Mbeki can go to hell

That is the phrase a Movement for Democratic Change spokesman said when asked whether Morgan Tsvangarai would be prepared to negotiate for a government of national unity. Quite right too. Tsvangarai's abandonment of the election campaign is a shame, but the violence his supporters are enduring against Mugabe's barbaric gang has become untenable.

Tanzania and Kenya are now criticising the Zimbabwean government, although in fairly modest terms. Although Mbeki continues to want victims to be in coalition with murderers, ANC President Jacob Zuma was reported as saying “I think we’ll be lucky if we have a free election,” Zuma told Reuters. When asked if he thought the vote would be fair, Zuma replied: “I don’t think so.”

Oh and if you want to read the filthy media in the pay of Mugabe try this. The paper says Mugabe has a job to finish, blames the opposition for the economic collapse and disgustingly claims the deceased Joshua Nkomo (bullied and threatened by Mugabe and his thugs into submission over 20 years ago) would endorse him now. Another state paper says the election will continue as Tsvangarai has not formally withdrawn.

In a dictatorship, the politicians and the military/police gangs that protect them are the first line of evil, but the media are the second ones. Professional liars and sycophants, writing history day by day to create scapegoats to blame for the evil committed by their idols and to blank out the truth.

So the week will pass, and Thabo Mbeki will continue to straddle the fence between good and evil - hopefully after so much straddling the fence pailings will impale him appropriately.

McCain it should be

For a libertarian the US election campaign is never a particularly easy choice. As a two party system, the two major parties both have a few qualities that, if you keep one eye closed, make them look somewhat acceptable. Sadly both also have many other traits that are abominable.

The Republican Party tends to be more sceptical about government, tends to support tax cuts and tends to be supportive of strong national defence, but it is also attracts evangelists and other conservatives, some fanatical enough to want to significantly erode the separation of church and state. It tends to lack those willing to support individual freedom against moves to protect national security, or "the family" through censorship endeavours. It is more fiscally conservative and nationalistic. The more libertarian and secular wing of the Republican Party pulls against the statist, religious conservative wing. However it has centrists that would be as comfortable with parts of the Democrats.

The Democratic Party pulls in different directions. It believes in government to fix economic problems, to fix social problems, it is interventionist. It is closer to environmentalism, and rhetoric that questions whether "the rich" are "paying their share". However, it tends to more staunchly defend the secular state, and be liberal on some social matters.

What a choice. Oh the Libertarian Party? After all I support Libertarianz in New Zealand, why not a legitimate vote for a party that is, on the face of it, similar. Well, I did use to think that. This year though the Libertarian Party chose Bob Barr as its Presidential candidate - in short, a man whose libertarian credential seem rather "new", whereas his conservative past seems very solid. He supported the "war on drugs" until very recently, he opposed same sex marriage until very recently. In short, he seems like a convenient high profile figure to put the name "libertarian" on. I simply don't buy it.

So McCain or Obama? I've been highly critical of Obama. The momentum behind him has been like that of a rock star, except he doesn't play music, he uses intonation, expression and words well to sound credible, passionate and trustworthy, but it is vapid. Change to what? Well it's pretty clear it's higher taxes and more government. His manifesto is almost entirely about government programmes and interventions to make things better - not about stopping doing things, not about ending programmes that distort. Of course he wants to put up taxes during a recession. If you think it's about rhetoric then check out that Obama voted to increase US agricultural subsidies, McCain opposed this. He's willing to further contribute to screwing around with world food prices with more subsidies for no production, and subsidies for further over production. Great. So he's on the left of the Democratic Party, nothing special there. Nothing exciting, and it isn't so much "change" as turning the clock back to the 60s and 70s. For those of us seeking change in world trade to open up markets, he isn't offering much.

However, on foreign policy he is all over the place. He did not support the US overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but furthermore wants to withdraw. Withdrawal at a time when violence in Iraq is at a low, when the Islamist insurgency that wants to turn Iraq into an Islamist theocracy, would be disastrous. Obama would rather play into the hands of isolationists than recognise what the situation on the ground is. More widely he wants to talk to everyone, which some sees as being groundbreaking and encouraging - assuming you can have something in common with the regime that sponsors Islamist terrorism and wants an ally destroyed. Kim Jong Il would no doubt think it were a coup if President Obama flew to Pyongyang to talk about things - you know like withdrawing troops from South Korea, chilling out about nuclear weapons and providing aid. The Castro clan will enjoy that too, as will Burma's junta and even Robert Mugabe - nothing so good for propaganda as the US President being willing to meet you.

Now it probably wont be like that, but Obama is clearly offering a major change in foreign policy. Naively he says "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda" How many Islamist insurgents does he want? He assumes that Islamists that aren't al Qaeda aren't a threat - that's just plain stupid. He doesn't think diplomacy is exhausted on Iran, but then isn't saying what happens if it doesn't work other than economic isolation. So Iran can continue as it is going and face, talks.

However, his policies go further. He wants nuclear disarmament. Not unilateral disarmament, except he wants to cease development of new nuclear weapons and negotiate reductions with Russia - as if that authoritarian kleptocracy is at all trustworthy. Naive is the best word for it, the USA stands still while Russia, China and others continue to develop nuclear weaponry. Not exactly change I want to believe in.

Now he says he wants to increase the military, maintain policy on Israel and be pro-active on Darfur - all steps I agree with, but overall he proposes three major changes - withdraw from Iraq, be willing to negotiate with anyone and not develop new nuclear weapons. In a world where there IS evil, and is resides in regimes from Pyongyang to Tehran, from Rangoon to Harare, it seems odd Obama is willing to step into Sudan and Congo, but not support peace in Iraq or isolation of evil.

So nothing to be happy about that. Obama has a more serious problem though - credibility. Nothing has been more damaging to this than the church and pastor he has attended for years, which as part of the ludicrous US attachment to religion, may or may not reflect a genuine religious belief. After all, he wouldn't be the nominee if he declared himself to be an atheist. I'm not distracted by nonsense about claims about him being a Muslim, which are banal and unsubstantiated.

