The Daily Bork

June 30, 2005

Newsflash, Bush gives typical Bush speech

Following hot on the heels of the last non-analysis of Bush's speech we have

Hård kritik mot Bushs Iraktal
(Harsh criticism of Bush's Iraq speech)

It goes round the world to find anyone and everyone who wants to have a bash at it but were apparently too lazy to read it or listen to it.

One Erik Åsard, of the "North American Institute" in Uppsala, Sweden is quoted:

Han anser att talet var "typiskt för Bush". Det innehöll inte mycket nytt och egentligen ville Bush bara understryka varför USA är i Irak och varför det är nödvändigt att stanna.

He thinks that the speech was "typical of Bush". It didn't contain much new and really Bush only wanted to underscore why the USA is in Iraq and why it was necessary to stay.


Exsqueeze me? But, what on Earth was he expecting? It was a speech, about Iraq, by the president of the USA. I can't really see what his problem is here, how it amounts to anything reportable or how it even is relevant. He might as well have said "Bush made a speech".

For comment about the ACTUAL SPEECH, you of course have to turn away from MSM sites. Q and O have a round up of THE CONTENT and finish with

Well, there was nothing there that we haven't been saying here for a couple of years. Notably, the president didn't really sugarcoat the situation in Iraq at all. He said it's been hard, and progress has been slow. But, we are making progress.

He did make it clear, however, that he's not going to reverse course in Iraq. He laid out what he plans to do, laid out a political and military strategy.

This is the kind of thing the Administration should've been pounding on for the last two years. No matter how important social security or taxation is, this is the central issue facing the country, and the Administration hasn't made nearly enough effort to stay on top of the issue publicly.

Hopefully, this will not be a one-time speech, but the start of a concerted effort to let the American people know what is going on in Iraq, what progress is being made, and how we can move closer to winning against the terrorists there.


Dean Esmay says...

It was a fine speech, and the aftermath of it will be positive. Not for Bush per se--indeed, it's pointless to wonder about its affect on Bush. He's not running for President. History will judge his legacy once he's gone. There's no more need to get into stupid "this hurts him or helps him" stuff. The question is whether it helps the troops, and the war effort.

Yes, it does both. No, it says nothing he hasn't said before, except for the bit about encouraging young people to enlist and to be proud of that choice if they make it. But nothing new NEEDED to be said: we are committed, this is a just and moral cause, and the price of failure would be horrific.

It was absolutely right to hold it on prime time, and a good time to do it. As many people as possible need to see it. Unlike most of those of us who are plugged into politics in the blogosophere, everyday Americans needed reassuring. Most of them got that.

No, not the BDS-sufferers and the fascist sympathizers. Nothing will change those. But the waverers who needed bucking up got it. This is a good thing.


But wait. These guys seem to have read the speech itself rather than faxed off their standard "Bush speech response" with the appropriate date inserted.

Spin the numbers

What do you do if you have a president giving a good speech, but publishing the details would seem too much like, you know, giving people some real information? Run with the viewing stats instead...

Bush's Iraq speech draws career-low TV audience
30 June 2005

LOS ANGELES: President George W Bush's latest address to the nation, urging Americans to stand firm in Iraq, drew the smallest TV audience of his tenure, Nielsen Media Research reported on Wednesday.


Live coverage of Bush's half-hour speech on Tuesday night averaged 23 million viewers combined on four major US broadcast networks and three leading cable news channels, Nielsen said.

Designed largely to bolster sagging public support for the persistently bloody conflict in Iraq, the speech fell 8.6 million viewers shy of Bush's previous low as president, his August 9, 2001 address on stem cell research, which was carried on six networks.

Even Bush's last prime-time address, his April 28 speech on Social Security overhaul, drew more viewers: 32.7 million.

Bush garnered the biggest US TV audience of his presidency - 82 million viewers on nine networks - when he addressed a joint session of Congress nine days after the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.

By comparison, his May 1, 2003, speech from the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq averaged 48.4 million viewers.


OK, so what? Viewing numbers for a president's speech, during his second term, are hardly indicative of anything.

I know that you desperately want to make it seem that because "only" 23 million people watched it live that it somehow makes the content less meaningful, but that can only hold if everyone knew exactly what he was going to say beforehand. In which case noone would have watched it. So really, what the hell is this about?

What was IN THE SPEECH?

Time to grow up maybe

Apparently I am younger at heart than I really am (32), by a few years. It must have been the SpongeBob answer, cos I thought I was going to end up much older than I am...





You Are 26 Years Old



26





Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe.

13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world.

20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences.

30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more!

40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.


June 29, 2005

Take the MIT Weblog Survey

Google mapping odd places.

Google maps is fun for finding your own house, if you happen to be in one of the high-resolution areas. But you can also do some of your own spy work.

For instance, in one of the few high detail areas of Iran we find this not particularly civil looking place. Hmm, what's in all those identical hangars I wonder?



I wonder where the maps come from, given the sparse coverage of such countries, that there are highly detailed maps of air force bases, with planes on the runway even?

If you know where to look you can also find sigint stations around the world and lots more.

Something from the NYT you won't see in Swedish

This from the NYT, via Instapundit. I wonder when we will see this translated into the Swedish dailies, which usually use the NYT as gospel. Oh wait, I know when, Zzzzzzzz...

Senators Laud Treatment of Detainees in Guantánamo

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - Senators from both sides of the aisle competed on Monday to extol the humane treatment of detainees whom they said they saw on a weekend trip to the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. All said they opposed closing the center.

"I feel very good" about the detainees' treatment, Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said.

That feeling was also expressed by another Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

On Monday, Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, said he learned while visiting Guantánamo that some detainees "even have air-conditioning and semiprivate showers."

Another Republican, Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, said soldiers and sailors at the camp "get more abuse from the detainees than they give to the detainees." . . .

Cruise again???

In a review of the new War of the Worlds I found this apparently unintentional humour...

Cruise, who plays a self-indulgent misfit divorced from his wife


Did they accidentally describe Cruise's life rather than his character? Oh wait, they are one and the same. "Tom Cruise once again playing himself in this summer's blockbuster etc etc."

Oh the movie looks like shit. Stop remaking old classics and get some NEW ideas for Christ's sake! Oh, and not every fricking movie needs some lame political subtext to "make you think".

June 28, 2005

Watermelons

An interesting tidbit in a Green missive...

There is an increasingly active network of trade unionists within the Green Party

Which probably explains barking mad ideas like...

The right to strike on significant social, political and environmental issues – not just around employment agreements.

Yeah, great, hold everyone hostage to (insert cause-of-the-week here) by striking about it.

Does anyone really need any further proof that they are a bunch of Marxist fools?

It's not easy being Green

"National leads Labour in latest poll"

National: 40.1
Labour: 36.2
NZ First: 11.8
Greens: 4
Maori Party: 3.1
ACT: 1.9
United Future: 1.3

While I'd be sorry to see ACT disappear, the demise of the Greens for a term or two (or forever) would be ample compensation.

And, if newspapers cut out all the totally useless comments,

Victoria University political scientist Nigel Roberts said Labour and National were both trying to gain maximum advantage in the period before the campaign.


wouldn't they be much cheaper? I mean, no shit Sherlock.

We had to destroy the wabbit hole in order to save it.

Can't wait for the Greens to throw a complete spazz over this...

Rabbit exploding device proves popular

It is probably the most humane way to kill an animal, causing a haemorrhage at the base of the spine and exploding the animal's lungs with the oxygen, he said.


Must keep straight face...

The death of rabbits is not covered by laws on humane animal killing because it is classed as a pest, but Mr Meyer said experiments showed the rabbits died instantly.


Scare-symbol headlines

How often do you see an image as part of a headline?

Almost never right? So if a radiation symbol was used as part of a headline, what would it imply? Why use it? Surely to add impact, in this case it is a warning symbol so the implication is what, nuclear weapons? The article would be about North Korea? Iran?

Nope...

USA vill producera plutonium 238

The article appears to be a straight translation of a Reuters release (minus scare symbol)...

US plans to resume plutonium 238 production - report
28 June 2005

NEW YORK: The United States plans to produce highly radioactive plutonium 238 for the first time since the Cold War, The New York Times reported yesterday.


The newspaper quoted project managers as saying most, if not all, of the new plutonium was intended for secret missions. The officials would not disclose details, but the newspaper said the plutonium in the past powered espionage devices.

The Times said Timothy Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the US Energy Department, vigorously denied in a recent interview any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.

"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Frazier was quoted as saying.

Officials at the Energy Department could not be reached for comment.

The program, which the newspaper said had raised concerns among environmentalists, would produce 150 kg over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory. The program could cost $US1.5 billion and generate over 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste, federal officials told the Times.

Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than plutonium 239, which is used in nuclear arms, according to the newspaper. Medical experts say inhaling even a speck posed a serious risk of lung cancer, the Times said.

The newspaper said plutonium 238 had no central role in nuclear arms, but was valued for its steady heat that could be turned into electricity. Nuclear batteries made from it power spacecraft to go where sunlight is too dim to energise solar cells.

