Ukraine seeks to be shielded by the West

Following on from Russia's continued uninvited military presence in Georgia, the Ukrainian government has come forth seeking to be part of the US proposed missile defence system. There can be little doubt that Ukraine has been strongly motivated by Russia, which has a base on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine, and which has always regarded Ukraine as being "its own".

The Times reports "Ukraine is insisting the Russian military must leave Sebastopol when the lease on the base expires in 2017. The Russian navy has made it clear it may refuse to do so."

Ukraine must, of course, ensure that Russians in Ukraine enjoy the full free rights as citizens, so that claims of racism or bigotry can be avoided. To date there has been no hint that Ukraine treats Russian citizens as lesser than Ukrainians. However, Russia must also defend Ukraine's right to adopt whatever foreign policy it wishes, as long as it does not threaten Russia. Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko was nearly murdered by his Russian backed opponent - so there is little doubt that Ukraine's government fears the dead hand of the fascist bear next door.

In recent history only the mad Mao TseTung and Adolf Hitler sought to take on Russia for territorial aggrandisement. The notion that Russia's neighbours threaten it is more a fantasy dreamt up by Russian nationalists and the military than from reality. Westernised Europe would rather get on with its own affairs, as would China. It is only because the Russian military retains much Cold War era capability that it still commands strength in an economy that has until recently been incapable of sustaining it.

The Times reports Dmitri Medvedev warning it will crush anyone who moves against Russian citizens. A fair point of view in and of itself, but Russia's neighbours rightfully fear imperialism from Moscow, they have after all lived under it for between fifty and eighty years.

Even Austria's left-right coalition privatises

Austria has a grand coalition government, in that the two main parties of right and left are working together. The Social Democratic Party on the left would surely not look far out of place alongside the NZ Labour Party, and the Austrian People's Party is a conservative party of the right.

Their government has just voted to privatise the remaining state owned shares in Austrian Airlines, which is already 57% privately owned. Presumably it doesn't fear an invasion of foreigners (apparently Lufthansa and Turkish Airlines are both interested) despoiling the sovereignty of Austria.

Yet the National Party, seeking to govern alone, wont even engage on privatisation. Why is this? is it:
- The abject failure of the acolytes of privatisation to publicise its successes, demolish the arguments of its failures;
- The braindead ineptness of the mainstream media which so often parrots what politicians and lobby groups say, and rarely investigates what politicians claim unless it is about scandals and juicy titbits that have next to no impact on the general populace;
- National's complete intellectual bankruptcy, in that it doesn't have the confidence or capability to argue against the leftwing "common knowledge" about privatisation in New Zealand;
- National really having a secret agenda to privatise, because it holds the voting public in contempt - much as it did in 1990 when it promised to abolish student fees and the superannuation surtax, but really didn't intend to do so.

If it is the first two, then those of us who believe in less government need to confront, head on, the bankrupt arguments and outright distortions of the left. It means a sustained effort to be bold - it is not a task the National Party is equipped to do.

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.