You see Jeremiah Wright, along with Obama's long affiliation with the hard-left of US politics speaks volumes to me. He attended Trinity Union Church of Christ Chicago for years, whilst Jeremiah Wright preached. Oprah Winfrey attended for two years in the 1980s before leaving because of the "incendiary sermons" Obama waited until May this year. Wright's preaching included saying the US brought 9/11 upon itself, damning the nuclear attacks upon Japan in WW2. So Obama went through phases of condemnation:
- First he rejected what Wright said (March 2008), remember he had been going to the church for the years since Wright said them;
- He denied he had heard controversial comments in church, before admitting that he actually did but didn't think it was a problem because Wright was going to retire. You have to wonder why you keep going to a church which says things you disagree with;
- He then did his famous "A More Perfect Union" speech where he couldn't disown Wright as it would be like disowning his white grandmother. He related a blood relative to a pastor.
- Finally he leaves the church, condemns Wright and turns his back on what he is meant to believe in.

Convenience? Perhaps, but it shows that when those in Obama's radical past emerge, he is embarrassed, not quick to condemn and move only when opinion seems to be swinging against him. That speaks a lot about character.

So what about McCain? He's definitely on the moderate wing of the Republican party, he's no religious evangelist which is an enormous relief. He is an advocate of tax cuts and has one policy that overwhelmingly appeals over Obama in domestic matters - opposition to pork-barrelling. Pork barrelling or earmarking is the corrupt practice whereby congress members attach special funding to any bills to fund pet projects in their state. It means that a consistent national policy on say education, agriculture or transport becomes dotted with "earmarks" for certain places to get projects that wouldn't be justified typically. Ending pork barrelled budgets would be an enormous step forward for the USA - it is widely acknowledged as being an issue, but far too many politicians in the US have careers based on the selective pilfering of the federal budget for their supporters. Quite simply if McCain does nothing else domestically than banish this practice, his Presidency will have been worthwhile.

On foreign policy it will be steady as she goes in Iraq, and maintaining much of the status quo on promoting free trade and being tough on Iran (unlike Obama he explicitly says all options are on the table) and North Korea. He doesn't support torture of terror subjects - much like Obama. So a step forward there. He has said Russia should be expelled from the G8, citing its authoritarian tendencies.

However beyond that McCain seems like a safe pair of hands. On foreign policy it would be business at usual, without torture. On domestic policy it may be less government, less pork barrel politics and more importantly less evangelism. Enough for a cautious endorsement? Yes.

An Obama Presidency risks more government, a lack of interest in reforming world trade and a rather haphazard attitude to Iraq, Iran and foreign policy generally. Obama changes his position according to what he sees as being popular and has been swept up in a hype partly due to race, partly due to his ability at public speaking that has not held him accountable for very much. McCain on the other hand promises to not be risky on foreign policy, and to make clear efforts to promote free trade and get rid of the infestation of pork barrel politics.

For that McCain gets my endorsement. He's no libertarian, but neither is the Libertarian Party candidate. There are good reasons to vote McCain to stop Obama from implementing his grow government agenda, and to not trust him on how radical he really is. Obama is clearly further to the left than any Democratic Party Presidential nominee for years. McCain is certainly to the left of the Republicans, but he is not on the things that matter - defence, tax cuts and trade. He also does not embrace the evangelical Christian conservative wing of the party, he is more distant from it than the two Bushs.

Now both candidate will choose a Vice-Presidential candidate to hold receptions and to share with the workload, but this wont make a fundamental difference to both of these men. At this time when US and Western success in the Middle East against Islamism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran is critical, when the global economy needs a US federal government that isn't taxing and spending, but shrinking, and with a US attitude to free trade that advances global prosperity, not hiding its farmers and producers behind subsidies and quotas, John McCain does offer a positive reason to vote. Not an overwhelming one, not unreserved, but also not just because Obama gives many reasons to vote against him.

I expect the coming months to see a campaign whereby the Obamaniacs will be confronted with questions about their star. I also expect plenty of nonsense to say that McCain is in bed with "big oil" to get more drilling for oil, but Obama wont say how he'd practically address oil prices except by taxing everyone to try to pick winners to replace it. Also expect plenty to say that McCain and Bush are one and the same, when credibly they are not - they ran AGAINST each other in the 2000 primaries. I expect "Demogogues" to play the final card - that if you are not voting for Obama it's because you're racist. Whereby maybe they should be reminded that it wasn't his opponents that stopped Muslim women wearing the hijab from appearing behind him when he speaks on podiums. Oh yes, the tolerance of the identity politics driven left ebbs away when power is the all important motive - isn't that right Michael Moore?

Fuel taxes and subsidies

Whilst those in New Zealand complain about fuel tax you can be grateful of three things:

1. Petrol tax in New Zealand is not high compared to Western European standards (UK fuel tax on both petrol and diesel is just over 50p, that is NZ$1.30 a litre before VAT). European politicians are bigger pillagers of motorists than NZ ones.

2. New Zealand has no specific tax on diesel besides a derisory 0.33c/l local authority diesel tax, almost every country in the world has diesel tax, and the Greens actively support introducing one.

3. All fuel tax money is hypothecated into the National Land Transport Fund. Whilst around 15% goes on public transport, walking/cycling projects and the like, the rest is on road related activities. However don't forget Don Brash was the one that pushed for this at the last election. By contrast NONE of the UK fuel tax is dedicated to transport at all, and if the fuel tax is matched against spending on roads, only 9% would be required. UK motorists have every right to protest, New Zealand motorists have got it comparatively easy.

Now having said that, cutting or abolishing GST would make a positive difference. It would also be positive to charge motorists for using roads directly instead of through a tax on an input to road use. However I've written much on that before, having a fuel tax is so tempting for politicians. Treasuries like it because it costs little to collect and the elasticity of demand for fuel is low, so it is a cheap and effective way to pillage the population. On top of that environmentalists typically support taxes on fuel because "fossil fuel use bad".

Fuel taxes are an appalling way to pay for road use, they bear next to no relationship to the costs of maintaining or building roads, the costs imposed by road use on other road users, and it is only getting worse. Moreover because they are easy for politicians to manipulate they should be avoided like a plague. As a transition they should only be used as a source of dedicated funds for road maintenance, but this should be phased out over time.

Meanwhile, another simple reason why demand for oil is high are the large number of countries that subsidise the price for consumers. That, thankfully is eroding away, with China, Malaysia, Zambia, India and Indonesia all cutting fuel subsidies significantly. Of course these subsidies mean demand is inflated, according to the Christian Science Monitor the IMF reports half the world's population live in countries with subsidies, but the top 20% of income earners in those countries receive around 42% of the value of the subsidies.

Sadly the leftwing government in Chile is increasing fuel subsidies, as is South Korea, and Fiji is looking into it.