Federal and private experts not connected to the project were quoted as saying the new plutonium would likely power devices for espionage under the sea and on land.

The United States last made plutonium 238 in the 1980s and now relied on aging stockpiles or imports from Russia, the newspaper said. It added that under the agreement with Russia, the United States could not use the imports - about 16 kg since the end of the Cold War - for military purposes.


Now I may be reading a bit much into this, but what is the big deal? The US, instead of soaking up Russian material, rather than leaving it lying around, is going to produce it again. For power sources, not weapons. It is not much different to producing other isotopes for medical and research purposes. So really, what is the news? Why the big bad bogey symbol?

June 27, 2005

Tom Cruise, idiot

Interview with a moron...

TOM CRUISE:

No, you see. Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do.//

MATT LAUER:

//aren't there examples, and might not Brooke Shields be an example, of someone who benefited from one of those drugs? TOM CRUISE:

all it does is mask the problem, Matt. And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem. That's what it does. That's all it does. You're not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.

....

TOM CRUISE: But what happens, the antidepressant, all it does is mask the problem. There's ways of vitamins and through exercise and various things. I'm not saying that that isn't real. That's not what I'm saying. That's an alteration of what-- what I'm saying. I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer, these drugs are very dangerous. They're mind-altering, anti-psychotic drugs. And there are ways of doing it without that so that we don't end up in a brave new world. // the thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She-- she doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt.


No such thing as a chemical imbalance, but take these other chemicals and you will be fine?

Tom Cruise, scientologist extraordinaire, scientific illiterate, historically challenged.

Paging Eric Cartman

You know, I'm sure there is a Southpark episode just waiting to burst forth from this sort of bullshit...

Geldof urges rock crowd to fight poverty

Dear poor of Zimbabwe, you are definitely screwed now...

HARARE: A special envoy of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrived on an assessment trip in Zimbabwe on Sunday amid a mounting global outcry over President Robert Mugabe's crackdown on illegal shantytowns.


Anna Tibaijuka, the executive director of UN-HABITAT, the global body's housing agency, will spend several days observing the results of "Operation Restore Order," a clean-up campaign that has demolished tens of thousands of homes and shops and left as many as 300,000 people homeless.

"I'm here at the request of the secretary-general to assess the situation here and to see how we can work together to put everything in the way that everybody would like to have them," Tibaijuka, of Tanzania, told reporters.

"We are basically looking at the Operation ... and to see the impact and how we can work together to assist all those affected. The secretary-general is of course following the situation with keen interest."

June 23, 2005

I have a cunning plan...

Another round of dingbattery finds its way into the papers...

Who shares wins in the battle of the sexes

A discussion paper published by Australia's Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner yesterday says population growth, workforce participation and productivity - the three Ps the treasurer says are essential for economic growth - would be enhanced if men and women spread the responsibility for paid work and housework and caring for children and the elderly.

But to do this there need to be changes in the law, society and workplace culture.


I love that. To achieve population, participation and productivity, the only thing that needs to be done is to change the law, the workplace and, oh, erm, oh yeah, society. Colour me sceptical, but when all these great things can be achieved only by changing, well, just about absolutely everything then it is an indicator that the proponent is talking out their arse.

A bit further on...

The current arrangement, where women do most of the housework and child care, and men are primary breadwinners works against "the principles of a democratic and just society", the paper says. And even though the arrangement appears to be the result of private choices, freely made, the level of disquiet and exhaustion in Australian families showed the opposite is true.

"Choices are never made in a vacuum," it says. They are influenced by government laws and policies, employer practices, and community attitudes. Under current tax policies, for example, there is "no incentive for both parents to work part time and share the care of their children more equally".

The paper says women are often reluctant to acknowledge the inequity of current arrangements. "Domestic harmony may be seen as a trade-off for ignoring unfair arrangements."


Get that? You think you are making those choices, but you are making choices contrary to my expectations so in fact you are clearly not making free choices. The only way you could be making free choices is if those choices correspond to my desires, how dare you consider "domestic harmony" (spit) in your decision making? In other words, you have no choice, I will decide for you, you ignorant plebs. Ah the joys of leftism.

Curiously, in countries that have these sort of policies like, oh, Sweden women still seem to make the choice to stay home more than the men and the policies have the precise reverse of intentions (lower productivity and participation, not much population). It seems that sometimes you can't re-educate people enough, they keep on making their own damn choices. It's almost as if, somehow, there is some sort of strange innate difference between men and women. But I know that can't be true because they told me at university that gender is a social construct.

Don't you know who I AM?

Cruise drops complaints against pranksters

Yeah, because maybe being squirted with water is, you know, hardly much to get worked up about???

"I'm here giving you an interview, answering your questions and you do something really nasty ... you're a jerk ... jerk ... you're a jerk," the actor told the prankster.

Cruise said it was "disgusting" that someone should act in such a way.

"I really work hard to make people feel good," he said as he towelled himself dry.


Oh you are all so mean!!! I'm so nice! How can you play a practical joke on a nice guy? I make people haappppyyyy.

Apart from the fact that the last point is exceedingly dubious in its veracity... so fucking what? Good god! Get a sense of humour for crying out loud.

In contrast:

When the same stunt was played on Sharon Osbourne last month there was a very different outcome.

The wife of veteran rocker Ozzy Osbourne turned the tables on the prankster when she hurled a bucket of water over him, the Daily Mirror newspaper reported.


So some middleage woman has more balls than whiny little Tom. Who'd have thought it? Mind you, having put up with Ozzy for so long, it's amazing she didn't just deck them.

Thou shalt not

Govt can not stop cricket tour of Zimbabwe - Goff

The NZ cricket team is off to tour Zimbabwe. The Greens want the government to "stop" the tour.

Now, Zimbabwe is spiralling into a hellhole under the rule of a fascist thug. But, is it really necessary to start giving powers to the NZ government to decide who can go and play sport where? Sure, it's a pretty bad decision to continue the tour, but the government in NZ does not have the power to cancel sporting tours. The various sporting administrations, after all, are not organs of the state no matter how much Mr Donald wishes them to be.

Phil Goff sums it up in an unusually straightforward and coherent manner...

"Well you can't stop them going. Only a dictatorial, autocratic regime can stop New Zealanders from leaving their own country," Mr Goff said.

"That's exactly what we're protesting about in terms of what Mugabe is doing."


In other words we don't like it, but we can't and shouldn't stop them.

Welcome comrades

It seems to be Göteborg's week for tours by washed up Castroites. Two days ago it was REM and tonight it's Springsteen.

Good lord.

I'm sure there will be fawning reviews in the papers tomorrow, but I'm going away for mid-summer and will, mercifully, avoid them.

June 22, 2005

Potty training

It looks like someone has been pulling the chain of a certain NZ MP whose chief occupation seems to be wiggling round past backing of various crazy socialists. This time it is Pol Pot, in a Chomskian defense article apparently related to not much current (but I don't really get to follow political fights in much detail). Presumably next week he'll be explaining how he was for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan before he was against it.

Religious nutjobs

Q and O notices the disturbing morality of PETA

So, really, I'm not sure whether this is an indication that PETA is...uh..inconsistent in their defense of animal rights or not. Actually, I hope it's because they're hypocritical, because, otherwise, if animals and humans have equal rights, their activities imply that euthanasia is a perfectly acceptable option for unwanted human beings. I mean, hey, if it's good enough for animals, right?


Unfortunately, I get the feeling they aren't hypocritical. They are no better than abortion clinic bombers. It is all a manifestation of the same religious drive. The abortion bombers have their view of Christianity, Islamic terrorists have their jihad and dreams of the caliphate restored and the left has socialism.

What if we had a music review and nobody came?

The Stockholm Spectator notices yet another music review in a Swedish paper where the music is not actually mentioned...

Did They Play a Show Too?

Granted, Three Doors Down are crap, but surely you'd review the music to come to that conclusion?

They contrast this to Kent, who are also crap but also Swedish (and mysteriously popular here) so vacant political lyrics get a pass.

Just like REM really, who just played in Göteborg. Coincidentally on the same day as the first summer thunderstorm and torrential downpour. I think they should have sacrificed some blue-faced Castro loving tosser, in the traditional Viking manner of course, to appease the gods of good taste.

One vote for Poppa Smurf

If you ever wonder why the world is still so messed up, you don't need to go much further than...

Karl Marx takes lead in BBC poll of philosophers

They even found a cheerleader to interview:

A win for Marx, who wrote The Communist Manifesto, would delight Francis Wheen, the author of a recent biography of the German-born thinker.

Wheen said: “He’s far more wide-ranging than the others on the list. He was not just a philosopher but was also very much involved in politics, economics and history. Marxism is also still a continuing argument, so that helps to give him credibility and relevance.”

Many critics disagree, arguing that communism has largely been discredited. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites and with China now embracing the free market, only a handful of countries, including Cuba and North Korea, still try to stick to Marx’s ideology.

