Two elections

So 8 November is the day, 4 days after the US Presidential election. If it weren't for work I'd contemplate flying over and absorbing the debates for both elections. As it stands I'll be sticking it out in the UK, where I can access plenty of US coverage, but NZ will all be online.

As a result, I'll be blogging more heavily. This will be the first NZ election I'll be blogging and it will be remote, so pardon me for what I miss. To do this, I'll be listening to Mourning Report via the net in the evenings (the Revo Blik is the coolest radio, combining DAB and internet radio).

8 November will be a chance to look at the record of the current government, noting that it exists because of four parties, not just Labour, and decide what direction you want it to go. If you're pretty happy with the role of the government growing, happy with how the state spends your money (or happy with how much of other people's money you get), you'll probably vote Labour. If you are reasonably happy but have a particular thing for Transmission Gully or a bureaucracy for families, you might tick United Future. Those of you who are fans of Jim Anderton or Winston Peters, for unfathomable reasons, might tick their parties.

Have no bones about it - a vote for Labour, NZ First, United Future or the Jim Anderton/Progressive Party is a vote for no change.

If you think there should be more tax, more government, more regulation, more money taken from taxpayers and given to others, if you are suspicious of science, economics and those who advance reason, but think those on welfare will improve their lot if only they got more money for doing nothing (and you can't be arsed giving more of your own). If you think that trees, birds and fish are more important, inherently, than human lives, and if you believe that government can only be a force for good if it gets bigger, stronger and more intrusive, you'll vote Green. You'd be better voting Alliance though :)

If you think that Western civilisation and British colonialism has been bad for New Zealand, and the future lies in a Maori dominated government, that splits the country into two groups - Maori and everyone else, and dishes out rights and taxes on that basis, you'll vote for the Maori Party.

If you don't particularly like Helen Clark, Michael Cullen or the rest of the Labour Cabinet, and want to see some new faces, but pretty much the same policies - you'll vote National.

If you think the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s were the best thing that happened to NZ since the UK promised to buy all NZ's exports, and that the country badly needs more, you'll vote ACT.

If you think that Christianity should drive government, and those who don't believe should just follow the rules and get out of the way, you'll vote for the Family Party or the Kiwi Party.

If you believe that there should unabashedly be less government, lower taxes and that adults should always interact on a voluntary basis, you'll vote Libertarianz.

Meanwhile, the US Presidential election will be profoundly important. Both men are not strikingly compelling, one is to the left of the Democratic Party (and hiding that oh so well), another is to the liberal end of the Republican Party (and indeed doing the same). Both have fired up their base in different ways. Obama is the dream of the Democrats, McCain had to bring Sarah Palin in to fire up his base.

Now both face the challenge of the fight for the remaining 20%. Those voters who are convinced by neither, who are suspicious of more government, but also are not religious conservatives. They are the swing voters - the ones that need to be convinced as to who they are more confident about being elected to the White House. I remain moderately convinced that McCain is best for the world, New Zealand and the USA, but it is more because he offers a chance for some positive change on the domestic front - and Obama's change is about more government.

Greens seek to nationalise children

Sue Bradford launched the Green Party policy on children - because you need a policy on everything (where is the dance policy?).

It represents the explicit desire to collectivise responsibility (if not rewards) for the raising, care, protection and development of children by everyone of everyone else's kids. This isn't the village to raise a child, it is the nation state.

This policy statement says so much that, on the face of it seems innocuous, but the use of the word "we" means "you should be forced to pay for this and feel guilty if you don't agree":

They are our future, so we must give them the best possible start to life.

Each child should have the opportunity to grow with joy, be fully supported by their family and be an integral part of our society. Each child deserves a secure base from which they can express their creativity and discover life as an adventure.

Who is this we? Why must you give other people's children the best possible start in life? Who is responsible? Not the parents no - this is Sue Bradford nationalising the responsibility of children to everyone, through the warm embrace of the state.