So when you take into account the overdemand created by subsidies (yes offset by under demand created by excessive taxes elsewhere), the underproduction created by prohibitions/taxes on exploration, what should be the price of petrol? The truth is that no politician or bureaucrat will ever know, but we can know the distortions that interfere with that price. That should be where people focus attention.

Top communist jokes

From Daniel Finkelstein's blog in the Times

The top one is this:

"Three workers find themselves locked up, and they ask each other what they’re in for. The first man says: “I was always ten minutes late to work, so I was accused of sabotage.” The second man says: “I was always ten minutes early to work, so I was accused of espionage.” The third man says: “I always got to work on time, so I was accused of having a Western watch.”

You can read the others on his blog.

Obama plays the obvious card

"If you oppose me it's because of my race"

To which the response of many who doubt him might be "oh so we're racist now if we don't want you as President?".

According to the Daily Telegraph he's now painting the Republican campaign as one that focuses on his age, inexperience, name and race.

Yes of course, because your policies are so in depth, so amazingly well thought out, and beyond criticism. I mean how can you challenge a campaign that just says "Change" and is largely about the government spending more of other people's money, and pulling out of Iraq. The brilliance and innovations overwhelms me so much that I'd only support McCain because I wouldn't want a black man in the White House. I mean not liking tax increases, more agricultural subsidies, withdrawing from Iraq regardless of the consequences and largely empty talk about change couldn't be REAL reasons to oppose him could they?

Some on the left like to play the emotional blackmail game. It isn't about the Martin Luther King dream of judging someone on character, but saying if you don't like that, you're probably lying - it's probably race. Even worse it is the implication that getting a Black President is soooo important, that you should sweep aside concern about policies. However don't worry, Hillary would have done the same "it's because I'm a woman". Geraldine Ferraro has said as much about why she didn't get the nomination.

Well Mr Obama, the truth is the Democrats are going to raise issues around McCain's age, but most who oppose you do so because your campaign is vapid. Painting them as probably being racist just gives them another reasons to doubt how much depth there is to your campaign. Indeed while you deserve kudos for rejecting public funding of the campaign (because you've raised far more money than John McCain), if it had been the other way around can you honestly say you wouldn't have pulled out the perennial leftwing envy card "look he's got a lot of money behind him, he wont look after "ordinary people" like I will".

So the skindeep campaign of Obama is partly about skin colour - by his own call. However, it may backfire - it is one thing to simply say that some people will oppose him on racial grounds (which is true), some will support him pretty much purely on those grounds (which is no more intelligent), but another to imply that opposing him probably is racist in itself. That insults the intelligence of all those who are judging Obama the man and his policies, and says more about the man.

Bush's legacy on balance more good than bad

As the Bush Presidency enters its final months, it is worthwhile having a dispassionate look at the record so far. Those on the left, or indeed most people you encounter in many Western countries believe the hype that has been self generated that he has been the worst President in recent history. The war in Iraq is seen as clear evidence of this, as it has been expensive and cost many lives both military and civilian, though the overthrow of one of the Middle East's most tyrannical and militaristic dictatorships (and the murder and destruction it wrecked upon its own people and its neighbours is conveniently glossed over) is almost taken for granted. The failure to completely crush the Taliban is pointed at, meanwhile the fact the Taliban regime WAS overthrown, and that it was the most utterly heartless, lifeless, vile form of Islamist barbarism is also ignored - girls in Kabul can go to school now, people can play music - but Bush's critics prefer to ignore that. They ignore that the war on Iraq resulted in Libya's Colonel Gaddafi "giving up" his own weapons of mass destruction, opening up and engaging with the West, instead of pursuing his long history of backing terrorist and murderers on several continents.

Most importantly, there has not been another terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. That should be a cause of celebration - it's difficult to point to the absence of something and say "see what I have done", but in this case it is important. People are still flying, going about their daily business, albeit with much less convenience than they once did.

Bush critics point at failure to achieve peace in Israel, although the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel points to at least one step forward. The isolation of Hamas in Gaza has worked to prevent the entire Palestinian Authority from becoming an Islamist terrorist base. Meanwhile Israel has knocked out a nuclear facility in Syria, something that the so called "anti-nuclear/peace" movement wont ever give credit for. You see to them, it is no worse for a one-party state or Islamist theocracy to hold nuclear weapons, than for a liberal Western democracy to do so. The very same people also claim to support feminism and human rights, when they treat regimes which in practice reject both as being no worse than the USA or the UK.

However I digress. Other criticisms of the Bush administration are around climate change - a reasonable concern, which has become a fad for armageddon like calls for radical intervention in the forms of taxes, subsidies and regulations in Western liberal democracies, whilst rapidly growing developing countries and oil rich states which per capita are as wealthy as Western democracies are expected to do nothing. Meanwhile the rising price of oil, due to demand and tax/regulatory/planning restrictions on supply (of both crude and refined product) have done more to reduce energy use (and in more efficient ways) than any nonsense about subsidising alternatives.

There is criticism on the economy, with some justification, but the current recession is led by the end of a property/credit boom that started well before Bush, as well as oil prices. More could have been done, certainly government spending has ballooned under Bush where it could have been cut back to ease the pressure on credit through the budget deficit.

Where criticism is valid has been in two areas:

1. The erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terror, whereby wire tapping and interception is now a routinely used power by law enforcement authorities. The ability to use these powers is insufficiently monitored or limited. In short, law enforcement agencies have asked for powers they long dreamt of, because they believed it necessary to fight the war on terror - these requests have sadly not been sufficiently questioned.

2. The use of torture and rendition. In a state of war, it is difficult to determine the line between detaining suspects who are planning and aiding and abetting the waging of war against your country, and when people should be charged and tried for offences in a civilian court. The current situation is a blurring between those. It is important that those who are detained do face trial, and do have the right to defence. The risk of arresting and detaining the innocent is real, as is the risk that being deterred from doing so results in acts of terrorism being undertaken. The balance has been successful in preventing further terrorist acts, but it is important to be seen to be treating suspects fairly and impartially. Of particular concern has been the use of torture to obtain confessions and intelligence. Its efficacy is actually greater than critics make it out to be - those who face severe discomfort and pain are less capable of constructing consistent lies than spilling the truth. However, it's morally repugnant. It is difficult to spread the values of individual rights and liberty when you engage in practices that are milder versions of those you oppose. Fortunately both McCain and Obama reject it.

