), occupying parts of Gori, and essentially lying about withdrawal - where next?

Well Russia appears willing to respond when "provoked" and the Daily Telegraph has outlined why some other Russian neighbours are nervous - particularly Ukraine, where Russia has a naval base in Crimea.

What it does mean is that NATO membership expansion should continue, with Albania and Croatia clearly next in line, with Bosnia and Montenegro next. However the bigger issues are Georgia and Ukraine.

Both have been delayed in receiving a "membership action plan" for NATO, partly to appease Russia - which is a shame, and the consequences are clear. What happens if Ukraine ceases to extend Russia's lease on the land in Crimea for its base? What happens if Russia effectively annexes Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Oh and by the way, noticed the protests from the so-called "peace movement" at Russian embassies, burning Russian flags for its military aggression? Me neither.

China's latest Olympic lie

Since the Communist Party came to power in China, its regime has long presented a show pony to the world of how much the Han Chinese dominated one party state respects and listens to the ethnic minorities of China. It is not only sensitivity about what the world thinks, but also to present a united "one China, many faces" ideal. It is most regularly seen at the Congresses to the Communist Party of China (CPC) where representatives from provinces such as Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are all expected to wear traditional "national" dress, to distinguish them and show that the CPC grants and commands respect (and obedience) from the Chinese ethnic minorities.

In the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony the same was seen with 56 children dressed in the native costumes of ethnic minorities within the People's Republic of China - except they were all Han Chinese children according to a report in the Daily Telegraph.

Again Chinese officials have been willing to answer obfuscate questions around this saying "I would argue it is normal for dancers, performers, to be dressed in other races' clothes".

The unspoken truth about China is that it is quite racist, it is the norm to regard other ethnic groups as inferior. Don't forget the Han Chinese form around 90% of the population of China (including Taiwan) and there has been no need for China, unlike the USA, ex. European colonial powers or subjects, to confront racial bigotry.

The fact the children are Han Chinese will be neither here nor there to most Chinese, and yes in truth it is of small consequence - but it does raise the question as to why the Chinese Communist regime did NOT simply find some children from the ethnic minorities. It also raises the question of the truth of how these ethnic minorities are treated by the state - we hear much about Tibet, but what do we not know? Maybe it isn't much different from the majority, maybe not, and not having a free press means people outside China will predominantly assume the worse.