“Actually, Marx himself was rather buried, as it were, by communist leaders such as Stalin and Kim Il-sung during much of the 20th century,” said Wheen. “It is they who discredited communism, but Marx’s own ideas are still very viable and influential.”


Yeah, nothing wrong with Marxism, it was all those other guys who messed it up. If they had stuck to the script it would have been peachy, just force a complete change in human behaviour and ignore people's desire to be free. What further proof do you need that socialism is nothing more than a religion? The full Marx quote, not often seen, is "Religion is the opiate of the masses and I am going to give them heroin".

Marx's own ideas, yeah great, we need to keep ideas alive from an anti-semitic, racist dimbulb whose ideas have been demonstrated to be totally at variance to anything approaching reality. Someone else sums it up nicely:

Another sceptic is Lisa Jardine, professor of renaissance studies at Queen Mary, University of London. “People are just voting for him because he’s an old man with a white beard and this is how they think of philosophers,” she said.


I vote for Poppa Smurf! He was old with a white beard too. He also made far more sense than Marx and usually kept the posturing intellectual fools (Brainy smurf) away from power.

Still, at least one decent guy get on the list...

The only other English-born philosopher on the list is John Stuart Mill, who championed the liberty of the individual against “the tyranny of the majority”.


But he didn't advocate revolution, death, empty posturing and cults of personality so why would all the pseudo-anarchist, Che t-shirt wearing poseurs vote for him?

5 of the best

St Molesworth has another amusing (NZ) top 10. The top 5 are best...

Top 10 thinnest books of 2005
1. Kids Who Think I'm Cool by Nandor Tanczos.

2. The Care and Management of Domestic Animals by John Tamihere.

3. Taxpayer Funded Films That Made Money by the Film Commission.

4. Things I haven't tried to get Parliamentary Service to Pay For by Rod Donald.

5. Positive Parenting by Graham Capill.

June 20, 2005

Institutional racism, maybe, maybe not.

Yet another fuzzy article concerning supposed racism,

Maori cancer data 'shaming' to doctors

The presented numbers...

Research showing Maori people are more likely to die from the most common cancers is "shaming" to doctors, says a leading Christchurch cancer expert.

Christchurch Hospital's clinical director of oncology, Chris Atkinson, was commenting on data presented to a public meeting yesterday by Massey University epidemiologist Dr Mona Jeffreys.

Jeffreys' study compared lengths of time from diagnosis to death for 20 main cancers. Maori had not only higher incidences of cancer than non-Maori, but were also more likely to die from it, she said.

For example, Maori women had a 30 per cent higher risk of getting breast cancer than non-Maori women, but were at twice the risk of dying from it.

Averaged survival rates at five years for the most common cancers, including lung, colon, prostate and cervical cancer, were 38% for Maori and 53% for non-Maori.

"There's no cancer for which Maori have a better survival than non-Maori non-Pacific people," Jeffreys said.


OK. Take it all at face value.

Now the claims...

Jeffreys said the disparities pointed to problems within the health system.

She said the term "institutional racism" was not helpful, but there were clearly barriers to diagnosing and treating Maori.

"I'm not saying this is doctors not offering proper treatment to everybody...But for people who need more time and family involvement in making choices, the pressure that's on them to make choices may not be conducive to making the best decision," she said.

Atkinson, who was last month named deputy chairman of the new Cancer Control Council, said the data should not lead to a "beat-up".

"My perception is not that we're not addressing (Maori) properly in the clinic," he said.


Apparently messages aren't getting through...

Linwood GP David Kerr said recent research had shown Maori and Pacific Islanders' knowledge of the national breast screening programme was much lower than that of non-Maori.

"Maybe those messages just aren't getting across," he said.

Fiona Pimm, chief executive of He Oranga Pounamu - a Ngai Tahu-mandated organisation that co-ordinates Maori health and social services - agreed more research was needed.


Why aren't they getting through?

Atkinson, who was last month named deputy chairman of the new Cancer Control Council, said the data should not lead to a "beat-up".

"My perception is not that we're not addressing (Maori) properly in the clinic," he said.

"We use a Maori whanau oral model with options and time set aside and we encourage family to be there."


So messaging is targetted in a "culturally sensitive" manner. But not getting through. Ergo... ?

But then we move on to other cultural aspects...

She was concerned about the possibility Maori were not offered some treatments but said the problem could also be due to Maori refusing treatments such as radiotherapy.

"As a kaumatua said to me, Maori aren't afraid to die.

"If they feel they've lived their life, they're not afraid to go."


(kaumatua = "elder")

Thus, even if they get the message they really just don't care because they "aren't afraid to die". So if "they" aren't afraid to die, why are you worried? Let them truck on as the please. Or are you getting all oppressive on them by imposing your values and forcing radiotherapy on them?

But they just can't avoid one last dig...

Pimm said institutional racism was "probably very real" in cancer care but she could not say so with certainty as no-one had investigated it.


The message is not getting through, despite culturally/racially "appropriate" targetting. Apparently Maori don't mind dying young anyway if they think they've had a good life. They might be not offered treatment but are known to refuse the same treatment. But in the end we think it is "probably" racism because no-one has studied it. Can anyone make any sense out of it?

Absent is the identification of what constitutes "Maoriness" in the study, but there is no defined measure for obvious reasons and is usually self-ascribed.

Curiously, if it is acutally "institutional racism", why does it not apparently afflict races other than Pacific Islanders/polynesians? I'd have thought Asians would have been in for a bit of rough treatment as well if it were the case.

June 17, 2005

Green "economics"

This has to be one of the most egregious insults to intelligence I have read for a while...

Market economies have their uses. Markets do allocation well, making sure that resources are allocated in the most efficient way according to the distribution of income. A key failing of the centralised economies of the Soviet empire was poor allocation, which ended up ensuring that it was the illegal market that played that role and gave power to brigands.


No, the key failing of the Soviet empire was not a failure to allocate resources. The key failing was central planning itself. If central planners had perfect knowledge of production, demand, supply etc etc then fine, it'd work like a charm. The problem with socialists of all stripes is the inability to recognise that perfect knowledge on even a small scale does not exist, nevermind on national and supranational scales. Separating the "illegal market" out for attention is a red herring. The central planners had imperfect knowledge so could not respond to demand, supply etc even if (in a ridiculously generous view) they were trying their best to satisfy the people. Which they weren't. Thus the "illegal market" booms, it is illegal not because it is run by brigands but only because the planners have no direct control over it.

But what markets do not do at all well is ensure a fair distribution of income and what they do even more poorly is limit scale - ensuring that economic activity recognises and accounts for the finite nature of resources and ecosystems.


Of course markets do not ensure a "fair distribution" of income, or anything. The "market" is the set of all people interacting to buy, sell, exchange etc. The market cannot ensure a specified distribution of anything, whether it be fair or otherwise.

Distribution and scale go hand in hand. If resources are limited and demand is growing, how can we ensure a just society? First, by making better use of resources, by slowing the throughput of resources through the economy, slowing down the journey from raw material to land fill, by increasing utility.


If resources are limited and demand is growing, what is a fair society? If the sky is blue, what is the name of my cat?

If resources are limited, in a reductio ad absurdum case, then according to this argument there can be no fair society whether demand is growing or not. If there is demand and (crucially neglected) supply then the limited resource will be consumed, assuming by limited he means finite. Actually, it doesn't really matter if the limitation is "finiteness" or a throughput limit, since the time players in the market is limited one is effectively the same as the other (you can have a car, sure, just in 250 years).

The market has price mechanisms etc to balance throughput. Well, a free market anyway. How on earth does the market "care" if the materials come from recycling or diversifying utility? The factor that is always neglected by these dimbulbs is human ingenuity and intelligence. Joe X sees he can start up a recycling company and get some more money, employ a few people etc. Jane Y sees a new use for technology Z with a few tweaks. This happens quite naturally, imposing artificial restraints on the market discourages people from doing that. Government direction of research and development does little to aid this and by adding another layer of bureaucracy and unfair competition squeezes out the little guys and makes life difficult for the people who are almost making it. In otherwords, it has precisely the opposite effect. It is no coincidence that the more highly socialised countries struggle more in innovation.

But also, vitally, by ensuring a more just distribution of wealth. Making sure that all people have enough, but also that all people know when to say "enough".


Make sure all the people have enough. And what, pray tell, is enough? Who decides what is enough? Is it when I can afford to live on X calories per week? Is it when I can afford the government prescribed mileage on my car? Or when I can buy a car? Or the second car? Nope. I suspect it is when everyone is "equal". Regardless of the level of that equality. Like North Korea. We have a wonderfully fair distribution of income. We all starve to death at the same rate.

Even supposing for a moment that at a given instant everyone was made exactly equal, the supposed "fair distribution" was achieved. What happens tomorrow as people make their choices? Next week? The year after? Take a million people and start them out with equal "wealth", tell me exactly how you will maintain this distribution without coercion? That's right, you can't and it is sheer sophistry to say that you can.

When people *know* when to say enough? Again, pray tell, who is going to educate us on this? Some washed up stoner? Some guy in a snappy uniform goose stepping through town? The king?