Some libertarians will see those last two points as self-evident that Bush is no friend of freedom. I disagree. He is a flawed friend of freedom. I have not mentioned his evangelism deliberately, largely because it has been exagerrated by his critics. As an atheist myself, the use of religion in a political context beyond demanding the simple right to freedom of belief appalls me. However, despite the fears of some he hasn't implemented a theocracy in the USA. His use of some theocratic language has been counterproductive, as it feeds the Islamists to talk of crusades, but despite his strong religious beliefs (and don't forget both Al Gore and John Kerry both claimed similar strong faith) it has not significantly undermined the fundamental secular nature of the USA.

Andrew Roberts in the Daily Telegraph believes that history will judge Bush well. It is frankly too early to say for sure, six months is a very long time in politics (New Zealand had three Prime Ministers in that time in 1990). He says:

"The overthrow and execution of a foul tyrant, Saddam Hussein; the liberation of the Afghan people from the Taliban; the smashing of the terrorist networks of al-Qa'eda in that country and elsewhere and, finally, the protection of the American people from any further atrocities on US soil since 9/11, is a legacy of which to be proud.

While of course every individual death is a tragedy to the bereaved families, these great achievements have been won at a cost in human life a fraction the size of any past world-historical struggle of this magnitude.

The number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is equivalent to the losses they endured - for a nation only a little over half the size in the mid-Forties - capturing a single island from the Japanese in the Pacific War."

Iraq has not become Vietnam.

So ask yourself this, what would have been different under Al Gore or John Kerry? 9/11 would still have happened, but would Al Gore have overthrown the Taliban? Who knows. Certainly Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq, does anyone really believe he would have just peacefully gone about oppressing his people and not tried again to wage war? Does anyone believe he wouldn't have tried to find common cause with Islamists (as the nominally secular Syria has done) to continue to wage war against Israel, the West and his neighbours to the south? Does anyone believe that Gaddafi would have surrendered?

Do you think there would have been any difference to global warming had Al Gore signed Kyoto? Remembering that Russia, India, China and the Middle East wouldn't have changed behaviour one iota (yes Russia is part of Kyoto but then you can be when your population is in freefall decline). Think that pouring loads of US taxpayers money (money they have spent themselves on other things) into subsidising biofuels more or electric cars would have made any difference at all? You think that a Presidency that sought approval from the likes of China and Russia to act (through the UN Security Council) would have been a deterrence to further attacks like 9/11? You think Hamas would have stopped shelling Israel had Israel been told to compromise more with it?

Of course, "what ifs" can never be proven - but one thing is sure. Since 9/11 there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil. Given the scale and seriousness of that one event, that is worth acknowledging. The only ones who wouldn't acknowledge that are those that cheered it on, like Annette Sykes or Barack Obama's former pastor, or those that cobble together fragments to consider it was all a conspiracy.

The USA couldn't organise a successful assassination against Castro, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Ayatollah Khomeini after all.

So when you vote Labour will it include him?

Many of us wont forget Labour list MP Ashraf Choudhary having been quoted as saying that it is ok for gay people to be stoned to death in other countries (not New Zealand) according to the Koran. According to the New Zealand Herald, three years ago:

*

"Mr Choudhary was asked: "Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?" He replied: " No, no. Certainly what the Koran says is correct. "In those societies, not here in New Zealand," he added. "

*

It would be worth asking what his view is today. If he wont address it or change it, then you'll find that voting Labour for your party vote endorses Ashraf Choudhary being in Parliament. I might wonder if Rainbow Labour members like having in the Labour caucus an MP who wont condemn the murder of gay people in the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia?

*

Voters deserve clarification from Mr Choudhary - it isn't Islamophobia, it isn't racism, it is whether this man actually believes in what are fundamental values of a liberal Western democracy. If not, Labour should expel him from its list, and if Labour wont, it doesn't deserve a single vote from a gay person or anyone who is appalled by the treatment of gay people in some predominantly Islamic states. Even the Family Party wouldn't be this callous.

A coalition between a murderer and his victims?

South African President Thabo Mbeki, who in his twilight years wont be remembered as much for his lunatic beliefs on HIV, which undoubtedly led indirectly to more deaths in his country as a result, but for his treatment of Robert Mugabe. Appeasement is being a simpering weakling in front of evil, he was never that - he stands side by side Mugabe, shaking his hand and facilitating, funding, supplying power and succuour to the man who has destroyed an economy, murdered and tortured his people and beaten them into starving submission while he and his lackeys enjoy lavish trips to shop and spend their ill gotten booty.

Some years ago another African leader, a socialist of the same political persuasion as Mbeki, saw the murder and tyranny occurring in a neighbouring state. Rivers with bodies in them, a regime running riot over its people. The country was Uganda under Idi Amin. Amin's army had started minor incursions into Tanzania, annexing a small piece of land. Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere didn't simply fight to retain that land, he invaded repelled the Ugandan army from Tanzania and kept going. Within a few months it had taken Entebbe airport and then Kampala. Even with Libyan troops supporting Amin (oh yes Gaddafi has been quite a character), there was only modest resistance. Amin fled to Libya, and Tanzania installed a replacement government. Nyerere overthrew one of Africa's most brutal tyrants. The Organisation of African murders and thieves Unity of course condemned Nyerere's actions, after all most of the leaders of African countries were despotic kleptocrats who suppressed political opposition and pillaged their countries' wealth for shopping trips to Paris and London for themselves and their cronies. Africa was being as exploited by its "liberators" as it had been by the imperial powers.

*

Now Nyerere was no angel, his socialist economic policies sent Tanzania backwards from being a food exporter to being an importer, but although somewhat authoritarian he was not a murderer like Mugabe.

*

However consider Thabo Mbeki. Zimbabwe's rigged, biased Presidential election was Mugabe beaten by Morgan Tsvangarai. Only by the rigged result did he fail to get a majority. So a run off election is being held, whilst Mugabe's butchering "war heroes" (if you consider a hero someone who bashes babies against tree trunks) torture and kill supporters of the opposition, while the opposition is prohibited from holding election rallies or from getting any coverage on the state monopoly broadcasting services and newspapers. It is an election that is one step away from the Soviet variety in that there IS a second candidate, but supporting such a candidate risks your life.

*

The election is an unbelievable farce, Mugabe and his Zanu-PF thugs with the military hand in hand have essentially overridden the Zimbabwean constitution, and are murdering all those in its way. Mbeki doesn't condem the murders, doesn't damn the violence led by Mugabe, he calls for the run-off election to be suspended and for a "unity government" according to the Daily Telegraph.

