The West is always wrong

You have to hand it to the so-called "peace" movement and the left.  They are as adept in chicaning their way around principle and consistency in position in all but one way - the West is always wrong.

Throughout the Cold War, both the West and the Soviet bloc (and China as much as it acted independently) all acted uniformly under the principle of realpolitik.  Interests were at stake, and each side supported allies as a bullwark against the other.  For the USSR and China, this never presented domestic problems because domestic problems were always resolved with the barrel of a gun so to speak.  Neither had to deal with protest marches, civil disobedience, bad press or the like, for they were (China still is to an extent) totalitarian prison camps.  Both happily backed, armed, clapped, funded and facilitated mass murder, torture, starvation and grotesque inhumanities in their own and many other countries.  Both had plenty of supporters in Western academia and a few in politics who were either taken in by the propaganda or simply were so anti-Western they embraced the obvious alternative.

The West didn't have such luxuries, for it had (and has) freedom.  Defence and foreign policy would be challenged, not only at the ballot box and within the political sphere, but with protests, free press and open civil society, its action would alway be open to scrutiny.  Quite right too.  However, those who would point the finger at the West on foreign policy and defence could not do so in the Soviet bloc.  Moscow knew this of course and helped fund several branches of the peace movement, figuring it could weaken the West by helping promote popular opinion in the West to disarm and withdraw - knowing similar calls in the Soviet block could be eradicated forthwith.

So it was simple - the peace movement and the left would, by and large, focus on what the West did wrong, because it was easy to report, and in fact it was seen as easier to change.  It was always far easier to point out the hypocrisy of Western realpolitik.  Our "interests" were in having allies that fought the allies of the Soviet bloc, yet these were on more than a few occasions inconsistent with the values people in Western countries saw as being the hallmark of superiority of Western liberal capitalist democracies over Marxism-Leninism.   Suharto, Marcos, Pinochet, Rhee, Somoza, Mobutu and others were often as bloodthirsty with opponents and as uninterested in free speech as their opponents.  The left in the West jumped on these and damned Western support for them.  This was the right thing to do, but they also turned a blind eye to the Soviet alternatives.

However, this philosophy of damning Western intervention in other countries remained after the end of the Cold War, although few noticed that suddenly more than a few non-Marxist dictatorships fell in relatively quick succession.  The end of apartheid in South Africa was partly facilitated by the end of the civil wars in Angola and Mozambique as the West withdrew support in parallel to the Soviet Union withdrawing support for their sides.  Chile, Zaire, Taiwan and South Korea all saw significant reforms with mixed success.   Then came Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly one of the nastiest dictators of the post war era (and he has plenty of competition).  He became important to both the West and the USSR when Iran fell to Islamist clerics, and was itself sabre-rattling against the US, USSR and Israel, so Saddam gained support from both sides in the Cold War, to take on Iran.  Pure realpolitik against a threatening enemy.  Yet it achieved nothing, except the spilling of the blood of hundreds of thousands, and a convenient target for the left - the West had backed another bloodthirsty thug, and Iran had not been contained.

Then Saddam attacked Kuwait.  There was a near unanimous international consensus in favour of ejecting him from Kuwait, yet the leftwing "peace movement" with the likes of the odious hypocritical Janus-like George Galloway condemning how the West attacked Iraq, after cossetting it for so long.  

You see with the peace movement, you can't correct your previous bad behaviour.  So whilst Saddam was expelled from Kuwait, subjected to two no-fly zones and extensive economic sanctions, in fact that was all wrong.  Because he had had Western backing before, he shouldn't be attacked now - the West is to blame for him.

Then after that, Saddam's continued breaching of UN Security Council resolutions and failure to allow the IAEA full inspection of all facilities it requested access to meant nothing.  Saddam should be left alone, even though he murdered Iraqis on a daily basis.  In fact, economic sanctions on Iraq, which hurt Iraqis not Saddam, should be lifted - not because it was Saddam's fault, but the West's fault for "killing Iraqi children" as Saddam used his population as propaganda.  

Remember the left warmly embraced economic sanctions against the South African racist regime, but for Iraq Saddam was now to be appeased.  Iraq was to be "left alone", for this wasn't a dictatorship that should face sanctions or military action.

Then, 9/11 happened.  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had barely caused a murmur in the "peace movement", but Western backing for the mujahideen did.  The Taliban winning power in Afghanistan also barely caused a murmur, except for its radical misogyny and destruction of some historic statues.  However, the attack against the Taliban regime, which had sheltered and supported Al Qaeda, was wrong.  It was wrong for the US to strike against those who harboured and supported those who attacked and killed thousands of people on its soil.   It was wrong to overthrow those who treated girls as chattels denying them education, banning music and executed anyone who didn't support their stone age theocracy.  

G.W. Bush attacked Iraq, in part because of Saddam's continued defiance of UN Security Council Resolutions, in part because of a belief that regime change and installation of a Western friendly democracy in Iraq would be positive for the region.  It was appallingly undertaken, but it gave backbone to the peace movement which saw it as death and destruction.  Saddam's overthrow was bemoaned by few, but the performance and behaviour of a few troops became a reason to damn the lot.  Furthermore, the rise of an Islamist insurgency, which at one point was peddling death on a daily basis through bombing, saw the peace movement attribute those deaths to the West.  After all, if Saddam hadn't been overthrown, Iraq would be peaceful (blank out Saddam's tendency to turn on his population randomly).   Little credit was given to overthrowing a tyrant the left had opposed in any case.   Less credit was given to fighting the Islamist insurgency with some even backing them.  

The Western leftwing "peace movement" support for Islamist terrorists in Iraq said so much about the belief in peace and human rights that they claimed - it was profoundly empty. What mattered was to oppose whoever the West supported, to oppose whatever the West did.

So Saddam was opposed when the West supported him.  Saddam was supported when the West opposed him.   The peace movement as hypocritical as the West it finger pointed at.   Note that never did the USSR or Russia get damned for their roles in any of it.

The recent revolutions in the Arab world have also had similar responses.  Tunisia and Egypt were both led by Western-friendly dictators, so the West was blamed for both of them.   Blamed for intervening to prop them up.  Except this time, the West did nothing of the sort.  It sat back and let things happen.

That was wrong though.   You see it should have "done more" to ensure the dictators it supported before were overthrown.  Um...

So along comes Gaddafi.  Avowedly anti-Western, a murdering tyrant if ever there was one.  Ronald Reagan bombed one of his palaces in the 80s after Gaddafi had a bomb go off in a West Berlin nightclub, but that wasn't acceptable to the left.   Gaddafi blew up an airliner, which certainly saw more opposition to him (George Galloway to be fair damned Gaddafi consistently after this).  However, beyond that his exploits were largely ignored by the left.   Then, after the overthrow of Saddam, Gaddafi put his hands up, said he was no longer pursuing WMDs, and sought friendly relations - which he got.

Now of course his own people, emboldened by events in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, have had enough.  Barack Obama has decided the US is now taking a largely isolationist stance, so it took France and the UK to lead efforts to introduce a no fly zone and undertake airstrikes against Libyan military targets that were threatening civilian.  Even the rather odious Arab League supported the No Fly Zone.  

So a popular revolution in Libya is being supported in the air, by Western forces.  No ground troops and no sense of occupation.  It is all about protecting civilians.  While the West was not taking action, it was criticised.  Now it is taking action.

