Ahmadinejad's popularity plummets

Following on from Not PC's post a week ago reporting how Iran insanely is introducing petrol rationing (having subsidised the price, scared off foreign investors due to previous compulsory nationalisations), the Sunday Telegraph reports that average Iranians are tiring of Ahmadinejad.

^

Petrol is priced at around NZ$0.31 a litre, and average Iranians see it as an entitlement - something that in itself ought to change. So the rationing has annoyed many. However, more economic disaster has appeared, as his Stalinist style economic planning and spending programmes fail to deliver. He visits villages, promises to build roads and houses and disappears. His latest mad idea is to build vast steel, cement and petrochemical works, with the steel works apparently 200 miles from the nearest iron mines.

^

Middle class educated Tehran has never supported him, but as unemployment and inflation remain high, the poor are also turning. His centralised control and personalisation of policy are coming back to haunt him.

^

Inflation is at 40%, think about it, as nobody in New Zealand or Britain under 25 can remember inflation above 5%. 50 senior Iranian economists have written an open letter to Ahmadinejad saying his policies are hurting the poor he claims to represent. His response to the crisis has been to replace officials with his own lackeys.

^

Sadly the average Iranian is not concerned about the country's nuclear programme or Ahmadinejad's desire to destroy Israel. However, it can only be good if he is hoisted on the petard of his own economic illiteracy. Hopefully it can also deal to the outright evil of the Islamic Republic's oppression of the individual as also reported in the Sunday Telegraph.

Glasgow Airport and British Islamism

So now an attempted suicide bombing at Glasgow Airport. The car rammed into the airport terminal contained gas cylinders and petrol, and one of the arrested occupants of the vehicle had a suicide belt.

^

It's not just London at risk from Islamist bombings. This is an attack on ordinary British people, in London it was those who dare to have fun late at night - people who would stone, rape and murder women who dare show their legs have no hesitation at murdering those who they see as sinners. In Glasgow, it was those who dare to go on a summer holiday.

^

Today there is an interesting article in the Sunday Times from Ed Husain. He points out that most British Muslims fail to distinguish between private belief in Islam, and Islamism's political objectives. As he says:

^

"Just as the IRA bombed and maimed, and Sinn Fein explained the motivations for mass murder, jihadists today plant car bombs and dispatch suicide bombers, while entryist Islamists from the Muslim Council of Britain and a host of other organisations explain their “legitimate grievances” to us. But unlike Sinn Fein’s demands, Islamist calls for the annihilation of Israel, overthrow of all Arab leaders, and changes in western culture cannot, and should not, be met. "

^

He points out that for some young Muslims in the UK (particularly men) there is a "them and us" mentality. The "them" being not only the police but "clubbers, Jews, gay people, Christians, atheists and even moderate Muslims who reject the extremists’ war call".

^

He also says it is telling that US Muslims are at the forefront of reporting Islamists in that country, but they are hidden, protected and rarely reported here in the UK. This is partly due to the British Muslim communities being often tightly bound together. Dobbing anyone in could be dangerous. Emigrating to the USA is also more an explicit acceptance of the values of western civilisation. The UK for too long has been timid about its core values - which are fundamentally the same as the USA - freedom, individualism, tolerance, liberal democracy.

^

I heard on the BBC about how some young Muslim men in the UK go through a crisis of identity - raised by their family with conservative values, they then enjoy the temptations of liberal British society. This means young women who are sexually available. They then face their personal hypocrisy of despising that, despising their sisters who may also enjoy that society, and after they sate their appetite, feel like they have betrayed god and then want to attack the society that "seduced them into sin". They seek solace with Islam, and find a stream of Islamists more than willing to spread their poison of hate against western civilisation, blaming others for temptation.

^

Ed Husain was once associated with Islamist organisations and a former associate of convicted terrorist Dhiren Barot. He has written a book called The Islamist, telling of his journey to Islamism and back. He has received both bouquets and brickbats for his book, he has received a death threat for this and was advised not to call his local Police Station. This is because the relationship the police have with Islamic organisations in order to "represent Muslims" is leaky enough that his address details may leak to those who could do him harm. Some criticise him for supporting the war on terror and "neo-cons".