*

It is scandalous and despicable.

*

Imagine if there had been a call for a "unity government" in Cambodia between the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese backed forces that overthrew it, or between the Nazis and liberals.

*

As Ayn Rand once said "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

*

Mbeki deserves to be shunned at international fora, he is a cowardly craven fool with blood on his hands, the blood of black Africans, those he purports to support, whilst his pig ignorant blind loyalty to a tyrant keeps that tyrant fed, powered and slaughtering, starving and torturing his own.

*

If your neighbour was torturing, abusing and starving his wife and children, had promised to leave if the family agreed he should go, but tortured the kids into being loyal, and kept locking his wife away and abusing her - would you tell the wife that the two of them should stay together and work things out while the kids and her are still being abused?

*

That's Mbeki, friend of a murderer, a pathetic pointless man who should resign and stop pouring more disgrace on South Africa - a country that supports tyranny and then lets its citizens torture and murder those who flee from it.

*

oh and didn't notice all those protests like there were against apartheid, but I guess black Africans murdering and torturing their own isn't quite as important to some on the left as white Africans is it? No, once the Africans are running their own affairs, time to move on.

Slow blogging

Apologies for having a few days off, quite simply I've been away home for a while and preferred to spend the weekend with my girlfriend, having human company rather than spending more than short periods in front of this infernal thing. I'll be back at full tilt tomorrow though.

*

There is much to say about fuel prices, taxes and subsidies, David Davis and 42 days detention without trial, Bush's last trip as President to Europe, the emergence of further new technologies that could replace crude oil with oil generated by bacterium, and the tragic ongoing debacle of Zimbabwe. I am about to fly back to the Middle East. May Lufthansa treat me well (my experience is that it's ok, it's better than airlines from the US, but isn't as good as BA or Air NZ), and I'll have ample time to blog there in the evenings. Not a lot is too interesting about NZ at the moment, except for some reason I've noticed Libertarianz spokespeople appearing in mainstream media more often than in the past - maybe something is happening putting Libz in the top tier of parties outside Parliament.

*

The Green left is almost joyful over fuel and food prices, a new armageddon that means we "have to change", amid nonsensical calls to stop building roads and to all return to growing our own food. Meanwhile, spare a moment for those in Zimbabwe - they are about to have a sham election, terrorised into voting Zanu-PF, whilst the beloved ANC run South Africa appeases the blood dripping despot at its gates. South Africa can now join the ranks of China for providing succuour to murderous dictators - but don't expect those who rightfully campaigned against apartheid to campaign against the ANC, you see black Africans murdering other black Africans isn't racist, so it doesn't quite get the left as upset as racist violence. South Africans murdering and attacking the refugees from Zimbabwe, refugees because of Mugabe's filthy violence loving mates in the ANC giving him a continued lifeline of money and fuel - it makes me wonder how much longer African regimes can continue to give cover for this vile dictatorship.

*

Oh and I haven't forgot Camp 22. Others have. Amnesty International prefers to focus on Guantanamo Bay, and almost ignores North Korea. You might ask them why, you might ask why the Green Party campaigns about China and Burma, but ignores the far far more murderous and repulsive North Korea. Ignorance is hardly an excuse. So think that this morning when you woke up, tens of thousands of North Koreans were woken at dawn, in prison, men, women and children - to work till dusk, non stop, receiving starvation food rations, being physically and sexually abused. Those women with Chinese fathers having compulsory abortions, as part of North Korea's own eugenics programme against "contamination".

*

and if you think I'm exagerrating, read this book and this book and ask yourself whether these prison camps for entire families would still exist if the world united behind a message of abolishing them? Ask yourself why children should be allowed to live in this Orwellian nightmare? Ask yourself why more get agitated about whether you recycle, drive to work or fly on holiday, than the daily murder, torture and hell so many North Koreans go through in gulags - it will tell you what value many put on human life compared to the cult of ecology.

So be grateful for those who fought for our freedom, be grateful for where you are not, and it will give you some perspective.

Ireland offers chance to look at future of EU

The resounding "No" vote for the Lisbon Treaty in the Republic of Ireland is bringing out the very worst in what so many Europeans loathe about the European Union - the complete contempt that those running it have for their opinions.

*

Reports of the likes of Gordon Brown, Sarkozy and the EU Commission president all saying that"ratification" will continue, flies in the face of the fundamental point that without all 27 EU member states ratifying it, the Lisbon Treaty is not meant to proceed.

*

With the exception of Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, most of the EU political establishment is calling for things to continue as usual, as if Ireland is some small irrelevancy - exactly what so many Irish voters no doubt fear.

*

So what IS it that European voters fear? Much has been made of how Ireland has benefited from the EU. It has to some extent, on the one hand for some years Ireland received millions of Euro in subsidies for infrastructure projects as one of the "poor" countries of the 12 of the time, it also had a new open market for its products and services. However, it helped immensely that Ireland cut taxes, especially company tax, and sought to be business friendly. This was not an approach that some EU members (e.g. France, Belgium, Italy) have taken.

*

Irish voters may ask "why" the Lisbon treaty is important. Talk about it making the EU more efficient sounds rather peculiar. However more clear is the removal of the national veto for more issues, in other words evolving the EU from an association of 27 more or less equal member states to one of double majorities. It is very clear that Lisbon Treaty advocates have failed to sell the advantages, if any, of the Treaty.

*

Opposition to the Lisbon Treaty is sometimes seen to be opposition to the EU, opposition to globalisation by those on the left, and a resurgent old fashioned nationalism by those on the right. At the skindeep level I don't particularly mind this, but I embrace globalisation and find nationalism largely knuckle dragging.

*

I like the EU on one level. Let's not forget what it has done. In a generation, countries that were once at war shared open borders, within two generations former Soviet Republics were integrated into a customs union including Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, Sweden and Germany. The prospect of war among EU member states is unthinkable, which considering the history of Europe is remarkable. A similar union in Latin America or Asia, is difficult to envisage, although Australia and New Zealand (and USA/Canada) could be in such a pairing, albeit both examples would be highly unbalanced.

*

The opening up of borders to trade, investment and movement of people among EU member states is unprecedented on any other continent. It is more liberal than CER between Australia and NZ, especially between Schengen countries. It has undoubtedly contributed to the growth in wealth, diversity and prosperity for member states. However, you could argue the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) which today still exists, incorporating Norway, Iceland and Switzerland (none of which are EU members), could have delivered this liberalism.

