Syria on the warpath

According to the Daily Telegraph The President of Syria appears to be wanting to fill his father's boots as a warmongering murderer.

*

"Peace loving" Syria is talking about military action to recapture the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights are land occupied by Israel following the Six Day War, because ever since Israel was founded in 1948, Syria used the land (which comprises a hillside and plateau) as a base to shell Israeli villages and shoot at farmers. Israel has kept the land for self defence purposes, and although many of the Arab residents departed during the war, it now has a stable population of around 30,000.
*
If Syria attacks Israel to recapture the Golan Heights, expect the peace movement to be muted - the leftist anti-Americans will say it is "legitimate", showing all of their pretenses about how war is always bad to be vapid ravings of hypocrites.
*
Syria's regime, of course, should be subject to villification, flag burning and effigies of its President Bashar el-Assad being burnt. It wont happen though.
*
You see Syria's record of being a totalitarian one-party state, which tightly controls all media, all protests and arrests without trial opponents, tortures them and imprisons them. Journalists writing anything critical of the regime face jail terms.
*
Syria maintains a permanent "state of emergency" justifying Muharabat (secret police) action with impunity.
*
It is led by the second eldest son of Hafez el-Assad, its President from 1970 to 2000. Assad applied hereditary succession, to this one-party state (not unlike North Korea), and Assad ("our leader forever" in propaganda) cultivated a personality cult surrounding him and his family's achievements. The eldest son, Basil, was meant to succeed his father, but died in a car accident - thankfully - as he had a reputation for being ruthless, getting family members to kidnap girls for him. Bashar is a trained opthalmologist, and not a military man. He is likely facing much pressure internally to be "tough" as the likelihood of a coup is significant - after all, the Assad clan have many enemies and are members of the minority Alawite ethnic group - they are not Arabs. Alawis have done well from the regime, much to the chagrin of some Arabs.

Bashar had to have the rubber-stamp "Parliament" change the constitution within hours following his father's death to allow him to succeed - given he was 34 and the old constitution required the President to be at least 40. He was elected with 97.29% of the vote with no other candidates - wonderful stuff!

*

So Bashar is being the tough dude. He presumably will waltz over the UN Peacekeeping troops on the sliver of the Golan Heights between Syrian and Israeli control and start a war. He could have got back most of the Golan Heights peacefully, as Israel offered it to Syria in 1999 peace talks. Syria demanded all of the land, Israel refused so they parted.

*

Israel conquered the Golan Heights fair and square, as Syria used the land to attack Israel. If Syria wants it back it should simply meet Israel's demands - cease supported Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, cease interference in Lebanon and recognise Israel's right to exist. If Syria attacks Israel, Israel should respond with as much force as is necessary to clip Damascus's wings. Of course, if Syria uses its chemical weapon arsenal - then there will bloody regime change in Damascus, I suspect Israel will bomb the daylights out of as many strategic targets as possible in southern Syria.

*

Bashar should abandon this policy of confrontation and follow Gaddafi - he should liberalise his country, negotiate a peace treaty with Israel, leave Lebanon alone and give up supporting terrorists. He is only 41, he has just enough time to be thought of by Syrians and the world as the hero who changed his country from a totalitarian nightmare to a more open society. His father was feared and hated, if he wants to avoid a military coup, he might try to burn his father's boots and make some more comfortable shoes of his own - and stop stepping on Syrian citizens in the process.