It isn't good enough though.   The left is damning it because Libya has oil and gas, so a side effect of getting rid of Gaddafi will be to have a regime (hopefully) which is a democracy that will sell oil and gas.  That of course is a good thing, unless you are part of the left/peace-movement/environmentalist faction that thinks consumption of oil and gas kills babies, destroys trees and impoverishes continents.  Apparently the West shouldn't intervene when it suits its interests.

Beyond that, the intervention is damned by conspiracy theorist Robert Fisk because there can be no guarantee the replacement of Gaddafi will be squeaky clean.   Well yes.  If you don't want an invasion and occupation, that's the risk.  The intervention so far is just to protect Libyans from air and naval strikes, and major ground force attacks.   If it was more, the West would be wrong again.   Fisk also recalls a civilian victim of the US attack in 1986, but interestingly it is noted that the woman's mother supports Gaddafi being overthrown - not quite as simple as it first seemed.

George Galloway, who has long damned Gaddafi appeared on Sky News damning the attacks, not because of the effect on Libyans, but because the West hadn't also intervened in Bahrain, Yemen or Saudi Arabia.

Well no.  There is no obligation to intervene, at all.  However, the opportunity exists and it is in Western interests, so the decision is made to intervene.  That is quite morally justified.

It would be morally justified to intervene in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia as well, although in Bahrain there is the issue of the US Navy Fifth Fleet being based there.  A major decision would need to be made on relocating it if it was decided to turn on Bahrain's murderous monarchy.   Yemen's insurgents include a substantial outpost of Al Qaeda.  Intervention there would be wholly justified, but the unintended consequences could be far worse.   Saudi Arabia is another story.  It would be a formidable foe, the economic impacts alone of Saudi turning off oil supplies would be catastrophic, and would directly harm millions in the West, it would not go down without a fight, and as the home of Mecca, a Western attack would undoubtedly instigate substantial Muslim support against it.

In short, intervention in Libya is low cost, relatively high gain and positive.  The other cases don't stack up.

However, that doesn't matter.  The West is always wrong.

It was wrong to damn Gaddafi for so long, despite his record for murder and terrorism. 

It was wrong to respond positively when Gaddafi stopped engaging in terrorism and pursuing WMDs - he is a tyrant.

It was wrong to sit by and do nothing while Libyans fought Gaddafi (because of the relatively positive relations the West had with Gaddafi since 2002).

It is now wrong to intervene to protect Libyans fighting Gaddafi - because it should intervene elsewhere.

No doubt if the West actually did intervene in Bahrain and Saudi, it would be bad because the claim would be it is about oil.  If it intervened in Yemen, the claim would be that it is the "war on terror", which the left rejects.

Which is why the so-called "peace movement" can and should be ignored.  It has only one principle, opposition to the West.  It isn't seriously interested in peace, or human rights, or democracy, or anything it claims.  

Watch them now defend Gaddafi - once more - and pretend it is about opposing war.

Fear, Fascism and isolationism

Those are the three themes that I am getting from the stories that should be most shaking up New Zealanders.

Fear

The greatest publicity has been for the trifecta of emergencies in Japan.  The earthquake, which was largely survived in its own right, thanks to technology, vigilance by property owners and compliance with strict laws.   The tsunami, which demonstrated how powerless people are with little warning, once again.  Now the nuclear emergency, which is a mix of genuine concern and fear, and ridiculou hyperbole.  New Zealand is only affected by the harm to Japan's economy, not the spread of isotopes.  However, environmentalists will dine out on this for some time to demand lower electricity consumption and "investment" in expensive forms of electricity generation.   There will be scope for post-mortems of the nuclear emergency, but for now two other matters should be of higher priority.

Fascism

First is closer to home.  It IS fascism, a term overused perhaps by some libertarians, but it is plain and simple in Christchurch.  Private property has been appropriated, not to protect the public, but because central and local government are applying the thumping hammer of blunt authority to clear away the damage as quickly as possible.

Not PC puts it beautifully in describing how a pin-up for vapid womens' magazines gets more access to central Christchurch properties than the people who, without which, the damned businesses (damned indeed) wouldn't be there in the first place.

Like a panzer division of wreckers, the state has authorised demolition squads to go in and destroy what is NOT theirs.

Eric Crampton's list of outrages should send shivers down the spines of property owners throughout New Zealand.  This could happen to you.  THIS is what central and local government think of you - it isn't the warm friendly collectively helpful image that the morally bankrupt left claim - it is the "we know best, get out of our way" approach that says a great "fuck you" to the people who create the wealth, who pay the wages of public "servants".

Meanwhile what do you get from politicians? A blind eye.  You should all be furious, because they are scum for not standing up for Christchurch property owners.

The government of course is complicit.  There is now no shred of belief that the National Party believes in property rights or business, its true colours have been shown here, and it is disgusting.

Not one fucking press release demanding that property owners have the right to access their properties, that properties should not be destroyed without the consent or even  notice given to the owners.  Nothing.  If you still vote National after this, then I DO hope you face the same situation one day - because frankly you're complicit in endorsing these useless inert nobodies in just accepting what their bureaurats tell them.

Instead, John Key thanks the pin-up and his consort for their "support" in getting a taxpayer supported piece of disaster tourism (2 sites in one country).   Not that it is their fault that they get the privileged access to Christchurch, it is the government's.

Of course along with National is the Maori Party (which only believes in property rights for part of the population), Peter Dunne (who as Minister in charge of legalised theft is uninterested) and ACT.  What's ACT said?  Fuck all of course.  Rodney Hide is setting up a new bureaucracy to enable councils to borrow through central government instead.  Given ACT has effectively endorsed the Labour/Alliance/Green vision of local government powers, who should be surprised?

The left, naturally, regards property rights as something that applies to them when someone wants to mug them in the street and that's about it.  The state can (and should) run roughshod over such rights in the "public good" as it sees it from that point of view.  The Greens, Labour and Jim Il Sung are contemptuous about business, employers and property rights, and ever trusting of government agencies.

However, what about you?  Are you going to tolerate a fascist style demolition of buildings without even advising the owners?  Are you going to tolerate zero accountability for those looking after the "protected area" of central Christchurch? Are you going to tolerate it being ok for the pinup from the UK and his consort to gain access to Christchurch that the people who fucking build and make Christchurch alive don't have?

Of course you are - you're New Zealanders - you'll vote for John Key again because you're not discontented enough and because Phil Goff is about as inspiring as a pair of socks.  You'll trust local government again because you're fearful of actually having power in your own hands, but most of all you'll do nothing because you're not personally affected.

Isolationism

There couldn't be a clearer message to dictatorships in the past few weeks from the United States, it is "We don't intervene anymore".

Despite the vapid generalisations from some quarters.  The dictatorships in the Middle East all vary by degrees and kinds.  The Tunisian one was easy, he rolled over quickly.  Egypt took more time, but ultimately the fact the US bankrolls the regime was significant, and Mubarak eventually rolled over as well.  Gaddafi is different, not just in degree, but nature.  He is despicably evil, a murdering megalomaniacal thug.  At worst he is unhinged and merciless.   His record of intervening in other countries is extensive, although he withdrew from this primarily because he observed the US invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein - an act that would be far simpler to do in Libya.

Protestors and rebels in Libya have been encouraged, verbally, by Western powers and others, demanding that the Gaddafi autocracy go.  However, in terms of action, little has been done since Westerners were evacuated.  The Obama regime has been silent, and so Gaddafi has been acting with impunity to take back the country he has run as his own fiefdom.   The cartoon like view Gaddafi gives of himself may amuse some, but it comes with blood and death.