*

Beyond free trade an argument can be made for the EU harmonising some basic laws of business and creating a customs union. Common approaches to contract law, company law, conflicts of law, land law, personal property law and commercial law can make some sense. Mutual recognition of all sorts of basic licences like driving licences, vehicle roadworthiness and the like makes sense too. Finally, a customs union - so that the EU negotiates as a whole for trade access, also has great advantages. Whether something enters in Sofia, Shannon or Stockholm, it should move freely throughout the EU.

*

As a project for liberalisation of trade in goods and services, it has done wonders. It has forced member states to open up transport, telecommunications, broadcasting, energy and postal markets. However, the EU has become far more than this, it has sought to become another layer of government, bureaucracy and rule-making.

*

The ugliness of the Common Agricultural Policy is perhaps one of the most well known examples of this. The CAP sucks the biggest part of the EU's budget from net contributors such as Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, to prop up inefficient farmers in France, Finland, Belgium and the like, it also pays some farmers to not produce, it uses the customs union to ban imports of some commodities from some countries, impose quotas on others (like dairy products from NZ) and tariffs on yet others, then it subsidises inefficient farmers to dump their goods on world markets. On top of that it isn't ever fair across the EU, as the 12 newest member states only get subsidies at one-third the level of the others, so undoubtedly the most impoverish farmers in the EU, the Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Slovak and Baltic ones don't get anywhere near the support of France's inefficient farmers. This monstrosity in itself should give pause for thought about the EU, but it is only part of it.

*

The EU also treats all member state Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) as common EU ocean space for fishing, all very well if it weren't for the overfishing subsidised and protected by the EU - one reason why major fishing nations Norway and Iceland have resisted EU membership. It imposes a requirement for a MINIMUM level of fuel tax for all member states - tough if you don't want one. It pursues projects of absurdity, such as the horrendously expensive Galileo satellite navigation system, a competitor for GPS and Glonass (Russia's version), except GPS and Glonass are free for users. It is costing EU taxpayers 3.4 billion euros, but the EU doesn't really care - it just sucks the money from member states.

*

You see it is spending 116 billion Euro in the current (soon to be ended) financial year. Shared among 497 million people that is 233 Euro per man/woman and child. Yes, those in Bulgaria are unlikely to have contributed as much as those from Luxembourg, but you can see the cost per family of the EU - and that doesn't include the compliance costs of business, or the cost to taxpayers for their bureaucracies to service the EU.

*

You see the EU is a synthesis of liberalisation and collectivisation. It has at once been a project of opening up the economies of member states to each other, and at the same time somewhat closing them to the outside world, whilst building up a new top layer of government, over central and local (and provincial) governments. Socialists in Europe have seen the EU become a repositary for funding regional development, in the form of massive infrastructure projects, cultural projects and others that no libertarian would see as a fit reason for the EU. Some have sought the EU having powers to interfere with tax powers of member states, to avoid the inconvenience of competing with the likes of Slovakia, which has a flat rate of income tax.

*

This tension has built within in a kind of arrogance in Brussels, that it represents what people in 27 member states want (and after all its expansion surely shows how great the EU is, doesn't it?), it is what is GOOD for them, and the attitude so many politicians have had to the Irish vote is telling indeed. It has on the one hand the kind of big power dismissive attitude that Ireland is small and shouldn't hold up the "great project", the same attitude that those people would accuse of the USA. Since none of the other member states have been willing to hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty, it speaks volumes of the fear the EU holds for them politically with the public.

*

So while the Euroskeptics who want to throw away the EU are wrong, so are the EU adventurers who see the project as being an ever greater integration - one which is wholly unnecessary and not advantageous to Europeans. The EU should be a project of liberalisation, open up economies and markets, and letting nation states compete freely, and look outwards. Member states should be free to shrink their governments as they wish, and cut taxes, and cut regulations as they see fit - not be required to regulate because Brussels says so. Some in the east believed this is what it was - a chance to be part of a market larger than the USA (and to be fair, some money to build infrastructure wracked by decades of Soviet imperialism). Some in the west, such as France, see it as a way of cauterising liberalisation by forcing all member states to operate according to similar rules.

So it is time to have a debate - an open and honest one. Not one characterised by the EU aristocracy sighing and bemoaning critics as being narrow minded nationalists or ignorant, but also not one of shouting and EU bashing, justified though some may be. It is one about the role of the state, and what that means for the EU members. It will challenge the conservative right and the statist left to think differently - it offers the EU the chance to have the dynamism of the USA, and set its people free to develop, grow and embrace. As the EU observes Russia grow on the back of oil, the Middle East and Asia grow as economic powerhouses in their own rights, and the USA, despite current setbacks, continuing to be the world's economic superpower for the next decade or so, it might wonder whether its people can hold their own, or whether it should tie itself up in more and more little knots, called for by special interests, who see their main job being seeking favours paid for by other Europeans. Let any dabbling with socialism be a national project, than an EU member state can engage in at its peril - not one that strangles so many countries that spent over 40 years fighting to be unshackled from statist control.

Still want to sacrifice wealth for climate change policy?

Having recently returned from the United Arab Emirates, I have a few observations:

• In the UAE everyone drives, big cars, even short distances because daytime temperatures get between 35 and 43 degrees. That means they use a lot of petrol, per capita, adding the air conditioning that is almost ubiquitous. You see it's highly subsidised there because the country is doing quite well thanks to record oil prices. There is very little public transport.
  
• Buildings are almost all air conditioned, which in that heat isn't cheap. Except all of the electricity is generated from that subsidised oil.
• Water is produced from desalination, the most energy intensive way, and per capita water consumption in the UAE is one of the highest in the world.
  
• New Zealand's per capita GDP is around US$30,000 p.a. UAE's is over US$42,000. Even on a PPP (Purchasing power parity) basis NZ is at US$27,000 and UAE at least US$37,000.
  

The UAE is not doing a jot about reducing CO2 emissions. Indeed, it is making an enormous profit from those who DO emit, it is subsidising its own population burning fuel, and is an economy fueled on emitting CO2.

Now I'm not picking on the UAE, it is just one example - of a so-called "developing country" far wealthier on a per head of population basis that New Zealand. Yet so many New Zealand politicians would rather it lead the way, whilst the likes of the UAE is expected to do nothing. You see, even if you accept that there should be "action on climate change", why are there a fair number of countries that are considered to be "developing" yet have lower per capita GDP than NZ? (Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar,Singapore and Taiwan are others)

Still feel like engaging in austerity measures to save the planet, when many countries basking in oil wealth are doing the exact opposite?