Do these idiots ever stop to think that their wonderfully "fair" ideas are little better than the serfdom their precious peoples' revolutions sought to overthrow? Dictatorships, rule by divine authority, socialism, they all rely on the central planner whether that be a single person or various government committees. They all fail to produce a utopia, or even anything resembling a fair society that is also vibrant and responsive. On the contrary, they lock in class differences, requiring ever more intervention by the planners to resolve the ever growing range of unfairness. They all deny the ability of people to think for themselves. They all assume their own ability to foresee supply and demand and, more amazingly, what is "fair" and what people should "know". The truly remarkable thing is that they can never see exactly where this leads, each and every time without fail, despite the abundance of recorded history.

They will ensure a fair distribution of wealth while "educating" you on how to be happy with that and letting you what you really want. The free market is imperfect, as regards achieving their "fair distribution", but they obstinately refuse to see that their own policies are horrendously worse and are more remotely removed from "fair" in any way than people doing their own thing with each other.

Kyoto miscalculations continue...

Further to the NZ govt bollocksing up its Kyoto calculations (which is getting notice even further abroad, but they are only libertarian Americans so they probably don't count), some have started claiming that, hey, its only a billion bucks over a few years, what's the big deal? As David Farrar points out, there is no surer sign of the fucked up attitudes (paraphrasing here) towards governance and spending from the pampered pussies on the left.

Sir Humphrey links to the best comment of all...

Sir Humphrey's: Comment of The Week

By far and away the funniest, cleverest and best aimed barb I have seen for a long time, from Mr Tips over at Farrar's place. Couldn't figure out how to copy it so I've taken the trouble to transcribe it. Well worth the effort.

Dear Mr Russell Brown

I have done a few calculations of my own (being a scientist I do it all the time).

These calculations run as follows:

If you multiplied all the analysis of the 'scientific consensus' and divided it by the number of liberal left weiners present in the 'consensus', then took into account their fat bank balances and chardonay allowances, took the square root, log transformed it and applied post-hoc Bonferroni, the answer is:

Another whole pile of shit from "writers" like you.

Global warming is a natural event. 6,000 years ago, Finland had the climate currently enjoyed by Denmark. There have been more C02 emissions and sulphur put out by three volcanoes (Krakatoa, Pinatubo and Mt St Helens) than the ENTIRE human contribution.

I suggest you start writing for Marie Clare or Cosmo, they sound more up your alley.

Mr Tips.

Aaaaaahhhhhh! Where do you get quality commentary like this in the MSM?


As a scientist myself, all I have to say is, someone buy that man a beer or six! Mr Tips, if you ever come to Sweden I will buy you one.

(It is a bit strange, but I can't remember meeting any "scientists" involved in numerical analysis, modelling, dynamics, atmospherics etc who would stake their salaries betting on "global warming" or "Kyoto". Which is usually not a good sign, even if you aren't a fisherman you still know when a fish smells rotten.)

June 16, 2005

Plus, minus, what's the difference to a government that can't count?

So the NZ government has buggared up its Kyoto calculations...

Mr Hodgson, who is the convenor of the ministerial group on climate change, said projections at this time last year were for New Zealand to have a "surplus" of about 30 million tonnes on the targets that had to be reached under the protocol in the 2008 to 2012 target period.

However, this year's report was showing New Zealand would miss its target by 36.2 million tonnes, he said.

Mr Hodgson revealed the figures at a parliamentary select committee, saying he was "unhappy" the figures had flipped around.

National MP Nick Smith said carbon credits were selling for around $35 per tonne of emissions which meant the cost to the country of the miscalculation amounted to a "$1 billion mistake" or even up to a $2 billion error.

Mr Hodgson said Treasury would want to put the excess emissions on the Government's books as a contingent liability.

Rather than the $35 per tonne figure Dr Smith used, the minister said the current price was estimated at $15 per tonne.


Bwa ha ha ha. How on earth do you go from +30 million to -36 million? Easy, employ political advisors. The whole stupid scheme was sold to the gullible country by saying that, obviously, NZ will win because we have so much forest, so few people, blah blah blah. And now? Oh, we lied. But it's OK because we will fudge the numbers again by undervaluing the fuckup.

Mr Hodgson said there were a number of assumptions in the technical report which were "deliberately" more conservative than these had been last year and were partly behind the change.

Two factors mainly accounted for the change in the projections on emissions.

Emissions, particularly from transport, had grown as a result of the high performing economy, and there was a change in the way forest "carbon sinks" were assessed.

Forests that were planted in the early 1990s on land covered in scrub, which officials had thought was an allowable sink worth 19.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, could not now be counted as a "Kyoto forest", the minister said.


So the initial estimate was not conservative enough. Uh huh, you mean it was pure spin. Emissions from transport due to the "high performing economy"??? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Does anyone seriously believe a word coming out of his mouth???

And we *thought* all that forest would count, but didn't bother to check. What a load of arse. Anyway, what sort of dumbarse accounting doesn't account for all the forests??? Who the hell signed this piece of toilet paper?

Under the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand has to return its emissions to 1990 levels by 2008-2012 or take responsibility for any excess by offsetting forestry sink credits or by purchasing or earning extra emissions units internationally.


Just out of curiosity, what happens if the majority of countries end up in this position and there are far too few credits to buy?...

Environment spokesman Larry Baldock said a long line of "Kyoto countries" were realising they would not be able to meet previous estimates of carbon credits.


Bwa ha ha ha.

Curiously, the article mentions nearly every party with a comment. But not a squeak from the Greens.

Well, they have a press release all ready. Basically stated they say it's OK, we'll just turn everything off come 2012 if it all turns to custard. They even cite the Pentagon... excuse my while I roll on the floor laughing my arse off. Greens... citing Pentagon... must breathe... can't breathe...

Say you, say me

Surfing the channels last night in an effort to find something to watch before turning in for the (very light) night.

Oh a doco on Discovery about NZ! The French blowing up the Rainbow Warrior. Well OK I know that story but what the heck. Huh? Auckland is the capital of NZ??? Note to Discovery researchers, get an atlas.

Click...

TV8 (I think). Lionel Ritchie talking to some interviewer. Pause briefly. Oh, so Lionel is getting into world politics. Interviewer asks him what he thinks about, paraphrasing here, "how the world sees America and its foreign policy and GDP and drive for money". Lionel, instead of calling her out on it, blithers on about, well, I think it had something to do with not being so obsessed with money. Just before calling for more aid. Sigh. A little later he starts into yet more rubbish... "The world has never been as divided as it is now." What unadulterated bullshit. He then weakly qualified it with "In my memory the world has never been...". Yes Lionel, the world seemed more united back in the Cold War because, well it was stand together or be united under the hammer and sickle. Remember back before then? The first half of the twentieth century? You know, two world wars, sundry other wars, revolutions etc etc? Not much brotherly love there. The 19th century wasn't exactly a boy scout jamboree either. Then he started on about how he had tried to make his music more about something other than love, something more "meaningful", but people didn't want that. They wanted love songs. No shit. Perhaps because political songs are vacuous loads of crap. And Lionel, if the current worst-disunity-ever is the price to pay for toppling madmen like Saddam and the Taliban, pissing off corrupt tossers like Chirac and Schroeder and putting the wind up North Korea and Iran, well then let the good times roll! Frankly, a world with a bit of disunity is better than a united one that tolerates these bastards. Which leads to the question. Just what the hell is anyone asking Lionel Ritchie about anything like this for? He knew nothing, had an appalling knowledge of history (recent or otherwise), refused to do anything other than passively reinforce anything the interviewer said and his position was nothing more than "can't we just love everybody?". Is it just a coincidence that all these aging singers, musicians, actors etc wind up in "politics" if they don't just fade away into obscurity? One never hears of them doing anything else, it's always Lionel spouting about unity, Cameron Diaz taking a crap in the woods or Bob Geldof failing Ethiopia again. I guess being a self-selected group there is probably a strong common pyschological thread related to this, but it would be refreshing to see one day one of these twits reinventing themselves as something more difficult than a "save the world pseud".

The Poverty of Debate IV: America Demystified

In a demonstration of what you get with "public television", The Stockholm Spectator describes an upcoming six part series of "documentaries" on, oh yes yet again, America. The first? Bowling for Columbine.

Sigh.

At least the nights are non-existent now and there are far better things to do than watch the propaganda let loose on TV when all the good programs are taken away for the summer.

Silent Running: The who now?

This is so funny it is hard to believe it is true, from Silent Running: The who now?...

Ok the NZ Rugby Team wears all black so they're called the Allblacks (Actually there's another story behind it but we'll go with this one for the time being).

The NZ Cricket Team wears caps so they're called the Black Caps.

The Hockey Team - Black Sticks.

Basketball - The Tall Blacks.

It was imagination like this that gave us place names "Shoal Bay" the big shallow bay next to the excitingly named "Harbour Bridge", "Little Shoal Bay", the smaller shallow bay next to it. The Maori settlers were no better but they said it in Maori so it sounds flasher. Almost every name involves a reference to water in some form. Stunning in it's inventiveness but I'm sure you get the theme.