Stories about life in Syria

Buy New Zealand campaign - racism by another name

Is there anything more stupid than a Buy New Zealand Made campaign?
*
It is about as clever as the Invercargill City Council advertising “shag a Southlander”, or Manukau City advertising “Buy Manukau Made”. It is saying “it is good because it is made in New Zealand”, not because of quality of the product, after sales service or price.
*
So is something is more expensive but NZ made, then you should buy it because it is better to do that than buy something else with the money you wasted on nationalism. It is better to buy something inferior because of nationalism.
*
It is racist because it is saying that products made by NZers are better than those made by foreigners in one respect – their origin.
*
No, it is not about economics. The childish theory of keeping money in the country is sheer nonsense. It is better to maximise utility – better to buy 3 pairs of socks for $3 than buy 1 pair, or better to buy one pair for $1 and spend $2 on something else you want. That is how we are better off. It is a concept the Greens and NZ First don’t understand because they are both xenophobic at heart – both hating “foreign investment” and suspicious of “foreign made” goods. The Greens because they see blind children stitching shoes, and NZ First because they see hard working Asians staying up late in the sweatshop looking determinedly like they want to fight another war by working harder and destroying “our jobs”.
*
Imagine if there was a “hire a New Zealander” campaign, “donate to New Zealand charities” campaign or a “make phone calls to New Zealanders” campaign – all could be justified on the basis of “keeping money at ‘ome”.

*

You might like supporting a local business because the owner is friendly, the product is good and you can guarantee quality, or maybe you are always able to find someone who can help you. However, if you take this to its logical conclusion, you'll go to the most local shop to buy your groceries, because it is a "local person" living in "your community", and you should "support" them.

*

My advice is simple. Buy what you want from whoever sells you it for the best deal, wherever in the world that seller is. Judge products on overall quality and price - remember, odds are that the New Zealand business owner is as likely as you are to want to spend profits on buying an ipod, a holiday to Europe, a new car or new clothes. You don't benefit from shortchanging your choice by applying anti-foreign bigotry to it.

State funding of political parties?

Michael Cullen, Jordan Carter and the NZ leftwing political world is now promoting state funding of political parties. This already happens for TV and radio advertising and is immoral. Libertarianz only takes the funding because it is not allowed to buy its own.

Now the motivation for promoting state funding is as follows:

1. Distract the media and public from the scandal around funding pledge cards.

2 It means parties can give up that tedious task of asking for funding from people who may otherwise choose to buy a beer, a pair of shoes or a movie ticket. That takes a lot of effort that people in parties would rather spend socialising moaning about the state of the government. It enables parties to be lazy, to be out of touch with grassroots supporters, and simply be corporate political bodies that exist because the public is forced to pay for them.

3. It means that parties that are supported by the most productive and successful (typically wanting less government), don't do better than those supported by the least productive, parasitical and statist. In other words, the left's supporters are poorer because they vote for governments to take from the more successful to give to the less.

4.. To remove allegations of corruption and pork-barrel politics with funders wanting "payback" from the party they help elect (Labour never did that for its supporters now did it?).

5. To save the trade union movement buckets of money it would rather spend on beer, shoes and movie tickets. Far better to get the government to collect it from members and non-members by force.

Jordan Carter's approach to state funding of political parties suggests it would see funding allocated according to the votes cast at the previous election. Given it would mean parties couldn't receive large donations, this means:

1. The incumbent has an advantage. Even if it is deeply unpopular, it will get the greatest amount of funding. So funding will be biased towards NOT changing government, or Parliament.

2. New parties are fucked. Even if they are dripfed some crumbs, the likes of the New Zealand Party, New Labour Party/Alliance/Greens, NZ First, United, ACT, Maori Party and Libertarianz will get little. Just what Labour (and I suspect National) would simply love. It is destroying MMP through the back door.

3. Personal freedom of citizens to donate to causes they support is destroyed. What if I wanted to give a party thousands of dollars? Why the fuck is it the business of any other party, the public or the government if I willingly support the campaign? The only answer is...

ENVY.

Sanctimonious pricks who support state funding of political parties are envious that other parties do better than theirs. They are envious that people with more money (they probably made it by oiling factories with the blood of working class children) HAVE more money and DON'T give it to them, they sometimes give it to National or ACT, or even NZ First or the Maori Party. They give to Labour too of course, but less often.