Like you needed another reason to not fly Ryanair

Snobby elitist post...

According to ABTN "Ryanair has fitted 15 Dublin-based aircraft with technology to allow in-flight calls and text messages, with trials to start at the end of July.

By the end of the next fiscal year it wants to extend this to 50 aircraft, and across its fleet within a year and half."

So besides virtually no service groundside, no service in the air, stripping planes to the bare minimum with fixed seats, no windowshades, now you would have to put up with gobby tourists waffling on about how "I'm on the plane" or with the incessant "beep beep .......... beep beep" text messaging notification sound. Though given Michael O'Leary said “The charge you pay will be the international roaming charges" and Ryanair customers are tighter than Mbeki and Mugabe, it might be not that bad.

I say you, because I wont fly Ryanair. With Gold Elite Air NZ status I can fly in the back on short European flights with Star Alliance airlines, use business class checkin, have lounge access and business class baggage, and be with an airline that does provide some sort of service on the ground. Beyond that BA isn't half bad, sometimes has good deals in Club Europe (business class) and I am halfway to being Gold Qantas so I can do the same with OneWorld as I can with Star Alliance. Now I'm not saying flights around Europe in economy class are great, they are not that comfortable, have almost always bad food (though free drinks are appreciatd) are often late and uninspiring - but they are step beyond Ryanair's truly cattle class (and many of the people you travel with are too!). However, if you are willing to travel as freight then you'll pay - and it's the same with flying third (economy) class UK-NZ, especially without a stopover.

Fortunately tomorrow I'm flying BA back, and not in fourth, third or second class.

When left is right and down is up - the bizarre world of Sue Kedgley

Sue Kedgley reporting on the food conference she attended says "They argued that the main cause of the crisis was that food production in much of the developing world has been decimated by three decades of globalization and free trade liberalization policies. Previously self sufficient countries had been unable to compete with heavily subsidized, cheap European and American food and so small self sufficient agriculturalsectors collapsed in country after country, leaving developing countries dependent on imports and food aid."

Ok - now read that again. "three decades of globalization and free trade liberalization policies" (sic, what's those AmericaniZations Sue?)? Huh, might have missed that one while the EU Common Agricultural Policy was subsidising domestic production and exports and shutting out imports, the US doing a less protectionist version, Japan doing even worse on rice, and South Korea, EEA zone members all doing anything BUT free trade liberalisation and in most cases resisting efforts at the WTO to encourage multilateral agricultural trade liberalisation.

Then she goes on "New Zealand is seen, thanks to our flag waving for free trade liberalization policies, as ‘an enemy of the third world’ and a slave of America and Europe." which she didn't correct, because she thinks it is true too. If only Europe and the USA were slaves for free trade liberalisation in Agriculture.

Seriously, Sue is either:
1. Stupid.
2. Manipulatively lying or
3. Mentally deranged.

You cannot say something is what it isn't without being one of those. So which one is it?

Perhaps the simplest mistake the Greens make on transport

There are so many, but best seen in this post condemning Labour spending on motorways (which in these two particular cases, I actually agree with the Greens on, because they are well over the top from what is needed):

"they are about to spend $2 billion on a short motorway tunnel in Auckland, and $1 billion on a new motorway in Wellington. Neither of these will be needed in an oil-scarce world, but better public transport and rail will"

Does anyone truly believe that with a history of around eighty years of ever increasing private mobility with the private car, that a change in fuel will see people wanting to plan most of their trips around schedules, waiting, sharing vehicles with others? Public transport will always have a role, for those who can't afford a park, who are travelling on busy corridors where large numbers of people start and finish at similar destinations, and it can offer a speed advantage because it has a good corridor. It works for those without cars. However, it wont replace most trips - it never will.

The idea that more roads or road improvements wont be needed when oil isn't the primary source of motive fuel for road vehicles, is banal. They may be an interruption, a short period of transition if, and it is a big if, the future is not oil - but something else (I wont guess, since so many want to guess and get the government to pick winners). However, people LIKE cars, people LIKE driving, they love the freedom it brings. In busy cities, alternatives make sense because space is precious, putting up the cost of parking and creating congestion (or in the right cities putting up the price for roads) -but that is it. Those alternatives make sense in certain circumstances and at certain times.

Collective transport is chosen as second best, by almost everyone.

One simple question to ask every single National Party candidate

Do you support voluntary student union membership?

Of course they could all publicly indicate what they DO think.

Of course any don't say they will fully support free choice of students to belong or not belong to a student union, don't deserve the vote of freedom loving people. In fact if they prevaricate, just say "fuck off you fascist, I may as well vote Labour".

Of course if they all support it like David Farrar does, then there MIGHT be one step forward for freedom if the Nats win.

State Highway 1 at Mana

Ok, very minority interest item here, but given the Dom Post reported on it.

The high occupancy vehicle lanes through Mana should be converted into standard clearways. Two full lanes in the direction of peak flow. Short high occupancy vehicle lanes are ridiculous.

Meanwhile, congestion at Paremata/Mana continues to be relieved by the upgrade from Paremata to Plimmerton that cost $25 million, instead of what politicians were advocating - Transmission Gully at over $1 billion. See they know so well how to spend your money.

So United Future joins the tax cut game

As a party polling at the same level as Libertarianz, Peter Dunne has to be thinking whether he risks being a one man band after the next election. Don't forget that is exactly what he was after the 1996 election (when none of the Labour and National MPs who defected to what was then United held onto their seats), and the 1999 election when Libertarianz party vote beat United in a number of seats. He doesn't want to go back to that.

So United Future has launched its tax policy, which David Farrar describes. On the face of it he is offering a step forward. Three tax rates, of 10, 20 and 30%. It's far more radical than Labour, and I think more radical than NATIONAL would consider. After all it gets rid of the 39% tax rate, something National has been too scared to talk about because it doesn't have the courage or intellectual robustness to fight it (even though it opposed it in the first place). Give him credit, he has announced a comprehensive policy. ACT has announced half a policy (get rid of 39% and have a tax free threshold), National none.