^

Well, you either fight those who want to kill us, or you don't. Islamism is not just about getting western military out of the Middle East, or the destruction of Israel, or the conversion of Muslim countries to be Islamist states - those on the left who wish to appease it, are appeasing those who would treat women as slaves, imprison gay and lesbian people and shut down free speech. It is time to defend why secular enlightenment western liberal democracies are morally superior to Islamist dark ages authoritarian nightmares. It is because of reason.

Attempted bombing in London

In the early hours this morning a Mercedes was intercepted in Haymarket containing gas cylinders and nails. Ambulance crew notified the Police after seeing smoke emitting from a car. The BBC has reported the car was driven erratically before crashing into a bin, and the driver running off.

^

Gordon Brown has clearly been granted a welcome by those who hate peace, liberal western civilisation and who worship violence.

^

As a result, half of Piccadilly Circus is closed, along with Piccadilly tube station and it will also be affecting the NZ High Commission.

^

so who is to blame?

You don't own your body - the government does

Jim Anderton's proud announcement, like big daddy telling off all the children - that it's good for them and they wont be allowed party pills anymore, is utterly sickening. Not PC has so much of this right. It is immoral and it wont work.

^

You see the point to me is simple.

^

I own my body because I am an adult. As a result of that, I have the right to ingest whatever the hell I like. Think about it for a moment. If I forced you to ingest something, you'd be infuriated. What if I told you that you were not allowed to have that cake, or that drink, or whatever in your own home? Why does anyone else have the right to stop you putting anything into your body?

^

Ahhh.... you say, but what if taking that substance makes me reckless and likely to harm others. Well then, you should be responsible for your behaviour under the influence of that substance. Your employer probably has a condition of your employment contract that you don't turn up for work that way for safety reasons. However, it is your risk to take. Remember we allow people to drink alcohol, and taking a lot of sugar can also affect behaviour. You're an ADULT - you know, like Jim Ol Son - Great Commander of your bodily ingestion. Why does HE know better?

Ah.... you say, but this might be bad for me. Indeed, it might. In fact, most things you ingest can be bad for you. Swallow half a kilo of butter everyday and you might find your arteries harden up. Drink 20 litres of water a day and you might end up in hospital. Don't drink anything in a day, and you'll be listless and maybe constipated. Paint a room without opening windows, and you might find yourself feeling faint. The list is endless. Thousands of people have taken party pills and their health remains fine. Do you think you need Jim Anderton to tell you so?

So what IS this about. Quite simply, Anderton is on a personal crusade about drugs besides alcohol because of his family circumstances. He would rather criminalise those who take the substance and distribute it, than deal with the cultural reasons why some people act stupidly with certain drugs.

The National Party, ever the sellout to its principles of less government, more personal responsibility and more freedom, is jumping on this bandwagon because it hasn't the guts to stand up and say - hold on, prohibition doesn't work and it is immoral. Jacqui Dean said "The longer he has delayed, the more young people believe you need to take a pill to have a good time". How fucking patronising and ignorant? So she thinks that banning it will fix it? Nothing like the naive, and the head prefect attitude of wanting to make rules for the bad kids to have to follow or they'll be punished. THIS attitude shows so much that is still wrong with the National Party - no principle, kneejerk populist policy and virtually no objective assessment as to effectiveness, just bandwagon jumping.

^

The Greens have opposed this, maybe not entirely on principle, but they do get credit for getting this somewhat right.

^

So what will happen?

^

The price of BZP will go up substantially after it is banned, it will become a lot cooler and more exciting, and its quality will slip. Less parents will know their kids have taken it, and less people will admit to A & E that they took it, or tell doctors that they have. Some people will have their lives ruined by the Police, courts and prison system penalising them for having a good time or selling the means for others to do so. Oh, and you'll find gangs will get involved in selling it, and it will be sold with cannabis, crystal meth and the like - so BZP will truly become an entrance drug into a wider market of substances.

^

Brilliance, such short sighted brilliance.

^

I hope the families and friends of those who get ruined because the quality of BZP plummets and becomes more poisonous, or those who fear admitting to doctors they take it for fear of being prosecuted, or those prosecuted for the crime of putting something into their own bodies, go and thank Anderton, Jacqui Dean and the other fascists against personal freedom for repeating a failed policy. Can't the likes of them (and the MPs who will support it like the robots they are) leave peaceful people alone?

The Blair years

The swearing in of Gordon Brown as British Prime Minister is seen by both the Labour left and the Tories as being positive.