Why should every child be "an integral part of our society"? What the hell does that mean? When are you NOT? What is "our society"? I don't want any kids I have to have anything to do with this work shy, union worshipping, state welfare supporting socialist!

Now the policy has 130 points! Yes 130 - this is nanny state par excellence. So what do these measures really mean? Well...

- dozens are about essentially removing barriers to get compulsorily funded state welfare, as the Greens embrace welfare benefits as a way of helping kids.
- Some are about making people work less, a 35 hour week and more leave, essentially saying that the magic Green money tree will find a way to produce more by doing less. It doesn't occur to this control freaks that cutting the size of the state would enable more people to CHOOSE to spend more time with their children. No. Nanny State must tell you to work less.
- there is talk about promoting a non-violent culture, whilst at the same time embracing the violent nanny state that takes money from its citizens, prosecutes fines and imprisons those who break its laws. The Greens positively love violence, as long as it is velvet fist of the Nanny state they embrace.
- It wants kids to watch more TV! The Greens want to make you pay to produce TV programmes for children to watch, locally made of course (can't have those culturally inappropriate foreign shows can we now? Not with "our" children). Why have any subsidies for kids TV? Encourage them to go outside!!
- It wants to make you pay for "culturally appropriate care and treatment" for Maori, Pacific Island and other ethnic children, which isn't as important as making sure they are healthy. Looking forward to witch doctors being funded then, though one may wonder if it could ever be culturally appropriate for children of parents who want world class cutting edge science applied to healthcare.
- The obsession with GE continues, banning NZ production of GE food, on the implicit assumption it is unsafe for children - which is hysterical nonsense.
- Regulations on labelling of takeaway food, because its voters are too damned stupid to know that deep fried chicken is high in fat!
- Support diversity and choices in education, EXCEPT when it means funding following students. No mention of religious schools of course, just Steiner, correspondence, home schooling and Kura - the ones the Greens like.
- "Incorporate environmental education into the core curriculum at all levels from pre-school to secondary school" code for brainwashing Green ideology. I'd argue education in economics, education in freedom and individual rights, but if that happened kids wouldn't grow up appreciating the multi-leader Green party Nanny State.
- "increasing access for all children, including children in rural areas, to art, music and drama" Yes the state subsidised and nationalised childrens' plays, bands and art exhibitions. Yes lovely, Nanny helps you play.

It goes on and on. It is a disturbing vision of state subsidies, bureaucracies and rules, but most disconcertingly a philosophy that parents are not primarily responsible for their children, and that parents don't get punished for failing to be responsible. Nobody is to blame! Negligent, lazy, alcoholic, criminal parents all need "help and assistance" - forcibly funded by you, whilst you try to pay to responsibly raise your kids.

There are odd statements like "Recognise that in the context of Pacific families, definitions of children and youth are made by parents and families as opposed to an age specific status" oh so does that mean that when a girl is 13 she's an adult and can have children then by some distant relative twice her age?

Naturally the Greens use the phrase "adequately resource" often, which means give the bureaucracy a blank cheque to make it happy - they love the Office of the Childrens' Commissioner, which has done virtually nothing to improve the lives of any children- except those of the people working there.

Children do not belong to the state, nation, society or everyone. Children are nobody's property, but they are the responsibility of their parents and guardians first and foremost. The role of the state regarding children should be as a last resort to intervene in cases of abuse and profound neglect - not to mollycoddle and provide for everything that might be nice for kids to have, funded by force through taxes.

The Green vision of a childrens' policy is the Greens wanting to expand the state to do virtually everything other than physically feed, clothe and bathe the kids (even then they want to control food). It is statist, childish and downright terrifying. It offers no vision to save those kids from the subculture of violent, abusive, negligent lowlife who brutalise them - it wants to pay them more.

It's absurd, immoral and bankrupt.

Why 9/11 matters

It wasn't a natural disaster, it wasn't an accident.