However, for that you might ask Peter Dunne a few questions:

1. You're the Minister of Revenue. You have kept the current government in power for two terms, indeed you are PART of it. If you have such a radical approach to tax, why haven't you withdrawn providing confidence and supply and helped initiate an early election? (of course the Greens would probably step in). Do you like having it both ways or is the only policy that matters the completely wasteful Families Commission?
2. Would you achieve this with spending cuts? If so, where, given you are responsible for creating an obvious bureaucracy to abolish.
3. Given you're meant to be a party in the centre, should we expect you'll only back National if it implements a version of you're moderately worthwhile tax cuts? If not, why not?

Most importantly, a vote for United Future in 2002 and 2005 proved to be a vote for keeping Labour in power. In 2002 many opponents to Labour voted United Future to give Labour an alternative coalition partner to the Greens. In 2005, half of those voters returned to National because it had a chance of winning.

In 2008, you might wonder why anyone who wants a change of government would bother casting a party vote for a party that has helped kept Helen Clark in power for two out of her three terms, and whose most well known achievement has been creating a useless bureaucracy. The people of Ohariu-Belmont might also ask what he has done for them. I certainly don't know.

Zimbabwe now partly a military junta

The Daily Telegraph disturbingly reports that the Joint Operations Command (JOC) committee that looks after national security in Zimbabwe appears to be dominating government in the country - given its suspension of work by overseas aid agencies. The Telegraph claims:

"They ensured Mr Mugabe did not step down after his defeat in the presidential election's first round in March and are now masterminding a campaign of terror to suppress the opposition Movement for Democratic Change and guarantee victory for Mr Mugabe in the June 27 run-off.

The most powerful figures on the JOC are Gen Constantine Chiwenga, the overall military chief; Augustine Chihuri, the national police commissioner, and Gen Paradzai Zimondi, the commander of the prison service."

They are all beneficiaries of Mugabe's confiscation of farms, and his kleptocratic rule. Make no mistake of it, this is not a positive move. It appears Mugabe is useful to them, but he also needs them at least as much as they need him. Apparently the generals convinced him to not concede after the first round.

Tiseke Kasambala, a Zimbabwe specialist at Human Rights Watch, said there was an "increasing militarisation of the state". "The evidence points to an increasing role by the army in state affairs," she said. "The army is no longer just in barracks, waiting to protect the country. The army is out there, taking a role in the day-to-day government of the country."

Make no mistake about it, this is a symbiotic relationship of oppression. The generals get some moral authority from Mugabe, who rallies some support and gets the respect of his felching submissive lickspittle Thabo Mbeki and others. He needs them to maintain power and protect him. However it does not bode well for the upcoming election run off. Assuming the generals and Mugabe seize power from that, the world can look closer at South Africa - which has the greatest influence over the regime. Nevertheless, even a bullet in Mugabe, as proposed by Silent Running, and previously by myself, may not be sufficient now.

Meanwhile, Christopher Hitchens has an insightful article on Slate which describes why Thabo Mbeki fawns to Mugabe. It is linked to Mugabe's disdain for Nelson Mandela, the Maoist connections of Mugabe vs the Soviet connections of the ANC, and African politics more generally. Worth a read.

Maori Party worships at the Obama altar

Tariana Turia has said:

"Obama’s message for change is the same message that the Maori Party carries, and his hope for a brighter future is a message we embrace as well"

Except:

1. He doesn't lead the "African-American Party" but a non-ethnically defined party;
2. He is not a Senator of an ethnically defined constituency (which is not to deny that seriously gerrymandered constituencies exist in the USA, as they do);
3. He hasn't, as far as I know, sought to change the US Federal Government to set aside Congress seats on the basis of ethnicity.

Pita Sharples does say "His success is an inspiration to the Maori Party, and to all people of colour seeking to change the way politics is conducted all over the world".

Change what and how, into what? Robert Mugabe changed the way politics was done in Zimbabwe, from whites only racist democracy to non-racist tyranny. Bokassa changed politics in the Central African Republic by declaring it an Empire, spending 40% of the country's GDP on his coronation where he dressed like Napoleon, and ended up shooting at schoolchildren who protested because they couldn't afford the compulsory French style school uniforms he specified.

"People of colour" are hardly the only bearers of tyranny, but they are not necessarily torchbearers of freedom and prosperity. Besides, who doesn't have colour? I know the Maori Party is leftwing, but it is quite something to endorse Obama. I presume it is not just because of his skin colour, although the implication of the press release is predominantly that.

You can't beat the sick inducing fawning of Hone Harawira though "He’s African-American, he has the appeal of Martin Luther King, the backing of the Kennedy clan, the rapturous support of millions of Black Americans". Yes we know he is African-American, but he is a minnow compared to Martin Luther King and having the backing of the untouchable super wealthy family that raised money to fund terrorism in Northern Ireland is hardly a virtue.

Harawira continues:

"and his oratory continues to soar above the cynical point-scoring of candidates whose rhetoric has exhausted and alienated Americans. In a country torn by division, and wearied by an unwanted war, Barack Obama is fresh, enthusiastic, optimistic, and positive. He has already broken barriers and challenged conventions. He has excited people wherever he has gone, and engaged millions in politics for the first time in their lives. I only wish i could meet the man and say "I love you Mr Obama"" OK I added the last bit. His rhetoric is exhausting, and Pamela Anderson has excited people wherever she has gone.

Come on Hone, go over and campaign for him, loudly and actively - the end result will benefit New Zealand, the USA and the world. Especially since Obama's policy on trade in agriculture is contrary to New Zealand's (except Sue Kedgley's).

Obama has it, now can we look past his colour?

Yes it is historic that an African-American has a major party nomination, particularly given that it was only in his lifetime that African-Americans were subject to racist state oppression. That was a blemish against the USA that has since been well and truly cleaned up. This IS important, but that is all.

However, while international media coverage shows saturation interest in that (partly of course because the US Presidency is so important globally), it is time to start the real debate - which is what does Barack Obama stand for?

I have blogged before about this. Once people get over Obamamania, once the "yes he's black isn't that great" hype has slipped into the background, the substance behind the hype needs to be looked at.

I believe he may be the most leftwing major party nominee since George McGovern.

Americans will have a stark choice, not that John McCain is faultless, but Obama needs real scrutiny. I'm afraid the word "change" without more of the "what and how and for what ends" isn't going to wash. He is already is a supporter of billions of dollars of agricultural subsidy pork that McCain opposed. He is already a supporter of "cut and run" from Iraq, leaving it to murdering Islamists. Let's have a real debate, and look past his groupies.