Anyway the NZ Badminton Team are looking for a name. They play with shuttlecocks so....

Yep, they're the Blackcocks!

Nope, I couldn't make this up.

We're so PC aren't we.


June 15, 2005

Another Kiwi in Sverige

Another ex-pat Kiwi living in Sweden with a blog. Lucky beggar lives between Örebro and Västerås, some way west of Stockholm, in darkest Västmanland.

Oh and she is not Finnish.

Just as well.

Got the blog map thingy off them as well.

"lost way" = "attack" ???

Three articles on the same topic, all with much the same text. Three headlines from three countries...

Most descriptive of article content:

NY Sun (US): Red Cross Has 'Lost Its Way,' Study Says

Descriptive, but with a little flick of the wrist to give some spin:

Stuff (NZ): Red Cross running 'contrary to US interests' - Republican senators

The outright hyperbole:

TT (SE): USA attack on the International Red Cross (USA-attack mot internationella RK)

Despite being an almost literal translation of the English versions, the Swedish version does not mention "attack" or any remotely similar word in its text. This from the country paranoidally terrified of Fox News. If only Swedes understood cricket they might have more appreciation of the dangers of spin.

Sweden and the EU constitution

Dear leader Göran Persson is recommending delaying the Swedish decision on the EU constitution for a year.

Sweden wasn't going to have a referendum on the issue, it was to be voted on only by parliament. So why delay a vote on what they were going to do? Apparently, because France and Holland voted no, it isn't a good time.

Or, in the real world... There is an election within a year. Ratifying the constitution, as the Social Democrats are certain to do, would allow the plebs to use the election as a de facto referendum. OK, the opposition also favours the EU but the Socialists have been damaged by a series of recent embarrasments, dropping steadily in the polls, and the French and Dutch voters have handed every other country the ability to freely stick it to their governments in a cost-free manner.

Patronising git. Are voters truly that stupid? I doubt it. Voters of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your socialists!

PS. Why aren't the Swedes allowed a referendum on the consitution? Something which could hardly be more fundamental to a nation? According to Göran because that might lead to referendums on other issues. I shit you not, he says that in the article (Någon folkomröstning är inte aktuell för honom. Han inser att detta kan leda till fortsatta krav på folkomröstning från olika håll.)

David Farrar: Greens want to tax computers

In response to a proposed Green party plan to tax computers, David Farrar has composed a comprehensive list of things they DON'T want to tax (it saves typing). It is a very short list.

June 14, 2005

Happy birthday NZ SAS

From Silent Running...

The Special Air Service, is celebrating 50 years of service this week.
It was on June 7th 1955 that the first recruits for this unit marched in to Waiouru Camp to prepare for operational service in Malaya.

Since that date, this elite group has built a reputation for excellence second to none on the world stage. New Zealand can be proud of their achievements.

They have been deployed to overseas theatres of operation by numerous governments with notable results. One record envied by other armies and countries is that only two of their members have been killed on active service.


Ahh, no wonder the Greens and other leftist treehuggers don't like the SAS. They are (1) professional, (2) good at their jobs and (3) started out killing commies in Malaya.

The SAS is now begining it's third combat deployment in Afghanistan after flying out of RNZAF Whenuapai in two USAF aircraft recently.

Minister of Defence Mark Buton hastened to state that this was not to be taken as an indication of an improvement in US/NZ relations.


OK, add (4) are now out killing fascists in central Asia. Of course the US/NZ relationship, while strained by successive dumbarse Labour governments playing up the "we hate America" meme to a docile population, is being carefully tended even by those same dipsticks in government because they know that, aside from that snowball in hell, the only chance NZ has in the face of a catastrophe of invasive proportions is the US Armed Forces.

Cooking the books

You have to be amazed by the sheer gall of some so-called public servants...

Here is an email sent on 25 May from one Corrections Manager to several other managers including the boss:

I’ve been successful in getting policy to do a limited research paper on behalf of CIE [Corrections Inmates Employment] for year end.

The aim is to demonstrate that CIE training results in released inmates in post release employment. This is significant if we are to maintain the assertion that employment training and experience, contributes to reintegration and reducing reoffending …………the basis for CIE existence.

The report output will be highly skewed as we are looking for our top inmate performers. People you or your staff have heard back from who have jobs, people who you thought were the most likely to get a job post release. The intent is to be able to say that XX inmates participated in employment training and are or were in jobs.

To do this I need your managers’ help to collect some data. We want to use this info to help build the case for further funding for employment training.


"Corrections" is the euphemistic title of "jails and other not so nice places".

What does the appropriate Minister say?

Here’s what Minister Swain had to say in the House - “I have not heard of the allegation until now, and that is not what I would describe as cooking the books". So what would he describe as cooking the books? After all, we are dealing with experts.


It isn't cooking the books, Labour MPs have no concept of "someone else's money" or "financial responsibility" or, you know, "ethics" or "morals". When you are making a good meal, you know the desired outcome so it is plain common-sense to ensure the preparation and cooking proceed towards that result. Isn't "research" the same?

ANyway, how is it that the appropriate Minister is always THE last person to know about some scandal or misconduct? Jeez, these dimbulbs are paid exorbitant salaries (with regular increases in line with top-of-the-line business salaries) to keep them in "public service" and not running off to the private sector to make a fortune... yet they are incapable of running their own offices and never know anything of importance unless it involves free trips overseas and a trough full of gravy. If they were ever let loose on a real company it'd be bankrupt within six months.

(Hat tip, Rodney Hide)

Europe and Islam

Europeans tend to think they have a good idea of America and the way it works, with their ideas generally being significantly out of alignment with reality and overly influenced by the rubbish presented as news and analysis in most newspapers and TV.

However, it cuts both ways and one idea that routinely makes the rounds of the US circuits is the Islamisation of Europe. Personally I think the issue somewhat overblown and predicated far too much on current events being projected into the future in areas that are notoriously difficult to predict, such as population dynamics and cultural shifts.

Gene Expression has an essay, somewhat opaquelt titled "Toward a conception of a liberal ecology of ideas", that discusses this and crystallises the objections to such a thesis.

Second, let me state that I am skeptical of some of the more dire predictions of the Islamicization of Europe. It seems that in some fora the fact that 50% of the children of Rotterdam are Muslims becomes conflated with the possibility that 50% of the children in The Netherlands are Muslim. True, the 5% who identify as Muslim are waxing, but we must not project our models into the future based on fixed parameters extrapolated from the present. The "Muslim community" is not an idealized Platonic type, a bubble expanding into the universe of The Christian Netherlands, it is a seething mass of individuals nominally cohered under vague rubrics and ideas that are often subject to a great deal of personal interpretation. Additionally, it must be remembered that the Muslims of Europe form more or less an underclass, economically they are marginal or parasitic. My study of history makes me skeptical that from such a base a dominant culture could ever arise. Contrary to popular imagination the Christians of the pagan period of Rome were not slaves, but rather the aspiring urban "middle class." They imposed their will on the pagan masses and elites through the patronage of the Emperors and produced their own eloquent rhetoricians and philosophers, from Origen to Ambrose.1 The self-confidence of European Muslims is in my opinion nothing but bluster and bluff, in the face of the material inducements of the pagan West they shall wither, and their screams of monotheistic fire are nothing but the last gasps of a culture without defense. Nevertheless, unlike some liberal of Left intellectuals I do not view the "Muslim threat" with sanguinity. Their likely absorption and digestion into the mass of post-Christian Europe maybe a painful process. Most especially for the Muslim and post-Muslims themselves, who will have to make the trek between here and there, often without the aid of sympathetic family or the mainstream culture. They will live the "theory" and prescriptions propounded by the pundits. Even if the process of assimilation is inevitable, the length of time and the travails are variables, and I believe that the inducements and constraints that are the purview of government fiat can have great effect. I also believe that the attitude of the substrate culture can have a great influence on the process of assimilation.


This all sets the stage for my main contention in this post: moving beyond a Platonic typology and toward a conception of populational thinking will allow us to more clearly and realistically model the ecology of ideas and people which characterizes the dynamic processes at work in the 21st century in many Western nations effected by immigration. "Muslims" are not an amorphous mass identical in their thinking. Most people would concede this, but you would not be sure from the rhetoric espoused by some. In the article above some, spokesmen for assimilated Muslims and multiculturalist Leftists, seem to assert that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's blasphemy is driving Muslims to more fundamentalism. In quantitative terms this might be generally true, but that neglects the minority of "Muslims" who feel free to shed their identity, reshape who they are, and be proud and vocal in their apostasy. Additionally, this neglects the crucial foci that Ayaan represents as an individual which can serve as a nexus around which to leverage a strategy of triangulation.


With one comment of note,

I once asked a woman who had escaped from Rumania under Ceaucescu if Americans had too much freedom. She fixed me a deadly glare and said, "You can never have too much freedom."