^

The Labour left, feeling burnt by 10 years of Blair (forgetting they experienced 18 years of opposition in a row prior to Blair) is champing at the bit to have more government and more spending of other people's money, and backing off from the relationship with the USA, but happily going along with the growth of Brussels.

^

The Tories see Brown as less charismatic and less fleet in his speaking abilities compared with Blair, and easier to contrast with David Cameron. Unsurprisingly the Tories are calling for a general election, you know, like they never had when John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher.

^

Both, I believe, are wrong. However, before reflecting on what the Brown premiership might look like, it is worth considering the pluses and minuses of the Blair years:

^

POSITIVES

^

1. Amended Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution which once called for nationalisation of "the means of production, distribution, and exchange" to a far softer statement of belief in solidarity, and having power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few. In effect, he cauterised the Marxist wing of the Labour party.

2. Took a strong line against the warmongering Milosevic regime in Bosnia and Kosovo.

3. Stood side by side the USA in fighting Islamism and supporting the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein and Taliban dictatorships.

4. Granted independence to the Bank of England (albeit a Gordon Brown initiative).

5. Facilitated peace in Northern Ireland (not half helped by the withdrawal of much US private funding for the IRA though, and mitigated by the early release of out and out criminals).

6. Liberalisation of laws allowing civil partnerships, and other measures removing state barriers to treating gay/lesbian/transgender people on an equal basis.

7. Supporting more private provision of healthcare and education, including trust schools having far greater autonomy. A small step towards proving that state provisions doesn't satisfy everyone.

8. Introduction of tertiary tuition fees, at last rescuing most UK tertiary institutions from funding impoverishment and ongoing demand from those who are less than enthused about their studies.

9. Personal commitment, in general, to liberal democracy and the values of Enlightenment society, over Islamism.

^

NEGATIVES

^

1. Instituting a culture of spin, surrounding himself with advisors that end of providing filtered advice. Preferring style over substance.

2. Establishing the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies and Executives, helping to cement socialist government in both "countries", and the higher levels of state funding per capita for Wales and Scotland, relative to England- and the ongoing relative impoverishment of both as their economies rely more and more on the state.

3. Establishing the Greater London Authority and Mayoralty of London - another expensive layer of government in London, with an authoritarian Mayoral role. The result is that London has a lunatic leftwing Mayor hellbent on doing deals with dictators and penalising road transport more out of ideology less than economics.

4. Millenium Dome. Classic example of a big government project, too expensive and a white elephant for far too long.

5. Cash for honours, disgrace pure and simple. The word begins with "C".

6. Supporting the evangelical rise of environmental puritanism in the UK, with councils fining people for throwing away envelopes in rubbish bins as they walk out the front door or for NOT recycling material that may not even be recyclable in the first place. The biggest ethical crimes in the UK today could include flying, driving, not recycling newspapers and not buying fairtrade organic locally produced whatever!

7. ASBOs instead of genuine law and order. Allowing the Police to avoid protecting the public and prosecuting people effectively, and avoiding building enough prisons, instead giving people orders to not do things because they are anti-social. A distraction from core government responsibility, and as a result prisons are overcrowded because of inadequate provision, and also due to ....

8. Inexorable growth in nanny state laws that prohibit more and more personal behaviour, and allow more and more state monitoring of individuals with little accountability, culminating in...

9. Support for national ID cards - the tool of the authoritarian state, to make the state's business of taxing, subsidising, regulating and compelling people more efficient. Britain has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country.

10. Signing off the new EU Treaty which grows the Commission and role of the EU over the UK. Selling out some sovereignty for no good reason, without a mandate to do so.

^

I probably could never have voted for a Blair government, had I been allowed to vote here. However, by and large, the Blair government's record is briefly summarised as being:

- Status quo on economic management (following Major);

- Pro-Western civilisation on international policy;

- Mildly submissive to the EU bureaucratic/ Franco-Italian-German agenda of big government;

- Mildly more market in social policy;

- More authoritarian in terms of civil liberties, individual freedoms and approach to law and order (except where it counts).

^
I could say he has failed miserably to confront a wide range of problems in Britain, but would John Major have done much better? Unlikely. Will Gordon Brown? Highly unlikely. Would David Cameron? Well, except for perhaps more market in social policy, taking a tougher stance on the EU and opposing ID cards, there isn't much to choose from.