So a no-fly zone over Libya is obvious, it would cost little and help to ensure Gaddafi did not act with impunity.  The UK and France have been pushing for it (the latter ironic given France's history of warmth towards dictatorships), but Germany has resisted  - as if Germany really is able to exercise moral authority given its past performance in resisting action in the Balkans.  The UK and France have led efforts at the UN Security Council for a resolution.  Not the US.  Of course Russia and China are likely to oppose, or at best abstain. However, neither have any credibility when it comes to dealing with dictatorships, for obvious reasons.   So for that, I believe airstrikes and a no fly zone should be applied anyway, because the value in containing and disposing of the Gaddafi regime is worth it.   His regime lost legitimacy when it participated in Lockerbie and sponsoring terrorism in Europe and elsewhere.  There should be no legal or moral barrier to intervention from the air (ground intervention would be unwise though).

However, as much as I want Gaddafi removed, there is a more disturbing concern.  Obama's withdrawal of the US from the world says that other dictatorships can act with impunity, despite his words.  Syria has had protests that have been put down - another regime that has regularly disregarded international law by invading a neighbouring country - Lebanon.  Yet what is the Obama administration saying to the likes of Iran and North Korea by being so shy of doing anything?  It is saying that there are no consequences for all sorts of actions against their own people, but also that the US is relatively uninterested. 

You see the world the left wanted, with the US pulling out of other countries, and leaving civil conflicts to themselves, is happening more and more.  The result is that dictatorships feel less threatened, more emboldened and more powerful than they were under previous Administrations.

Obama has declared his hand on foreign policy.  It is progressive isolationism.  Withdrawal from Iraq will be followed by Afghanistan, and then where?

and if rebels in Benghazi are crushed by the efforts of the Gaddafi army and air force, all on TV, what will that say about the US interest in freedom in other countries?

Evil in action

Whilst the world focuses on Libya, another dictatorship is mistreating families for propaganda purposes in a way that is undeniably despicable and outright evil.   It is yet another story of south Korea vs north Korea.

In early February, a DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) fishing boat drifted across the military demarcation line that unofficially marks the line of control between the ROK (Republic of Korea) and the DPRK.  The boat was intercepted by the ROK navy and the 31 people questioned.  The ROK determined quickly that the boat was genuinely lost and was not part of any covert military mission, so they were all given the option as to whether they wished to return to the DPRK or not.  27 chose to return, 4 chose to defect to the ROK. 

The ROK decided that on 4 March, the 27 people who wished to return would be handed over to the UN command at the Korean De-Militarised Zone (DMZ) at Panmunjom, to be handed over to the DPRK authorities.   The DPRK refused to accept them, demanding that all 31 people be returned.

So it began.

The ROK view was fairly simple.  The ship innocently drifted into southern waters in bad weather, and those aboard would be given a choice about where they wanted to go.  Freedom.  As simple as that.   

Of course, the DPRK doesn't make it quite that simple.   For the people who choose to stay in the south, their families face intense difficulties.  They will be labelled as being related to politically unsafe individuals, which will mean they too are unsafe.  They can face being forcibly relocated, losing their employment and homes, and being interrogated about their defecting relatives.  They are put under constant suspicion, for the fear is that they too will defect.   Some face imprisonment as a result, and a north Korean gulag is sheer hell.

Even those who return face difficulties.

According to Daily NK:

One defector who used to work as an NSA agent explained, “The NSA will accuse them of responsibility for the defection of the other four, demanding to know why they didn’t persuade them otherwise,” adding, “There must be at least one Party cell secretary among the 31. Those people will definitely be targets for criticism.”.  Such interrogations generally take around a month. After that, the repatriated individuals have to sign a written oath not to disclose what they have heard and seen in South Korea, and will then be allowed to return to their homes, in this case in Hwanghae Province.

Defectors unanimously agree that the fishermen will thereafter be closely monitored by agents of the NSA, People’s Safety Agency, and chairmen of their local people’s unit on the basis that the authorities think they could cause ideological unrest after being exposed to South Korean society.

Damned either way of course.

The DPRK view naturally is different.  The idea the regime could ever countenance that people could defect from a perfect society is ludicrous.  So it says: 

"It is sheer nonsense for the south Korean authorities to talk about "defection" and the like by four of them.

The unreasonable attitude of the south Korean authorities is touching off bitter anger among the people in the DPRK. The families and relatives of the inhabitants now under custody there are eagerly waiting for them to come back as early as possible."

On top of that, the DPRK Red Cross, which has always been completely in collusion with the regime (not disowned by the ICRC), has even been threatening according to the Korean Central News Agency:

The detained citizens have made clear their stand to go back to the DPRK from the outset and demanded their early repatriation. Nevertheless, the south side claims that it will not send some of them, talking about "defection" and "respect for freedom of will." Such attempt can never be allowed as it is a very unreasonable and rude act contrary to humanitarianism and international usage. 


Worse still, the south side has resorted to a sinister "defection operation", taking those citizens to different places all the while. This fact is arousing anger of everyone.


Their repatriation is an important matter related to the north-south relations rather than a humanitarian issue, the message said, warning:


If the south side does not comply with this just demand of the DPRK, it will be held wholly accountable for the consequences arising therefrom. 

Next time the Red Cross asks you for money (and given that almost everywhere it does remarkably good work), ask the representative about whether any of it is going to the north Korean Red Cross and explain why it shouldn't.

So a stalemate has emerged.  The DPRK has demanded that there be a face to face meeting between the families of all of the people, and the men themselves, at the Neutral Nations Supervisory Committee meeting rooms at Panmunjom.   The idea being to get the four people who wish to defect to be weakened by seeing their distressed family members, as well as to produce propaganda to paint the ROK in a bad light.

So the DPRK has instead released a video showing the family members reading out prepared statements, and clearly terrified.  Their statements go along lines as follows "She grew up in a good system where she had no real worries and could enjoy learning" and

"My husband is not that kind of person; I trust in this because he is someone who got a scholarship from Han Deok Su Industrial University, studied, has the honor of being a Party member and became a cadre, always working faithfully for the fatherland, people, Party and Suryeong" (Suryeong means "Great Leader").

This brutal prison state cannot conceive of how people may choose, even knowing the consequences for their loved ones, to leave it and live somewhere where their lives ARE their own.  A place where your home, employment, relationships, travel, reading and activities are not decided, monitored and controlled by the state.  So it cynically uses the families of those who wish to defect, to emotionally plead with the defector to return to the prison state - the defectors knowing too well that if they don't return, it will mean being hassled, possibly imprisoned and certainly materially deprived because of "guilt by association".

That's the difference between freedom and sacrificing your life for the "greater good". 

The ROK government gave all of the people on the fishing boat the choice to stay in south Korea or return to north Korea, patently without coercion.  It has forced no defections, as is seen by most willing to return to the DPRK - simply because family ties are too important, and for fear of what would happen to them.   Those who choose to stay in the south have done so because presumably they believe their lives will be better as a result, and it would be hard to imagine why that would not be true.

The DPRK government wants its slave subjects all back, it will harm the families of those who do not return, and if they all return it will hail that it was because of the indomitable strength and indefatigable will of the leaders, party, army and state that the "south Korean puppets" submitted to the will of the people who wanted to return to their beloved socialist motherland, after witnessing the degradation and depravity of life in the "US-occupied south".  

So for now, the DPRK is refusing to receive those who want to return home, because it is using the families of those who don't, as political footballs.  If it cared one jot for the people concerned, it would allow the families of those who want to stay in south Korea to follow them, and then allow those who wish to return to do so, in full knowledge that they also could bring their families south.