If there is such a thing as liberal fundamentalism, then we must insist upon it in the face of all religious coercion. I have no sympathy whatever for Dutch "intellectuals" who've deserted Hirsi Ali. She's our symbol and our sister and although we don't have to agree with everything she says, we have to support her struggle 100%. No compromise.

June 13, 2005

NZ's own Fisk

I really shouldn't be skiving round doing this, there are more interesting things to read, but in sifting round alta vista I came across this series of posts from an erstwhile NZ dingbat.

Go ahead, read them. Notice the disconnect from reality and the desperate attempts at pseudointellectualism in basically saying (cue Nelson Muntz) "Ha Ha." Notice too how in the hindsight of history he has managed to get lots of stuff plain wrong. Some of the commenters are good though.

The more you read, the more you think he wants to be NZ's own Fisk in the "but this article makes no bloody sense" style. Why? You tell me...

November 2001
30 November 2001 - Make It Stop - Listen to HardNews
16 November 2001 - Sing, Shave and Fly Kites - Listen to HardNews
9 November 2001 - What Are You People Fighting For? - Listen to HardNews
2 November 2001 - Clean Up After Yourself
October 2001
26 October 2001 - I'll Have the Fudge, Please - Listen to HardNews
19 October 2001 - Cleaning Up the Streets - Listen to HardNews
12 October 2001 - Goodbye, Hello - Listen to HardNews
5 October 2001 - A Letter from Wellington - Listen to HardNews
September 2001
28 September 2001 - A Wing and a Prayer - Listen to HardNews
24 September 2001 - Making Sense of it V: The Last Emails
21 September 2001 - Making Sense of It IV - Listen to HardNews
17 September 2001 - Making Sense of It III: The Emails
16 September 2001 - Making Sense of It II
14 September 2001 - Making Sense of It - Listen to HardNews
7 September 2001 - The Refuge - Listen to HardNews

Interview with a Lama

The Dalai Lama was in Göteborg for a seminar. One KG Hammar, who seems to be held in high regard for some reason, lead the discussion. From one newspaper article I took the following snippet...

Then came the questions about if Bush's political actions can be seen as ethical topics.

"Parts of the Bible Bush hasn't read. For example turning the other cheek, said KG Hammar which drew much applause"


Oh ho, nice cheap shot. He must have been saving that one for a special occasion. But I guess Hammar hasn't read the "eye for an eye" part either.

The Dalai Lama pleaded for a softer line when he last met Bush. "Violence is never good and violence breeds more violence. The Dalai Lama wants to see different aspects of war and what the goals can be. In the Second World War and the Korean War the goal was democracy, while it is too early to say what the Iraq war has lead to," he said to Bush.


I don't know what the Dalai Lama actually said. The actual seminar was in English but here posted in Swedish, so we just have to take this double translation. But, surely the Dalai Lama is not stupid enough to conflate the goals of WWII and Korea with the outcomes of Iraq. Is this a mistranslation, deliberate or otherwise?

"I am not so diplomatic as you. It was exactly what Bush wanted ti hear. I want you to say the next time that violence can never be legitimate," said KG Hammar.


Ah Mr Hammar, you are a twat. Although I'm sure he makes exceptions for self-defence, protecting ones children or maybe even people's revolutions. Who knows?

"I chose not to judge. I only said to Bush that he had made an important decision. Next time I want you to speak with Bush and I will sit in the background and nod," said the Dalai Lama.


As close as the Dalai Lama will ever come to saying, "put your money where your mouth is, dumbass".

Så kom då frågan om Bush agerande i politiken kan ses som etiska handlingar.
- Vissa delar av Bibeln har han inte läst. Exempelvis den om att vända andra kinden till, sade KG Hammar och drog mängder med applåder.
Dalai Lama pläderade för en mjukare linje när han sist träffade Bush. Våld är aldrig bra och våld föder mer våld. Dalai Lama vill se olika aspekter på krig och vilka målen kan vara. I andra världskriget och Koreakriget var målen demokrati, medan det är för tidigt att säga vad Irakkriget har lett till, hade han sagt till Bush.
- Jag är inte så diplomatisk som du. Det var ju precis vad Bush ville höra. Jag vill att du nästa gång säger att våld aldrig kan legitimeras, sade KG Hammar.
- Jag valde att inte döma. Jag sade bara till Bush att han hade fattat viktiga beslut. Nästa gång vill jag att du för talan hos Bush och så sitter jag i bakgrunden och nickar, sade Dalai Lama.


Note.
KG Hammar, arch Bishop of the Swedish church, has a Wikipedia entry. It is in Swedish but here is some of it

He is often critical of global capitalism and has been criticised by, among others, Alf Svensson, who labelled him a leftist-populist.


Other parts describe him as a radical theologian, apparently some sort of Christian-in-name only as far as I can tell.

In other words, you can fairly accurately predict his opinion on topics of politics and religion without knowing what the questions are.

Send us your dictators, murderers, war criminals...

Hussein lawyer wants trial in neutral state

"We invite the Iraqi government and the prosecutors to hold this trial, if there is to be a trial, not in Iraq where it's not safe to hold the trial, but to hold it either in the Hague or in Sweden or in Austria or even in Switzerland," British-based lawyer Giovanni di Stefano said.


Because anyone with a grudge will find it much harder to get him in heavily defended Sweden, as opposed to getting through military security at some Iraqi site. Huh?

"I would favour Sweden more than any other country - where we are likely, more than not, a: to obtain a fair trial, and b: in the unlikely event that our client is tried and convicted, he can go straight to a detention centre in Sweden," he told the Swedish public television station SVT.


I know as a lawyer you need to talk the talk, but really. A Swedish detention centre? That'd be where he gets to while away his days in comparative comfort and safety? Exactly why?

Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson has said Saddam, 68, could be allowed to serve a prison sentence in militarily non-aligned Sweden, which opposed the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam.


But then Göran Persson of militarily non-aligned Sweden (aka benefitting from NATO protection without coughing up the dough) is a patronising weasel.

Former Serbian president Biljana Plavsic is serving an 11-year prison sentence in Sweden after being convicted as a war criminal.


Oh lord, what one Earth is this country thinking? Do the crime, do the time, in the country you screwed over.

Vote dodo, save the Greens! No wait, vote Green to save...

In other news, King Canute appears to be standing as a candidate for the NZ Greens...

The Green Party’s Conservation Policy envisions a New Zealand where extinction is a word of the past, endangered plants and animals are restored to healthy numbers, and more of the land and sea are protected.


See, if the dinosaurs had only voted Green they wouldn't have gone the way of the dodo (which also voted conservative).

40 million, but it's just a statistic

R.J. Rummel has an essay up at Democratic Peace detailing the true gulag and questioning the motives of Amnesty International in the Guantanmo beat-up of late.

He ascribes a probable estimate of deaths in or on the way to the gulag of 40 million. 40 million...

The Real Gulag


The history of this sewage system [labor camps] is the history of an endless swallow and flow; flood alternating with ebb and ebb again with flood; waves pouring in, some big, some small; brooks and rivulets flowing in from all sides; trickles oozing in through gutters; and then just plain individually scooped-up droplets.
---- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn




The forced labor camp system that ultimately became known as Gulag (from the Russian acronym Gulag for the Main Directorate of Corrective Labor Camps, a department of the Soviet secret police, originally the Cheka; subsequently the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD, and finally the KGB) were legally sanctioned in July, 1918, with the decree that inmates capable of labor must be compelled to do physical work. This was the beginning of the deadly, Soviet forced labor, what could as well be called, slave labor, system. In the next year decrees established forced labor camps in each provincial capitol and a lower limit of 300 prisoners in each camp. The first large camps were established on the far north Solovetsky Islands. In August, 1919, Lenin made the Party view clear in a telegram: “Lock up all the doubtful ones in a concentration camp outside the city.” As Solzhenitsyn notes, these people are not even “guilty” ones, but only “doubtful”.

From the beginning, the conditions in some of these camps were so atrocious, often calculatingly so, that prisoners could not expect to survive for more than several years. One at Kholmogori near Archangel became known as a death camp, it was so perilous to prisoners that were often sent to these camps to die, not after a court trial, but by a simple administrative decision.

By the end of 1920, official figures admitted to 84 camps in 43 provinces of the Russian Republic alone, with almost 50,000 inmates (including Civil War POWs). By October, 1922, there were 132 camps with about 60,000 inmates. I prudently estimate that among all these prisoners during this whole period, 34,000 died. That this may be an underestimate and the toll may be as high as 72,000 can be seen in the light of the frequent camp executions; the not uncommon deaths or prisoners from beatings, disease, exposure, and fatigue; the occasional emptying of camps by loading inmates on barges and then sinking them (such as on the River Dvina, near the two camps Kholmogory and Pertominsk in Archangel Province)

The camps had not yet morphed into the killing system every Soviet citizen and official feared. This occurred during the collectivization period in the early 1930s. But, during the NEP (Lenin's New Economic Policy) period from 1923 to 1928, the Party laid the legal framework for expanding the camps beyond imagination. Among other decrees, a new criminal code provided for forced labor for political crimes and for political opponents. The camps system then multiplied rapidly and by the end of 1928, prisoner totals reached 240,000, of which at least 140,000 may have been in camps. However, there is one difficulty in comprehending such numbers, even during this immature stage in this “sewage disposal system” that in a decade would be a multi-million prisoner, slave-empire. The number of prisoners at any one time was a dynamic, a snapshot of this swirling “sewage” as new "refuse" poured in from various pipes and old "waste" was flushed out the bottom.