It was an act of war by Islamists from Saudi Arabia, backed by the tyrannical regime in Afghanistan against the USA, Western civilisation and secular free liberal society.

The battle is far from over, but the success has been to prevent a repeat attack in the US - although it has happened in the UK and Spain, more by inspiration than by direct control.

Islamists are stone age thugs using 21st century tools, they are one of many direct threats to the advancement of humanity, and the lives of those who wish to live peacefully and not initiate force against others. They must be fought both philosophically through the battle of ideas, and directly where and when they threaten freedom and lives.

That is why keeping Afghanistan and Iraq out of Islamist control is so important - the best examples to the Muslim world are secular states that allow pluralism and are at least partly free. Sadly, Turkey and Bosnia are the best there is, whilst most others are either oppressive or unable/unwilling to deal with their own murderous Islamists.

9/11 was not just an attack on the USA, it was an attack on the idea of the USA - a secular liberal free society where people can live their lives as they choose, without being forced to bow to any religion or political beliefs. To appreciate that you need to accept that secular liberal society is superior to theocratic autocracies of all kinds - to do that tolerance of individuals practicing Islam peacefully has to be separated from those using Islam as the foundation to wage, threaten and plan for civil war.

I do not care if individuals are Muslims and treat religion as a basis for how they live - until that extends to taking away my individual freedoms and attacking me. I don't like Islam, but there is a clear line between:
- Hating Islam as a philosophical and belief system;
- Fighting Islamist inspired attacks and threats; and
- Defending the right of someone to worship the Muslim faith whilst not posing a threat to anyone else.

Few disagree with the second point, few argue the first and not enough who argue the first also defend the third.

Labour's latest cutting edge policy - dance!

A Dance Industry Strategy?

Yes Judith Tizard - proving her utter worthlessness as a sucker of the state tit has announced:

Associate Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Judith Tizard launched the Dance Industry Strategy, in association with DANZ (Dance Aotearoa New Zealand), in Parliament's Grand Hall tonight.... "I commend DANZ for taking on the challenge of finding out where the dance sector sees itself, where it wants to go, and how it wants to go forward.

"The Labour-led government promotes cultural expression through writing, dance, theatre, music and the visual arts."

These activities are supported through funding from Creative New Zealand, who fund many of DANZ’s activities, as well as many festivals around New Zealand, and direct funding to national institutions like the Royal New Zealand Ballet and Te Matatini.

So there you go - education, healthcare, law and order, the economy, everything is running tickety boo -so now there must be a dance strategy.

Will there be a strategy for tapestry? A strategy for photography? A strategy for campanology?

Come on National - scrap having a Dance Strategy. There need not be a government strategy for everything, there will be one for masturbation one day at this rate!

Trotter's admiration for threats of violence

Chris Trotter's blog talks of "working class justice":

"the story I was told by a rank-and-filer whose workplace was visited by two burly union organisers. He recalled especially their East-End accents, and the lengths of lead pipe they were carrying. They were there, he said, to “caution” the poor little bloke who was holding-out against joining the union on “conscientious” grounds.

And then there was the hard-bitten union secretary, who responded to one of his members’ demand for a secret strike-ballot with the immortal words : “Ya wanna secret ballot? - Shut yer bloody eyes!”"

In other words out and out thuggery and intimidation. Working class? More like the union mafia. However, Trotter doesn't really speak of how vile it was.

He approvingly talks of it in the comments, saying compulsory unionism was an achievement. Yes - because being forced to join an organisation that you don't want representing you, and doesn't represent your views is an "achievement". Only if you're a fascist.

The vileness of compulsory unionism, how the trade union movement treats people who value their jobs more than they do (the definition of a scab is someone who values the job more than those calling him that), and how willing these savages are to turn to violence.

That's the dark side of the hard left of New Zealand politics. Something Trotter appears to pine for. It's savage, and shows the mentality of those who prefer the fist to the argument to get what they want.