However, in a socialist totalitarian prison state, it isn't about the people - it is about the system.  The people are cogs in the wheel of a system ostensibly about people, but which is as distant from human compassion as you could possibly be.

Vogue felches another dictator

The world of fashion presents itself as being about aesthetics.

This week Vogue magazine has shown itself to be so skindeep as to be sickening.

You see it has undertaken a sycophantic paean to Asma al-Assad, wife of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Assad is President because his father was.  He inherited it from his delightful father Hafez al-Assad.  Hafez al-Assad established a police state under rule of the Ba'ath Party combining Soviet style socialism with the brutality of an ethnic minority (he was Alawite) seeking to dominate a majority that might otherwise be less enthused about his rule.

The Syrian police state detains without trial and executes political opponents.  There is no independent media or political dissent permitted in Syria.   One of its techniques of extracting information from dissidents is the "Syrian chair" which carefully bends ones back backwards until vertebrae break one at a time.

Vogue didn't mention that though.

Neither did Vogue mention the at least 17,000 people massacred at Hama in 1982, as Assad senior sought to wipe out the Muslim Brotherhood, but essentially shelled and bombed the city for days on end to clear the population.   

However it did mention how Bashar Assad won the 2000 election with 97% of the vote - no questioning of that at all.   Not a mention of how free and fair Syrian elections are not.

Yet the article is mostly about his wife.  A London born Syrian girl, daughter of a cardiologist who was working with JP Morgan when she started "dating a family friend" who was Bashar.  As if that was just like anyone dating the son of a dictator.  What a world!

The rest of it is gushing sycophancy.  All the good work she does, how "normal" their life really is, and how she is part of the effort to modernise Syria and build a civil society in a Middle East full of Islamists.

Yes.  

No difficult questions asked about torture, extrajudicial executions and political prisoners.  Nothing about the suppression of speech and political discourse.  Nothing about alliances with Iran, nothing about invading Lebanon.  Nothing about overthrowing its elected government.  Nothing about chemical and biological weapons. 

Foreign Policy says:

It's hard to imagine that a Vogue editor woke up this morning and decided it wouldn't be hugely embarrassing to publish a puff piece today, at the moment of the greatest upheaval in the Middle East in two generations, about Syria's ruling family. But that appears to be exactly what happened. 

The article does not once mention the protests currently under way in the Middle East, including scattered evidence of demonstrations in Syria. Instead, the article focuses on Syrian first lady Asma Assad -- the "freshest and most magnetic of first ladies," endowed with "[d]ark-brown eyes, wavy chin-length brown hair, long neck, an energetic grace." At a time when other Middle Eastern first ladies, notably Tunisia's Leila Trabelsi, have been the target of protesters' wrath, this may not be the wisest moment for Asma to flaunt her glamour.

Vogue.  Not just vapid and intellectual fodder with those with the depth of a teenage groupie, but instrumental in providing succour and good publicity to dictatorship.   Then again, Naomi Campbell's brainlessness in her dealings with dictator Charles Taylor was simply more evidence of an industry built on making money from being clueless.

Daily Telegraph's offence to New Zealand

I'm livid, beyond livid.

The Daily Telegraph being one of the serious UK newspapers, and one of the only two remaining true broadsheet format newspapers (the FT being the other) is one of the great newspapers of the world.  Yes, it tends to side with the Conservative Party,  but this political slant is well known and understood.  In the UK you know the politics of your papers, but they write for a broader church than that.  The Daily Telegraph exposed the ridiculous expenses claims of MPs from all parties before the last election, and did not hesitate to expose Conservative MPs as well.

One of its writers is Geoffrey Lean.  He is considered an "environmental correspondent" having previously been environmental editor for the more left leaning  Independent.  His Telegraph blog is here, but his insult is not located here.

It is this headline:

"New Zealand earthquake : the vengeance of Mother Nature".

Yes, the implication being that some anthropomorphised entity has inflicted vengeance on New Zealand.  For what? Why?

He goes on:

"as the people of Australia and New Zealand have been the latest to find out, she also has a nasty and highly destructive temper."

The female is "mother nature", so again he implies this is a cognitive being who is angry.  I am sure he doesn't really believe this but he goes on...

"And she's getting more irritable as the years go by. The devastating earthquake in Christchurch, and Queensland's cyclone and floods, which have so tumultuously ushered in 2011, follow the second worst year for disasters on record."

The end is nigh.  So what?  What have people done to reap this?

"Munich Re says that 90 per cent of last year's disasters were due to the weather, providing "further indications of advancing climate change". Sceptics disagree, and certainly no particular disaster can be attributed to global warming. But the increase is what most scientists have long predicted would happen as the world warms up."

So a reinsurance firm is making a link, but he naturally say no disaster can be attributed to global warming, but the increase is what would happen as the world warms up.

Sound like he is blaming the earthquake on global warming.  He goes on talking about droughts, floods, storms and hurricanes and then says:

"And, of course, earthquakes, like the disaster that has hit Christchurch, have nothing to do with it."

Whew, thank goodness for that, except hold on. What the hell is that headline about?  Why write about it now?  Why the fuck say "New Zealand earthquake: The Vengeance of Mother Nature" unless you are making some link?

"But whatever the cause of the increase in disasters, humanity has made their impact far worse."

He then says buildings make things worse, which of course implies we should live in caves or tents, a rather inane comment really.

He backs out of linking the earthquake to anything:

"Christchurch aside, maybe Mother Nature sometimes has reason to be annoyed."

Who?  Aren't you the annoyed one?

Not as annoyed as me.  You see he didn't mean anything, but he did try to get attention because of the earthquake.  He had a headline that is vile, as if Christchurch was the result of nature's "anger" at humanity, he did it while corpses are still being pulled out of the rubble.  Even ignoring his hatred of humanity in treating nature as if it is a living being that emotes, it was in appalling bad taste.

Even worse bad taste was that this article was one of the "Editor's choice" on the website.

For shame Daily Telegraph.  For shame!

Hitchens damns Obama's impotence

Writing in Slate, Christopher Hitchens shares my disappointment at Obama's complete failure to show any kind of leadership on Libya.

He writes:

it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned "violence" in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking.

Meanwhile as I have already said, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have placed themselves with Gaddafi.  China and Russia's authoritarian leaders have naturally sat on the fence, hoping their own people don't get any bright ideas or that anyone looks in their own blood splattered back yards.  Obama acts similarly.

It is an outrageous withdrawal from world affairs, one that would put no pressure at all on Russia or China to relent on a resolution at the UN Security Council.  Yes, in Egypt it was difficult for the US to be at the forefront in a revolution that deposed an erstwhile ally, when it both feared the instability but welcomed the call for freedom and democracy. Yet, with Libya it should have been different.

Hitchens continues pointing out the bravery of those without the world's most potent military on their side.

By the time of Obama's empty speech, even the notoriously lenient Arab League had suspended Libya's participation, and several of Qaddafi's senior diplomatic envoys had bravely defected. One of them, based in New York, had warned of the use of warplanes against civilians and called for a "no-fly zone." Others have pointed out the planes that are bringing fresh mercenaries to Qaddafi's side. In the Mediterranean, the United States maintains its Sixth Fleet, which could ground Qaddafi's air force without breaking a sweat. But wait! We have not yet heard from the Swiss admiralty, without whose input it would surely be imprudent to proceed.


Quite, it is so feeble as to be embarrassing.  Americans should be embarrassed and mortified at how far their country has fallen in international affairs.   It could take relatively painless steps and gain enormous goodwill and support in the region, and do more to generate friendship and pro-Western feeling than anything else could.   Though this is the same President cutting broadcasts by the Voice of America to China.