In his three-volume, The Gulag Archipelago , Solzhenitsyn has made vivid, stark, the life among these prisoners of Gulag, as the labor camp system now became known. As dictated by Lenin, the Party had made clear that these camps were not simply to isolate enemies of the people and criminals, but to work them for the Revolution. As the Communisit Party developed this imperative, it was work at least cost. The prisoners were expendable; other state resources were not. They were forced to labor usually 12, 13, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, in excavating mines, felling timber, digging canals. They were worked in snow and ice, at temperatures sometimes at -30 or -40 degrees Fahrenheit, often without adequate clothing and sometimes in the clothes they wore when arrested. They were fed a diet hardly adequate in calories to maintain the life of an inactive person, and surely deficient in those nutrients required to avoid scurvy and other such diseases.

For example, in the 1937 regulations of the Ukhta-Pechora Labor Camp located above the Arctic Circle (the only such regulations known outside the USSR), the daily allotment of calories for hard labor was 1,292 (American standards call for 3,000 for similar work). By the time the rations reached the prisoner, however, much of his allotment had been taken (by cooks, porters, guards, etc.). Moreover, including an allotted 400 grams of meat (that seldom reached the prisoner), the guard dogs were fed better. But the resulting hunger was not sheer brutality or bureaucratic malfeasance. Hunger became planned, and for the prisoners, the master of their thoughts, their desires, and their work. The would do anything for a rotten morsel of food

This, not to mention the beatings, arbitrary shootings, disciplinary starvation and exposure in solitary cells, and permitted violence and atrocities of the true criminals against the far more numerous political prisoners.

In Gulag’s maturity, over 30 percent of new inmates might die in a year from exposure, disease, malnutrition, and overwork, especially in the 1930s. Among miners in the infamous death camps of Kolyma, 30 to 35 percent died per year. Prisoners calculated that in the mines generally there were “two dead men for every yard dug underground.” Among Poles sent to these camps in 1940 and 1941, the toll was 75 to 80 percent in less than two years. But over the whole camp system and up to the death of Stalin, the death rate was most likely between 10 and 28 percent a year, most probably 20 percent. This means that even those sentenced to a lucky five years would probably not survive; those sentenced to the numerous tenners or, in the late 1930s and throughout the 1940s, commonplace 25 years, in effect received a sentence of death by hard labor. Survivors were usually those who were transferred to less deadly work, especially an administrative job in a camp, and in a position to make “deals” for life preserving food and clothing.

But survival was even more an individual odyssey, a bet of one’s life on a long series of sevens on the dice, than so far appears. Camp was only the final stage of a three-stage, deadly obstacle course life had to run.

First, a person was arrested, secretly or otherwise. And for those common folk who lived during the first 42 years of Soviet history, the chances were very high of undergoing at least one arrest. In fact, just during the Great Terror of 1936 to 1938, 5 to 10 percent of the population probably was arrested. Some lucky ones were released after an initial interrogation, perhaps after promising to spy on their associates or neighbors. But tens of millions were subjected to a savage interrogation, and often torture, of which the invariable aim was a written confession of guilt and the naming of accomplices. Since arrest was prima facie evidence of guilt, screaming claims of innocence only provoked the interrogator. One fingered others, signed the confession, or died.

Most prisoners probably signed almost immediately. Yes, they were plotting to kill Lenin or Stalin or to provide maps for German paratroopers to drop on the Kremlin. Better to die quickly with a bullet in the back of the head, than slowly under the interrogator’s twisting knife. The problem was that they also had to incriminate others. It was no good just to contrive some plot involving, say, top communists, for there had to be plausible evidence (meetings, letters, etc.) of a relationship. Often, the interrogator suggested the names of associates or friends that they were after and one only needed to fill in some details (“Yes, we did meet and we talked about...”).

How many died in interrogation, and how many were subsequently executed overall, can only be a wild guess; I can find no overall estimates. Surely, over the thirty years during which this system was developed and functioned to chew up tens of millions of people, several million must have died in interrogation or by execution. While no general figures are available, we can estimate for one period, that of the Great Terror (1936-1938), that from 500,000 to 2,000,000 were executed, most likely 1,000,000. A report that the Politburo requested of its Organs in 1956 claimed that 7,000,000 were shot in prison from 1935 to 1940. Some credibility is given this figure in considering that of those who escaped execution at this stage, the pipeline would carry at least 32,600,000 to their death in the camps. Some experts say 60,000,000. A Soviet scientist gives a research estimate of 52,000,000 to 54,000,000 for just the 1930s to 1950s. Solzhenitsyn claims 70,000,000. I calculate a most probable estimate of 39,464,000 killed in the camps and in transit to or between them.

If one managed to survive interrogation, then came the dangerous second stage: transportation to one’s final camp. Although there was some variation in means, transport, and mortality between the transportation of prisoners and that of deportees, which highlighted subsequent periods, there were important similarities.

Prisoners (or deportees) were crowded, even sometimes stacked without room to all lie down or sit, in cattle cars or cars converted and partitioned for the purpose, and possibly for some of their transport, in the holds of ships and barges (or even on rafts, as when conveyed by river to some desolate spot where prisoners were told to build their new camp). Generally, the cars were unheated and often unventilated; toilet facilities were hardly adequate and sometimes were simply holes in the floorboards. Some food and water might have been given; sometimes just water; sometimes nothing at all; but never enough. For political prisoners being transported to camps, there was an added danger from the criminals being transported with them. In gangs, these criminals robbed the politicals, beat and even killed them on a bet or for the joy of it, if not for the best places in the cars, or for the political’s food and water.

These transports may have lasted many weeks as cars were pulled from one siding to another, in fits and lurches to finally reach some dispersal camp (with its own dangers and mortality). And then again another transport, this time to some remote camp in, say, Siberia.

How many died on these trips? The only hard estimates we have are from deportations. In some cases the death rate reached 50 percent, especially for those crowded in cattle cars for several weeks during winter. In the February, 1940, deportations of Poles, the number who died reached 10 percent. In many other deportations, it may have been between 15 and 30 percent. Those in the camps calculated one death per railway sleeper. A prudent overall estimate is probably 17 percent for deportees, and 5 percent for prisoners transported to camp (who were generally males in the early or middle years). Working backwards from the most likely maximum camp population of the NEP Period, which was 200,000, the number that died in transit was likely around 9,000. For the 42 years to Stalin’s death in 1953, the transit toll among those being sent to camp alone was likely about 1,798,000; possibly as high as 5,895,000.

If these figures seem irresponsibly exaggerated, then also consider some of the historic death tolls en route or otherwise in transit between camps. In 1933, the transit ship Dzhurma sailed too late in the season and was caught in the ice near Wrangle Island—all prisoners died, perhaps as many as 12,000. In 1949, a transit ship carrying prisoners northward to the Kolyma camps from Vladivostok in 1949 was wrecked, killing 5,000 prisoners. Compare these virtually unknown fatalities (not even Ripley had recorded them) to the immortalized sinking of the Titanic, which cost 1,503 lives.

During the collectivization period 1928-1935 the camps were flooded with "evil" landowners and ordinary and well-off peasants. Hundreds of new camps were built, usually by prisoners in some grim, undeveloped area. By 1935, the Communisst Party possibly ensalved as many as 6,700,000 people in the camps; probably no fewer than 5,000,000. Most of these people were chained to some form of life endangering hard labor. For example, they were forced to build the Belomor Canal under such life-consuming conditions that at least 100,000 prisoners died. (Praised as a monument to the achievements of socialist labor, the canal was little used afterwards.)

This forced labor, camp system -- Gulag -- was fully developed during this period. It became, in effect, a slave-labor system, with prisoners bought and sold, and contracted for, as though commodities. They were treated with the same consideration: they had absolutely no rights, no individuality, and could be and were killed at the whim of the owner (especially, nonessential intelligentsia—scientists, engineers, doctors, teachers—who were weeded out for killing physical labor). Ponder the impressions of the manager of a Trust who was sent to Kem, the administration center for the Solovetzki camp, to purchase a squad of forced laborers.


Can you imagine that there . . . .the following expressions are freely used: “We sell!” -- “We discount for quantity!” -- “First class merchandise!” -- “The city of Archangel offers 800 roubles [sic] a month for X. and you offer only 600! . . . .What merchandise! He gave a course in a university, is the author of a number of scientific works, was director of a large factory, in pre-war time was considered an outstanding engineer; now he’s serving a ten-year sentence at hard labor for ‘wrecking’; that means that he'll do any kind of work required of him, and yet you quibble over 200 roubles!” Nevertheless, I bargained and they finally agreed to reduce the price, because we purchased at wholesale fifteen engineers.