Just check out this quote:

"The right stands for the interests of those with money and power. The left stands for redistributing money and power more fairly."

That's right Jordan, the "right" were born with it. Full of hand wringing Montgomery Burns and Uncle Scrooges, money they must have not earnt "rightfully". Whereas the left are so honourable - they call theft, "redistribution" (Robert Mugabe calls it that too), and power redistribution means removing individual freedom and making it political control - fairer power means power to bureaucrats and politicians.

State funding of political parties is wrong because it is fundamentally immoral to force citizens to pay for organisations whose goals and objectives they do not believe in. Would it have been good to force people on the left to pay for Labour and National in 1990, when both parties were pushing economic liberalism? Is it right that the last election result should decide funding to campaign for the next one?

How about this one? Would you have been happy being forced to fund Graham Capill's campaign for election in 1996, 1999 and 2002, how about Destiny NZ in 2005, how about the National Front?

and shouldn't political parties who can't rustle together funds outside the state, simply be allowed to wither?

Those who support state funding of political parties need to be transparent - they are envy ridden Marxists. They oppose parties they disagree with receiving more voluntary donations, and oppose it because they don't believe the people who GAVE the money truly earnt it or deserved to choose what to do with it. Accusations of corruption from money donated by business are equally laid at those who get money from unions, or tribes.

Democracy is about individual votes counting -and about people who are like minded supporting political parties through either donations of money or time and effort. The state should remain separate from that - and parties survive, grow or die because of voluntary effort only.

Those who oppose that - oppose liberal democracy - they support statist democracy, where the state protects and supports the dominant incumbent political views.

Stroessner dies at last

It would be nice to collect a set - Castro would be good to follow, but at least for now, there is cause to celebrate - Alfredo Stroessner is dead. Who? you say?

*

Most of you wouldn’t have heard of Alfredo Stroessner. He was the military dictator that told Paraguayuan what to do for decades, from 1954 to 1989. He was living in exile in Brazil since he was deposed, and finally at 93 the evil bastard is dead. He was the second longest lasting dictator in Latin America, after Castro – and fortunately Paraguay has been spared his brutal rule for 17 years now. (Where is Paraguay you might ask? Look it up!)
*
He was no Marxist, he was an old-fashioned militaristic fascist dictator – the type the left loathes, quite rightly. He hated communism, and Paraguay maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan because of it, with no relations with the USSR or any other Marxist state. The US was friendly towards Stroessner’s regime until the 1970s. Although he was fiscally prudent, his attitude to individual rights was increasingly abhorrent, with both the Carter and Reagan administrations having little time for him. His sheltering of former Nazis, like Josef Mengele contributed to this (he was of German descent which explains this mostly German language anti-Stroessner site). Despite what this website says, he was no US puppet - the closest he got was being warm to Lyndon Johnson.
*
He deposed the centre-right democratically elected government of Federico Chavez, because Chavez wanted to arm the Police! From then on, Paraguay lived under military dictatorship. There were “elections” which were either fraudulent or with only one candidate. His Colorado Party would dominate politics for decades to come.
*
Stroessner killed and tortured his political opponents, practiced corruption and suppressed freedom of speech. Several thousand are estimated to have been murdered, and many more detained without trial and tortured. He forcibly assimilated the
*
The only good thing that can be said is that he wasn’t economically insane, like Julius Nyerere or Castro. He commissioned the Itaipu dam, currently the world’s largest operational hydro electric dam by generating capacity. This has enabled Paraguay to export electricity, a rare commodity for international trading. However, the ends do not justify the means - he believed he knew what was best for Paraguayuans and anyone who got in his way got hurt!