It is rather straightforward Mr President:

- Libya has long had a history of being an arch-enemy of the US and your allies;
- Gaddafi's history has been one of unashamedly shedding blood of innocents and supporting those who do so;
- The USA is, despite your inept efforts, still by far the world's largest economy and military superpower.

I even think Hillary Clinton would do more.

Dubya certainly would have.

Chavez and Castro side with Gaddafi

Pinup boy of so many in the left, from Ken Livingstone to Matt McCarten, Hugo Chavez, is siding with Gaddafi as is Fidel Castro (Spanish reports).

Who is surprised?

The international left has long been sympathetic to this thug, a thug who has chemical and biological weapons, admits it, who has engaged in terrorism against civilians whether by plane or by nightclub.  

They are all murdering thugs, all of whom happily use force against those who they disagree with, all part of the transnational community of tyrants.  The only difference with Chavez is that he is an elected one who has not been completely unhindered in his pursuit of power.

At what point will the lowlives in the West who have lauded the likes of Chavez and Castro admit they got it wrong?  That they, like the legions of useful idiots who denied the mass slaughter under Mao, who denied the mass slaughter under Stalin, some who even denied the Khmer Rouge's genocidal scale rivers of blood, who constantly apologised for regimes that are as bloodthirsty as the anti-Marxist military dictatorships and thugs who they targeted.

Those of us who actually do believe in individual freedom have been consistent, called a spade a spade.  Called Castro, Chavez, Pinochet, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad, Suharto, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Bokassa, Mobutu, the lot, all dictators.  All vile, all despicable, all inexcusable.  Some are worse than others, but none deserve to be celebrated or supported.

So what's wrong with some people?

Half mast in London

New Zealand High Commission, Haymarket, London

It's all terribly sad, and the TV news has stories from Christchurch every bulletin.

However, some may find some humour that just two blocks up from the High Commission was the loss of much beer...

It's a hill, and it's a sloping ramp, but some learn from doing

NZ friends of the Gaddafi regime - Part 1 - Helen Clark

In her role as UNDP Secretary General, Helen Clark has to be diplomatic with all sorts of regimes as she flies around the globe in first class staying in five-star hotels showing concern for global poverty by not experiencing anything remotely close to it.

However, does she have to provide succuour, support and titles to relatives of dictators?  Apparently so.

Muammar Gaddafi's daughter was, until yesterday, a Goodwill Ambassador to the UNDP.   She has been removed, and rightly so.  However, why was she appointed in the first place?  Why is UNDP having a positive relationship with the Gaddafi dictatorship at all.

However, UNDP's relationship with Libya goes back to 1972.  Gaddafi was well established in power even then.  UNDP even now has a dedicated website showcasing how taxpayer money from across the world has been funnelled into projects in this oil rich dictatorship.  To be fair Libya also throws in some money to the projects, not that this makes it better.

The direct Aisha Gaddafi relationship also started before Clark in 2006, with this document formalising a relationship between Gaddafi's charity (Watassemo Charity Society) and UNDP.  Now anyone with an eye for how dictatorships work knows there could never be any transparency behind charities run in such regimes, which would make any such relationship questionable even without it being run by the daughter of a mass murdering tyrant.

It even has multi-year plans AGREED with the regime to help develop the country.

Now Helen Clark is only the latest in a long line of UN bureaurats to suck from the UN tit and be a party to this, but a party she certainly is.

You see whilst UNDP has been in Libya for almost 40 years, the Gaddafi relationship has been solid throughout.  The most recent move was only in 2009 to appoint Aisha Gaddafi as the goodwill ambassador of Libya on July 24, 2009 to address the issues of HIV/AIDS and violence against women in Libya, according to the Times of India.   So Helen Clark must have endorsed the appointment of the dictator's daughter to such a role.

Furthermore, the UNDP has also provided a facade for the nonsense of quality governance in Libya.  Its three year report states:

"Democratic governance. A new initiative on the automation of national courts, with a view to increasing public access to justice, was started in 2008 with completion expected by 2010."

Excuse me?  "Increasing public access to justice" in a Police state, where secret police forces routinely arrest people without trial.  The Human Rights Watch report says:

Hundreds of prisoners are detained by the Internal Security Agency without any legal basis. Over the past few years, an unprecedented confrontation between the General People’s Committee for Justice and the General People’s Committee for Public Security has developed over the failure of Internal Security to implement the decisions of Libyan courts.  The Internal Security Agency continues to refuse to release from Abu Salim and Ain Zara prisons, prisoners who either have been acquitted by courts or who have already served their court- imposed sentences.

Yet Helen Clark's UNDP talks of "democratic governance" and "access to justice" without ever mentioning any of this.  

Or this:

"The practice of enforced disappearance by Internal Security continues in Libya. Over the past decades, Internal Security agents have regularly detained individuals incommunicado in prisons or in Internal Security offices.  Libyan groups estimate that Libyan security officials have disappeared thousands of individuals over the past three decades"

Moreover:

Libya has no independent nongovernmental organizations. The only organizations that can do human rights work, the most sensitive area of all in Libya, derive their political standing from their personal affiliation with the regime.  The main organization that can publicly criticize human rights violations is the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation (Gaddafi Foundation), chaired by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi.  A second organization, Waatasemu, is run by Dr. Aisha al-Gaddafi, Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s daughter, and has intervened in death penalty cases and women’s rights issues.

In other words, unless you can plead to the Gaddafi family, you have little chance at justice.

What does the UNDP focus on?

The overarching goal sounds innocuous, if Libya was not an authoritarian police state:

"National institutions strengthened towards improved public service delivery and strengthened national data management systems"

Nothing like having a police state better manage its data!

Then within justice, the goals are more asinine.  It is nothing about real justice, more about making a police state operate more effectively!

"Within the justice sector, UNDP will support the ongoing automation process of courts, conducting capacity assessments, and implementing specific capacity development activities. A specific focus will be on ensuring greater access to justice for women."

So Helen Clark's UNDP is focusing on ensuring greater access for women, which appears to mean automating the courts and developing the capacity of the justice sector - in a police state.  The programme includes in its goals "Civil society organizations actively engage in development efforts, notably related to gender issues, and provision of services" yet Human Rights Watch notes:

There is no freedom of association in Libya because the concept of an independent civil society goes directly against Gaddafi’s theory of governance by the masses. Law 71 still criminalizes political parties, and the penal code criminalizes the establishment of organizations that are “against the principles of the Libyan Jamahireya system.” Law 19, "On Associations," requires a political body to approve all nongovernmental organizations, does not allow appeals against negative decisions and provides for continuous governmental interference in the running of the organization.

It is a farce, but worse of all it is actively complicit in pretending that it NOT a farce.  In creating civil society organisations, that are actually tools of the regime to present an image of civil society.  It is no surprise that two bodies, run by Gaddafi's offspring, are the only ones that can discuss human rights.  It is beyond absurd, and any credible Secretary General of the UNDP would not tolerate this.  

I would be surprised if Clark knew the details, but therein lies the UN problem.  A behemoth under which the UN does not simply remain quiet about evil, but actively works with it and becomes part of its propaganda to sustain itself.  

Yet, this Libyan UNDP office has an explicit goal of "democratic governance" in a country that has absolutely none of it, led by a philosophy that is actively opposed to it.  