A contract was signed, a lawyer checked and approved it, and the chief of the camp signed it.

As the collectivization and dekulakization campaigns concluded, the rivers of prisoners emptying into Gulag began to dry up. In 1934 a shortage of slave-labor developed, affecting NKVD production. Obviously, something had to be done and in a year plans for a new intake of prisoners were worked out. The NKVD subsequently assigned local agencies a fixed quota of arrests. Perhaps this partially explains why NKVD agents were then going out of their way to entrap citizens into showing dissatisfaction or making negative comments on the USSR or Party. The camps had to be filled.

The camps continued to eat up people by the millions in the following years to become even more deadly during World War II. For example, out of 50,000 prisoners at the railroad camp of Pechorlag in the Fall of 1941, there were 10,000 left alive the following Spring; out of 50 people in the central sector barracks of Burepolom Camp in February, 1943, at least four died a night, and one night 12 died (in the morning the dead would be replaced). Moreover, special categories of enemies were massacred periodically throughout the camps, such as the shooting in every camp of all former and actual Trotskyites in 1942. Moreover, camp administrators and guards were constantly on watch for ways to justify their exemption from duty at the front—“plots” and “conspiracies” among prisoners were regularly “discovered," usually resulting in batches of prisoners being shot.

And in the 1941-1942 period the usual sources of death just intensified. Inmates fought for their lives against a starvation diet, and with food rations cut even below prewar levels, numerous camp complexes suffered from famine. Even then, already starvation level rations were cut when wholly unrealistic production quotas were not achieved. Add that in most camps there was no issue of cold weather clothing—wear what you came in—; that in the northern camps there was often a twice a day trek of three to over six miles between the work area and barracks for these hungry, ill-clothed prisoners, often in deep snow. And in 1941 to 1942, there was a dreadful winter, when in many camps the temperature was never above -31° Fahrenheit, but men worked anyway. Moreover, there was no day of rest; there were hordes of bedbugs and lice; and the barracks were unheated and freezing.

As if this were not enough, beginning in April, 1943, prisoners could be sentenced to Katorga (hard labor). This meant surviving under especially severe conditions, often working on 12 hour shifts with no days off and even less gruel and rotten potatoes than before. And the 12 work hours did not include the slow trek to and from the work site, nor the time spent being counted before and after the trek. Moreover, the prisoners may have been packed into nothing more than tents. The Vorkuta mines, one camp system to which Katorgans were sent, “were, undisguisedly, murder camps: but in the Gulag tradition murder was protracted, so that the doomed would suffer longer and put a little work in before they died.” Not one of the first group of 28,000 prisoners sent to this camp survived for a year.

In thinking about these abhorrent camp conditions during the war, whether Katorga or otherwise, also note that as the war progressed, fewer and fewer prisoners were released, even after miraculously surviving their sentence. They were just automatically resentenced. For the greater majority of prisoners this meant a sentence to camp was a sentence to death by hunger, malnutrition, hard labor, cold, disease, or at the hand of the criminals or camp guards, or by the teeth of guard dogs.

How many died under these wartime conditions in the camps? Some prisoners estimate that seven million were slaughtered in the first year of the war.” My more prudent estimate is that the total murdered in transit to or in the camps during the whole war period is 8,518,000 prisoners.

What irony, indeed. The democracies fought along side the Soviet Union to eradicate the horror of fascism from the world. And afterwards, the democracies shook their collective head over the documented mass, inhuman murder of Jews; and heaved a sigh of relief and thankfulness that this abominable Nazi system was utterly defeated. Yet, the democracies’ major ally and a victor sitting in judgment with them at the Nuremberg trials was, during that very war, murdering more innocent people just in their labor camps than the Nazis were machine gunning in the gullies and gassing in their concentration camps.

The camps continued their deadly purpose after the War, now bursting with German POWs, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, and émigrés, refugees, and escapees forced to return to the Soviet Union to face Stalin's justice. With Stalin's death in 1953, his successors slowly reformed the camps, emptied them of many of their prisoners, shut down the worst of them, and gradually improved their conditions. By the mid-1980s the camp population may have been reduced to about 4,000,000

Overall, from 1917 to 1987, Gulag, including transit deaths, probably killed about 39,464,000 Soviet citizens and foreigners. Compare this 6,228.5 mile stack of corpses (assuming each corpse has a width of 10 inches), each a loving, self-conscious human being like you and I, to these totals:

Gulag = 39,464,000 murdered (democide/genocide);
All American executions 1864-1982 = 5,753 killed;
All the Americans killed in all its wars up to the Gulf War = 1,177,936 killed;
The killed in battle in World War I = 9,000,000;
Of World War II = 15,000,000;
All 20th Century international and domestic wars = 35,654,000 killed;
And all major wars 1740-1997 = 20,000,000 killed.

Now tell me again, Irene Khan and William Schulz of AI, that Guantánamo is like Gulag

June 10, 2005

Greens truly are idiots

The Greens really are a bunch of dipshits...

Time to stop the mobile rip off: Kedgley - Green Party


The Green Party is backing the Telecommunications Commissioner’s call that he be given the power to rein in the price of calling a mobile phone from a landline.

Telco watchdog Douglas Webb has found ‘mobile termination charges’ are excessive in New Zealand and is asking the Government for the authority to limit them. Mobile companies charge this margin for accepting calls from a landline, with the cable-based companies in turn passing it back to the caller using the fixed phone.

“Anyone who calls a mobile from a landline is being ripped off,” said Sue Kedgley, the Greens’ Telecommunications Spokesperson.

“Telecom and Vodafone are exploiting the fact that ringing a mobile is often now a necessity for many people, such as parents keeping track of their teenagers. It is also a classic example of big companies reaping an unreasonable dividend off the fundamental business needs of small companies.

“The Commissioner has had a long, hard look at this issue. His call is not unreasonable and must be supported. The telcos can whinge all they want, but ultimately the parameters within which all commerce operates are set by the State on behalf of society as a whole. This rort has now been exposed and it’s time it was closed down.

“If Mr Webb succeeds in cutting this charge from 27c to 15c a minute, most New Zealanders would see one of their major monthly bills - their landline in their homes and businesses - drop dramatically. That’s the equivalent of a serious tax cut, but it will be at the expense of corporate profits, not Government services.

“Having said that, while cheaper calls will save people a lot of money, it will probably lead to greater use of cell phones. Mobiles are a wonderful technology that facilitate modern life, but authorities should be keeping a close eye on their health effects, as the jury is still out on the safety of prolonged or intensive use, particularly by youngsters.

“We would therefore also like additional regulatory powers for the Telecommunications Commissioner so that he can regulate marketing that encourages young people to use their mobiles to an excessive degree,” said Ms Kedgley.


The companies may be making an "excessive" margin on calls from landlines to mobiles, depending on your definition of excessive. However, people seem willing to bear that cost on what is a totally discretionary activity. Enforcing an artificial price structure will do what? Are we going to have the economic geniuses of the Green party setting call prices? Maybe a better idea is to deregulate the market properly, get more companies in and watch them fight for a share of the market. See how quickly those margins come down then!

"Equivalent of a serious tax cut". Excuse me while I laugh hysterically. In other words, if we can't have your money, there ain't no way we are letting some phone company have it either. The obvious problem is that phone use is discretionary and taxes aren't. Don't give me that shit about calling your kids, the world got on just fine finding kids before mobiles and a few less calls is not going to change that. This woman endlsessly brings up "the children" to justify any of her jackboot proposals.

But then, Kedgley is the leader of the charge of the modern technology is bad for you. Mobile phones BAAADDDD. Irradiation of food BAAAADDDD. Anything you have to plug in BAAADDDD.

So, she wants to enforce price cuts and then impose market regulations to rein in the greater use that will give your kids cancer.

Geniuses, absolute geniuses. If their politics weren't so plainly transparent as grabs for power over (1) business and (2) private people then it would be laughable. But that is exactly what they are about. The amazing thing is that they are outright dumb enough to write it down and publish it.

Swedish women take a step right

The liberal block of parties in Sweden has overtaken the socialist ruling group. Hooray! Now if they can just carry it to the polls.

One snippet of interest...

Undersökningens mest påtagliga trend är att moderaterna lockar kvinnliga röster från socialdemokraterna.

The survey's most notable trend is that the Moderates are taking women voters away from the Social Democrats.


This is amusing given that in the last few weeks the left has been beside itself in trying to sway women voters, with the Left party bleeding them, a new Feminist Initiative being built for them and the Social Democrats trying to convince them they aren't a bunch of paternalist buggars. So what do women do? Flock to the Moderates, the largest centre-party. Geez, maybe women here aren't as stupid as leftists think they are.

What a coup that'd be in the next year, if both Sweden and NZ gave the socialists the boot. Mind, it'd only be following a growing trend in the West. I think most electorates have now seen the donkey that the socialists have sold them.