*

The Aché people of Paraguay, an indigenous tribe, were subject to raids, kidnappings and enslavement by the army and a supportive weird Christian fundamentalist group - the New Tribes Mission, which sought to convert the Aché to Christianity. They were hunted down, enslaved and used for domestic chores and sexual purposes for years. It was somewhat genocidal, in that the regime and the New Tribes Mission essentially saw the Aché as inferior and able to be used for sport or slavery. The New Tribes Mission still exists, although the genocidal behaviour has ceased with the fall of the regime, and extensive publicity - the evil bastards continue to propagate their filthy philosophy to people who need something other than religion.

*
Stroessner WAS the last South American dictator, but Hugo Chavez has that mantle now. However, the left love him, ignoring his treatment of political opponents, control of the media and confiscation of private property. HE is anti-American and that is the religion of much of the intelligentsia of the western world.

*

Dictator of the month website

Justice without trial

The Guardian reports that the Police in the UK are seeking various powers to deal with "yobs". These include:

- Immediate bans of yobs from "town centres" at night for an "appropriate period", when issued with an informal warning or fixed penalty fine (define a yob);

- Local constables having the right to impose a three-month ban on association by gang members in public or frequenting a particular location. This ban could include "cleaning up local damage". Breaching this would result in a fine, ASBO or a parenting order (woooooooo!);

- Those repeatedly stopped with a car without driver licence, MOT or insurance seeing car immediately seized and crushed (!);

- Ability to stop and search those under reasonable suspicion because of past convictions.

I can understand the concern, but having the Police impose sentences is simply wrong and the ability of the Police to abuse these powers by simply banning people, and ordering them to undertake a punishment is quite real.

There is a disturbing glorification of drunken yobbish behaviour, particularly in some parts of Britain, but there are solutions - these don't need to get rid of the right to a fair trial:

1. Abolish "human rights legislation" that means people can claim discrimination if any property owner seeks to ban someone from his premises. Remind all bar, club, mall and shopowners that they have a fundamental right to prohibit anyone from their premises, for as long as they wish and use reasonable force to remove anyone who breaks this, or prosecute for trespassing.

2. Introduce a points system for offenders which sees people who reach 100 points from past convictions to extended periods in prison (minimum 20 years). Homicide would get you 100 points, vandalism might get you 10 points, aggravated assault or rape would get you 70 points, burglary 20 points (or whatever). You serve your sentence and gain points, at 100 you're OUT (like 3 strikes and you're out, but weighted to the crime - it shouldn't be 3 murders, but also not 3 window smashings).

3. After two convictions, treat all young offenders as adults. You get two chances to fix your life (and this is where rehabilitation needs to jump in, boots and all - and not by throwing teens together in institutions where they feed off each other) if you commit a non-violent offence before you are 18. Violent offences see you given ONE chance. You get points both times though.

4. Forget "wiping the slate clean". An offence sticks with you for life, unless the victim is prepared to agree. Presumably the victim needs to be compensated, or feel like the offender has changed his or her life.

5. Give up on victimless crimes. Shift the policing effort to violent and property offences.

6. Deport non-citizens following the serving of a sentence (or to serve it if you can trust the other country). Migrants who have not got citizenship are guests, and outlive their welcome when they offend against anyone else.

7. Allow retail premises owners to have property rights over common public spaces, like pedestrian spaces, so they can apply bans, employ security and implement any rules on drinking or whatever in that space. They would have obligations to pay for maintenance, which would be deducted from council rates/taxes, but it would give them a vested interest in public space that affects their business and customers.

8. Shoot on sight any male with a shaved head, wearing nothing but a tracksuit, who is not demonstrably going to or from a gym or jogging for exercise. Given that 99% of males in the UK who dress like this are not engaging in fitness activities, this should be easy. By the way this isn't so much about crime prevention, but aesthetics.

9. Deduct welfare payments from parents whose children who live with them commit more than one offence. Either they are your responsibility, and you control them, or kick them out. Every offence loses you the same proportion of your benefit as the points accumulated. So vandalism costs you 5%, rape costs you 70%. Oh and you lose the lot by interfering with the Police's enquiries.