The UNDP Libya website says the following, which is about as cynical as one can be.   Talking of democracy, then about Libya "strengthening institutions" in a police state.  That would actively do the opposite:

"The critical importance of democratic governance in the developing world was highlighted at the Millennium Summit of 2000, where the world's leaders resolved to "spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development. A consensus was reached which recognized that improving the quality of democratic institutions and processes, and managing the changing roles of the state and civil society in an increasingly globalised world must underpin national efforts to reduce poverty, sustain the environment, and promote human development.
In Libya, UNDP is working with the national government to enhance the capacities of state institutions and staff, particularly in regards to the access to justice.   It is also working towards providing General People’s Committees with policy advice and technical support in different fields, utilising its network of over 166 offices, and its global partnerships with democratic governance institutions."

It would be hilarious, if the UNDP wasn't using your taxes, and is led by a former New Zealand Prime Minister to basically grant a degree of respectability and a facade of progress upon a dictatorship and his family.  Strengthening the Libyan dictatorship does not enhance democratic governance, it undermines it.

Effectively, Helen Clark is just leading a body that does little about Libya, which in that position one may forgive, but rather leads a body colluding with the Gaddafi regime.  Furthermore, I would be surprised if Clark did not endorse making Aisha Gaddafi a Goodwill Ambassador for UNDP.   A position she earned because daddy has been running Libya as his personal fiefdom for forty years.  Should Bashar Assad have got one for being son of his dictator dad, or Kim Jong Il (and now Kim Jong Eun)?  

So Helen Clark is the first New Zealander I claim as a friend of the Gaddafi regime, through her actions as leader of the UNDP.  The removal of Aisha Gaddafi's status is a bit after the fact, and a bit "oh we better do that given the population are being slaughtered".

Although maybe Helen Clark simply has the UN disease, the same disease that allows Libya to sit on the UN Human Rights Council, with China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

UPDATE:  Credit to Fairfacts Media for picking this up before I did, making the same point.  I wait to read the condemnation of Clark's actions from the leftwing blogosphere, as much as Tony Blair will be criticised rightly for his appeasement.

Obama opts out of the world (UPDATED)

Isn't it rather odd, than when Libya's dictatorship has used fighter aircraft to attack its own citizens, when it is difficult to engage evacuations deep into Libya (only Tripoli airport and Benghazi appear accessible), that the USA has such a low profile?

The appropriate response is clear:

- Declare a "no-fly zone" over Libya, that NATO will take control of Libyan airspace for the purposes of preventing use of military aircraft against civilians, and to allow for evacuation and aid missions to fly in unhindered.

- That means being willing to warn and shoot down Libyan air force aircraft if necessary, or escort them if they wish to defect.

However Obama has given up, he has withdrawn from the world.  The US as superpower is absent, if you see the White House website there is nothing at all about Libya.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she is "watching" with concern.

It's a fairly clear lesson, Gaddafi was scared of Bush sufficiently that he stopped sabre rattling and his WMD programme.   He isn't scared of Obama.

So that's it people.  The Obama Administration was more vocal about Egypt, because of Israel and because it was so obviously a key ally of the US.  Libya, an arch enemy, is almost irrelevant now.

Have a guess at what governments are quietly taking comfort from that, they have capital cities beginning with T, D and P. 

UPDATE:  Even the New York Times agrees.

"It took President Obama four days to condemn the violence. Even then, he spoke only vaguely about holding Libyan officials accountable for their crimes. Colonel Qaddafi was never mentioned by name....There is not a lot of time. Colonel Qaddafi and his henchmen have to be told in credible and very specific terms the price they will pay for any more killing. They need to start paying right now."

A country united except for... (UPDATED)

two things that I have seen.

First are the looters.  "Inevitable" one may say, scum most would say.  Rats who demonstrate how damned useful it would be for people to have adequate means of self defence to deter and deal to those low lives who want to pillage those who have lost.   May the justice system do what it must and may your find your fellow inmates treat you as they tend to treat child abusers, for those are the few who wallow in the sewer beneath you.

Second is The Standard blog.  At a time when politics should be a distant second to compassion, concern, assistance and the ongoing spontaneous expression of human benevolence at times like this, it hosts a thread that is a barely concealed political statement called "In Praise of the Bureaucracy" claiming that people say emergency services staff are "often described collectively as a block to progress".   The earthquake is a chance for the Standard to celebrate bureaucracy, celebrate an idea, not the people who together have made this tragedy far less traumatic than it would have been.  It would be too easy to note that the people who have helped are from many backgrounds, and the Standard could simply have noted the bravery and hard work of all people who have helped from the police to ambulance, fire, civil defence, military and health professionals.  Who thinks this is a chance to score points?

It then descends into mean spirited anger directed at someone who hadn't commented:

"Hey hobbit, if you’re reading – this is what you pay your taxes for. And if you and your family are incredibly lucky in your lives, you may never meet nor need any of these selfless people and the limit of your involvement will be to occasionally stick your hand in your pocket."

A boot laid into the private sector, claiming they are mean spirited and helpless (those whose mobile phone networks are being used?):

"The champions of industry are helpless in these situations and they are eternally grateful for the skills of the emergency services and systems that are in place. However, they have an inordinate amount of influence when it comes to the negotiating remuneration for todays public service heroes and you can bet they will not be backward in suggesting a tight rein on any rewards."

A semi-illiterate beat up of Rodney Hide with a lie,  whilst glorifying the student union:

"i see the Canterbury Uni students assoc are lining up to move in and assist again.
Good thing they are still around before scum Hyde has shut them down"

this beat up of John Key, his family including his kids:

"a good solid and effective public service was always the backbone of New Zealands society and employment scene – that is until the neo-liberal dark lords of the sith fucked it over and reduced it to a shadow of its former self... Johnny, Maxie, floosie and Bronagh can bugger off to Hawaii and then wait to go to the UK for the wedding … i mean shit happens – but hey i’ve got shitloads of money and the polls say people love me"

Of course if John Key didn't go there, he'd be accused of not caring, if he goes he is politicking.  Not that Helen Clark would have faced such damnation.

I can only agree with Sonny Blount's comment:

"This thread is the lowest class thing I have seen in NZ in the last 24 hours.

Short of the looters."

Quite.

Especially when so many wait to hear of who are those crushed to death.


UPDATE:  The Greens have joined in.  What do they see it as?  A chance for a new tax on who they think are "rich" to "pay for the damage".   Nice.  An earthquake means all earning over NZ$41,000 should pay a levy.  The appropriate response to that is "fuck off you state obsessed bastards, people are mourning, put politics and your new taxes away". 

Intervention justified

Given Gaddafi's rants, proclamations and tortuous speech on TV a few hours ago, it is clear he is ready to spill as much blood as it takes to stay in power.

As such, it would be legitimate for others to come from outside, and shoot down any Libyan Air Force aircraft or helicopters that are firing at civilians, or to use force against his mercenaries to protect Libyans from the government they have.

The US wont of course, because Obama doesn't want to upset anyone and doesn't want to be thought of as George W.  Bush.  The rest of NATO wont either.  The regimes elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa are full of thugs and bullies who wouldn't dare.

So it should be possible for private citizens to step in and help support a revolution in Libya.  Of course, in New Zealand this isn't allowed because the last Labour Government, with full support of the Greens and United Future banned New Zealanders being paid mercenaries.  National opposed it, noting that Australia, UK and US are not signatories to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

Gaddafi says there will be house to house searches to find and kill all protestors, and he would rather die a martyr than surrender power.

Hopefully this can be arranged. Gaddafi came out from the cold only because the war on Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein scared him.   An ultimatum from a US President might just do the very same.

The Libyan Jamahiriya News Agency is his official mouthpiece, and the website has deleted all news reports.  Let's hope that means that more of his vile police state is falling around him.   For the sake of Libyans this needs to end quickly, and if Gaddafi's head is disconnected from his body, then it may be for the best - as long as his family's bank accounts and foreign assets can be frozen.

Thoughts to Christchurch

I was awoken to the news at around 2am GMT, with reports coming through my wifi radio on ABC News Radio, as very little was on the international TV news channels I can get.   The events do not need me to express the sadness and horror about the destruction, the death, the injuries and the devastation of Christchurch.

Like all, I can only hope that the death toll does not grow, that people are all accounted for, as all those who I know in Christchurch are.  With both air and rail links into Christchurch temporarily severed, the difficulties of getting in and out are exacerbated.  

The effects are immediate for those who have lost family and friends, and those badly injured, and have lost precious possessions.   Think also for the tens of thousands who are now wondering if they should rebuild and remain in this city.   It is easy to say hasty decisions shouldn't be made, but the effects of this will be deep for the entire country.   Those who think that reconstruction after this is beneficial for the economy are of course fools.

I note Air New Zealand is putting on special NZ$50 one way fares for all domestic flights to and from Christchurch from tomorrow through till Friday, with a special Boeing 747 flight to and from Auckland to operate to get large numbers in and out efficiently.   I hope those who need to return, and those who are visiting and need to return quickly can get to do so with as little pain as possible.   I hope also Air NZ ensures the 747 isn't filled with planespotters seeking to fly in flat beds in business class in the nose or upstairs for cheap - by blocking such seats from pre-selection by non-status frequent flyers.

So I have put a photo of the cathedral up, because this is the symbol of the city- but the city itself is its people, and may the coming days, weeks and months they find their hearts and minds able to rebuilt and live, whilst for now the battle is to find those missing, and to keep safe and secure those who remain.  Hopefully also the Police and public can have sufficient presence to avoid the scum of looters seeking to profit from the misery of others.

My best wishes and thoughts to them all.

PS:  Winner of the most inappropriate comment from a New Zealand politician goes to Catherine Delahunty with this tweet: 

greencatherine Catherine Delahunty

 

"A grim day with the horror earthquake and welfare report came out worse than I ever imagined"

Yes, the government's welfare report is equivalent to an earthquake that has killed dozens of people.  I may disagree with your colleagues, but they are mostly capable of some thought before saying such things.

At least it is better than blaming the victims for their disaster.

Too little too late Saif

I watched the footage on Libyan state TV last night of Muammar Gaddafi's favourite son - his "Kim Jong Il" - Saif al-Islam Gaddafi - calling for an end to protests, blaming them on drug addicts, criminals and foreign troublemakers.

He threatened to fight to the last man and the last bullet.  He said that Libya risked civil war, and without the sharing of its oil wealth, Libyans would starve and be homeless.  Easy to say when you're the groomed son of a dictator who has access to billions in funds taken from the "Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahariya".  He parties while his people have a per capita GDP closer to Mexico, whilst having an economy 95% reliant on oil.

He offered reform, a "national dialogue" and some opening up.  Had he done this a year ago, and there had been substantive progress, then maybe the pressure might have been released.  Maybe.  However, Libya has had one of the most repressive regimes in the Arab world.  No private bodies or entities are permitted in Libya, without state authority.  Civil society, political parties, alternative media are all banned.  Even Egypt had a private sphere.

However, it is far too late now, and moreover his promise of reform was not done in any sense of seeking forgiveness, but with a bloody threat of death till the bitter end.

His father has long been proven to be a bloody vicious and unremittingly death worshipping thug, and the actions of some of the Libyan military and police have proven that, with reports of the air force gunning down civilians and two air force pilots defecting to Malta because they were ordered to shoot civilians. 

It is over, it is just a matter of time, but sadly a matter of bloodshed.  Actions there will continue to spooks the bullies in Bahrain, and across the Arab world.  I'm hoping Bashar Assad is next.

Botany by-election shows all that is wrong with NACT

The resignation of Pansy Wong for her corrupt misuse of taxpayers' money to pay for her husband to embark on a trip for his own business purposes was always right, but to hold a by-election a matter of months out from a General Election is quite absurd.  It was inappropriate for her to remain in Parliament, but remarkably wasteful to hold a by-election for such a short period.  A bit like Chris Laidlaw's hilarious winning of the 1992 Wellington Central by-election following Fran Wilde being elected Mayor of Wellington City, only to be turfed out in 1993 when Labour nearly won the General Election (but Pauline Gardiner won for the Nats in Wellington Central).

So a by-election it is, in a seat where Wong won around 56% of the vote in 2008, and National 61% of the party vote, it would appear that it is a sure thing for the National candidate Jami-Lee Ross (no, not a Vegas porn star).

This young man just about embodies the National Party in 2011.  Young, looks presentable (as a real estate agent), obsessed with running other people's lives and without a principle worth taping to a twig.   To him, contributing to his community means being a politician.  He has no background in business, either starting one or even working in one.  His whole adult life has spent deciding how to spend other people's money and how to regulate their lives.  

In the Press it was reported that his great achievement was this:

"The local athletics club really wanted a new athletics track and that was a big deal for them because they have got one of the best clubs in Auckland. So, together with my council colleagues, we built them an all weather athletics track."

What he should say is "together with my council colleagues, we co-opted some money forcibly taken from ratepayers to spend on the group that got my attention, and paid some people to build it for us".   Now he didn't build anything, didn't put his own money into it, but takes the credit for it.  How grateful people should be that he was there to choose the lobby group to benefit from money taken by force!

He thinks election is about the economy, crime and infrastructure, not that he expressed any ideas on any of it.  In fact his campaign website is bereft of anything of substance beyond a basic profile.   He is keen on there being a budget surplus, to be spent on the "services Kiwis expect and deserve", not to cut debt or taxes.

Of course he is following the script of National, say nothing, do little more and show no ambition for serious reform or change.  Maybe he has something more to offer, but a lifestyle politician is not someone who has learnt anything useful about the world - except a desire to tell people what to do.

You'd think ACT might take a chance by putting forward a candidate who embraces the old ACT policies of abolishing income tax, allowing people to buy private education and healthcare, set up their own superannuation accounts, and radical reform.  No, it chose Lyn Murphy, possibly its wettest candidate yet who puts herself to the left of Jami-Lee Ross.   She has championed a few environmental causes and to get some cables buried, achievements that rival those of Ross!  She is a senior lecturer in management, and a member of the Counties-Manukau DHB, an entity that ought to be abolished.  She is campaigning on cutting government waste, zero tolerance on burglaries and ending Maori separatism.  Lots new going on there then.

Such a complete waste.  ACT knows it has no chance of winning this seat, it could have stamped free market and small government principles and policies all over this by-election.   Given Kenneth Wang got a credible 15% of the electorate vote in 2008, you might have thought it could have chosen someone who believed in something.

No.  National showed itself to be the conservative party of do nothing that selects career politicians with no experience of business (or even private sector employment).  ACT showed itself to be devoid of principle and devoid of anything left in a brand that can't even stand up for Sir Roger Douglas when the Prime Minister criticises him.

Labour naturally is standing someone to soak up the "give me something for nothing vote", although it has fierce competition from National and ACT candidates with similar views.    Then the wacky dimension is rounded off with the pro-Intellectual Property theft Pirate Party, the Asian immigrant New Citizen Party, the Join Australia Party and the foaming at the mouth rabid leftwing nutcase conspiracy theorist Penny Bright (I know this from a single phone conversation I had with her).   Other independents are just having some fun I suspect.

The only candidate a libertarian or even a small government classical liberal (or anyone who actually believes in the principles of National or ACT) could endorse is Leo Biggs from the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party.   Why?  He's the only candidate standing on a platform that actually explicitly endorses less government, in one area (although I suspect he personally has little else going for him, if all he does is vote on this issue, then it is something).

Standing back from this you can see the stark options for those who want less government in this year's general election.  In 2008, thousands voted National to oust Clark and bring an end to Helengrad, but Keynesia is Helengrad-lite, with more smiles and less principles.   Thousands voted ACT to give some backbone to a Key led government, and got a Minister for Local Government who adopted  and implemented most of Labour's local government policy, creating Australasia's largest local bureaucracy.  ACT voters elected Sir Roger Douglas, the man who did more than any politician in the last 30 years to stop the rot of New Zealand being the most socialist free-world economy, only to find ACT's leader wouldn't back him when he was telling the truth.   Now ACT is the party that brought you nothing.

Libertarianz on the other hand may not get anyone elected, but if 1-2% of voters who would have voted ACT or National tick Libertarianz, it will be a right shock to both parties.  Why?  Because it will deny them seats, show that there are quite a few New Zealanders who want less government, and may shock ACT in particular into actually reforming and becoming a proper party that advocates less government.   Given current polling nobody who would prefer to keep Labour out is likely to fear a change of government, but it would change politics and the political discourse in ACT and National.   It would show that there are enough people, who are not purist libertarians, who want governments committed to less tax, less government, one law for all and private property rights.   

If not, are you that enamoured by John Key after nine years of Helen Clark that you can't wait for another three years of it?

What Gaddafi thinks

Colonel Gaddafi is not a man who can readily be said to be a conventional dictator, except that many dictators expose themselves as being rambling ranters of peculiar philosophies.  His views are in what is his own rambling rant of incoherence, the Green Book (full text here).

What you see below are excerpts from it, most are good enough reason to relieve Libya from his rule!

He says of freedom of speech:

Democratically, private individuals should not be permitted to own any public means of publication or information. However, they have the right to express themselves by any means, even irrationally, to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional sector, for example, is only a means of expression of that particular social group. It presents their own points of view and not that of the general public. This applies to all other corporate and private individuals in society.  The democratic press is that which is issued by a People's Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and representing all its groups.

It is basically a justification of a state monopoly media.  It justifies banning privately owned newspapers or other "means of information". Libya has shut down internet and mobile phone networks as it now proceeds to murder its citizens.

It gets more insane when he talks about economic matters:

"Wage-earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them. They are temporary slaves, and their slavery lasts as long as they work for wages from employers, be they individuals or the state. The workers' relationship to the owner or the productive establishment, and to their own interests, is similar under all prevailing conditions in the world today, regardless of whether ownership is right or left."

Nothing like totalitarians telling people they are slaves under alternative systems.

He doesn't think that people should own taxis or that anyone other than the state should own any transport operations:

In a socialist society, no person or authority has the right to own a means of transportation for the purpose of renting it, for this also means controlling the needs of others.

Don't think of living without a family because Gaddafi thinks you are worthless without one:

the individual without a family has no value or social life

On democracy and individual rights it is pretty clear as well:

Therefore, the only solution to the persistent problem of democracy is through The Third Universal Theory.

According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on Basic Popular Conferences and People's Committees which convene in a General People's Congress. This is absolutely the only form of genuine democratic society.

In summary, the era of the masses, which follows the age of the republics, excites the feelings and dazzles the eyes. But even though the vision of this era denotes genuine freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the bonds of external authoritarian structures, it warns also of the dangers of a period of chaos and demagoguery, and the threat of a return to the authority of the individual, the sect and party, instead of the authority of the people.

In other words there cannot be political parties, and "the authority of the individual" is a threat.  

 When he writes about women, his mental stability must be in question since he decides to embark on a lesson in biology:

According to gynaecologists, women menstruate every month or so, while men, being male, do not menstruate or suffer during the monthly period. A woman, being a female, is naturally subject to monthly bleeding. When a woman does not menstruate, she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she becomes, due to pregnancy, less active for about a year, which means that all her natural activities are seriously reduced until she delivers her baby. When she delivers her baby or has a miscarriage, she suffers puerperium, a condition attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As man does not get pregnant, he is not liable to the conditions which women, being female, suffer. Afterwards a woman may breast-feed the baby she bore. Breast-feeding continues for about two years. Breastfeeding means that a woman is so inseparable from her baby that her activity is seriously reduced. She becomes directly responsible for another person whom she assists in his or her biological functions; without this assistance that person would die. The man, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. End of gynaecological statement!

Who knew??!!

However, in case you wondered whether he was just a rather odd tyrant, then consider he would ban adoption or fostering, so that such children can be reared by the state:

As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries and related institutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents. 

Society indeed!

Master of tautology he is, with gems like:  "The living creature is a being who inevitably lives until it is dead." 

He wouldn't have liked Helen Clark:

The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage, beautification and femininity for reasons of health abandons her natural role in life under these coercive conditions of ill health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood because of work abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity without any concrete cause abandons her natural role as a result of a coercive and morally deviant circumstances.  

He goes on about women being equal, although then says:   It is equally unjust and dictatorial for women to find themselves under the working conditions of men. 

Apparently, he thinks they should get easier conditions.

His view on race leave me speechless with its random nonsense:  

 In addition, the inevitable cycle of social history, which includes the Yellow people's domination of the world when it marched from Asia, and the White people's carrying out a wide-ranging colonialist movement covering all the continents of the world, is now giving way to the re-emergence of Black people.  Black people are now in a very backward social situation, but such backwardness works to bring about their numerical superiority because their low standard of living has shielded them from methods of birth control and family planning. Also, their old social traditions place no limit on marriages, leading to their accelerated growth. The population of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, and constant occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less obsessive about work in a climate which is continuously hot.

 

Education seems peculiarly libertarian, unlike reality in Libya:

State-controlled and standardized education is, in fact, a forced stultification of the masses. All governments which set courses of education in terms of formal curricula and force people to learn those courses coerce their citizens. All methods of education prevailing in the world should be destroyed through a universal cultural revolution that frees the human mind from curricula of fanaticism which dictate a process of deliberate distortion of man's tastes, conceptual ability and mentality.  

He argues for free schools with the widest choice of learning.  Something Libya doesn't exactly have by any stretch of the imagination.

  

Funny for a police state to be based on:

"Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him or her."

Shutting down the internet and mobile phone networks is consistent with that apparently.

He thinks sport shouldn't have spectators only participants:

When the masses march and play sport in the centre of playing fields and open spaces, stadiums will be vacant and become redundant. This will take place when the masses become aware of the fact; that sport is a public activity which must be practised rather than watched. This is more reasonable as an alternative than the present costum of a helpless apathetic majority that merely watches.

Grandstands will disappear because no one will be there to occupy them. Those who are unable to perform the roles of heroism in life, who are ignorant of the events of history; who fall short of envisaging the future, and who are not serious enough in their own lives, are the trivial people who fill the seats of the theatres and cinemas to watch the events of life in order to learn their course. They are like pupils who occupy school desks because they are uneducated and also initially illiterate.

Nurse!! Nurse?? Get his pills!

Libya has no official opposition of any kind, Gaddafi is murdering protestors again and again.  Protestors have appeared, bravely, outside the Libyan Embassy in London (brave given how Libya once started shooting from its embassy some years ago, murdering a policewoman).  

Good luck to them, Gaddafi is the Arab ruler who has most exported murder and death of any of those currently in power.  He deserves at the very least, a bullet.