"Love the fundamentalists, but hate their fundamentalism"

Ouch. Metiria Turei of the Greens has delivered a stinging attack on the opponents of the Civil Unions Bill, calling a spade a spade and pointing out that opposition to the bill is rooted in simple bigotry and homophobia:

"All this talk about upholding the sanctity of marriage is just a PC way of masking rampant homophobia," said Ms Turei, the Greens' Associate Spokesperson on Justice.

And she's right. The underlying assumption of many opponents is that same-sex relationships are "defective" or inferior in some way that makes them unworthy of legal recognition. The Maxim Institute makes this explicit when it draws a distinction between "preferred" and "tolerated" relationships, with only the former worthy of state sanction. You can guess which category they put gays in. Like it or not, "bigotry" is the appropriate word here, and if opponents of the bill don't like it, then they shouldn't be bigots.

But best bit of is a neat play on the homophobe's "love the sinner, but hate the sin" line:

"I urge all supporters of the Civil Union Bill to be tolerant. We should love the fundamentalists, but hate their fundamentalism," she said.

Beautiful.

This is why I love the Greens. Despite their perceived fluffiness about tree-hugging and spiritual values, they have been consistent advocates for a secular and liberal society which allows people the freedom to follow their own vision of the good. And they've been the most outspoken defenders of human rights in the present Parliament, opposing government legislation on principle unless it conforms to international human rights standards (though to be fair, Matt Robson has been giving them a run for their money, and gets the No Right Turn stamp of approval as well). No matter what you think of their positions on GE or TV advertising, they can't be faulted on this front.

Civil unions in churches

Opponents of the Civil Unions Bill are getting outraged at the prospect that same-sex civil unions may be held in churches. A couple of liberal Wellington ministers have announced their intention to become civil union celebrants and make their churches available. Judith Collins and Peter Dunne think that this is proof that CU's are "gay marriage under another name" - which is a colossal non sequitur that shows the depth of their ignorance about the Marriage Act.

What makes a marriage a marriage in New Zealand? Dunne and Collins would have you think that its something to do with being married in a church, but that's not what the law says. What makes a marriage a marriage is that both parties say something like "I AB take you CD to be my lawfully wedded husband" in front of a government-recognised celebrant, and then sign a bit of paper. Venue is irrelevant - you can hold your wedding underwater, in a hot-air balloon, in an abbatoir if you so desire. All that matters is that you say those words and sign that bit of paper in front of an official of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

The Civil Unions Bill is the same, except that instead of "lawfully wedded husband", you say "partner in our civil union", and the bit of paper will have some different words at the top. And that's it, as far as proceedings are concerned.

Some couples may well choose to celebrate their civil unions in a church, in front of a minister - and why shouldn't they? It's a private arrangement between the couple, celebrant and venue, and no concern of the government. And it certainly says nothing about whether its a "marriage", gay or otherwise - to think that it does is to conflate the ceremonial trappings with the thing itself.

(I happen to think that civil unions are "gay marriage under another name" - but that doesn't excuse Dunne's or Collins' shoddy reasoning in any way)

"I think I'll back off a little bit now and ride my bike"

SpaceShipOne has become the first privately-owned manned spacecraft to leave the earth's atmosphere.

Next stop: the X-prize.

The New Zealand political spectrum II

DeepRed has updated his political compass scores for NZ's political leaders (by way of comparison, the original is here):

He's added a lot more politicians so you can get some idea of the political "range" of at least some of the parties. Interesting points:

• ACT's Muriel Newman is the third most authoritarian on the chart, after Winston Peters and the National Front's Kyle Chapman; and
• Don Brash is more Libertarian than either Rodney Hide or Richard Prebble.

Update (25/06/04): DeepRed has updated the graph, adding a number of former Prime Ministers. Robert Muldoon was practically a Stalinist, and Don Brash is more extreme than Roger Douglas. Actually, the latter ought to scare us all...

Civil Unions Bill

Is here.

Two concepts of marriage

In discussions around the Civil Unions Bill, it has become apparent that there are two concepts of marriage - a secular one and a religious one. The debate about Civil Unions is really about which of these concepts should have pre-eminence in our society.

The secular conception sees marriage as a voluntary partnership - essentially a contract - recognised by the state and conveying certain legal rights.

The religious conception sees marriage as a sacred union blessed by god.

Two things are immediately apparent: firstly, there is nothing in the secular conception which says anything at all about the gender of the parties involved. It is thus inherently liberal (the religious conception may or may not be, depending on the whims of your deity of choice). Secondly, the religious conception is a moral relationship, whereas the secular conception is merely a legal one. While there are moral issues involved (for example, surrounding adultery), the secular conception sees them as being purely between the parties involved, rather than any concern of the state.

Needless to say, I think that a modern, secular state like New Zealand should not be encoding religious conceptions of marriage in its laws. We should be providing a neutral legal framework, not trying to legislate for a particular conception of virtue.

Positive side-effects

When the Treaty of Rome creating the ICC came into force, the US threatened to end its participation in and funding of UN peacekeeping operations unless that body granted them a blanket exemption from ICC jurisdiction. The UN reluctantly agreed. Now that exemption is up for renewal - and thanks to Abu Ghraib, it looks as if the motion doesn't have sufficient votes to pass. Nobody is going to veto, but enough nations look to be abstaining that the vote will fail. This doesn't mean that the US will suddenly be subject to the ICC - rather that the normal jurisdiction of countries playing host to UN troops and officials will be restored.

This is a positive side-effect both of Abu Ghraib, and of the US's unilateralism. The former has driven home the necessity of a framework for international law allowing torturers and human rights abusers to be prosecuted. The latter has destroyed the goodwill that would normally have resulted in the exemption being renewed (its already been renewed once).

The US will probably throw a hissy-fit and threaten to withdraw from UN operations, but I suspect the reply will be "withdraw what"? All the US's troops are in Iraq, coming home from Iraq, or preparing to return to Iraq. They have none to spare, and so wouldn't be directly in participating anyway (besides, they think it's beneath them). Or they could threaten to withdraw funding, but from a country which routinely didn't even pay their membership dues, that's a rather empty threat.

Noticed

The Holden Republic, devoted to bringing about a Republic in New Zealand.

Capital Diary, compiling political news from Wellington.

Inching towards unity

The EU has agreed its constitution. Now we'll see if the member states themselves will ratify it.

The European project is not like the American project. The sheer diversity of the states involved means that any central government will be far weaker even than that desired by "State's rights" advocates. The aim is not so much to found a new nation, but to grow one - a vast swathe of Europe where people are overwhelmingly rich, happy, and free.

Sure, it has its problems; it is primarily an agreement between states, so decisions are taken by the governments themselves rather than a democraticly elected body - but the same was done in the early US, and greater democracy will no doubt come. And in any case, it's an interesting experiment to watch - a continent inching towards unity. It's not every day you get to see that.

More on Status Anxiety, America and meritocracy

The Grey Shade has some thoughts here.

De Bottan's comparison between Aristocracies and meritocracies does indeed seem facile if you look at it as the be-all and end-all of happiness - but its not if you remember its context. De Bottan is focusing on status anxiety as one cause of unhappiness in modern socieites. He regards it as an important cause - but that is precisely because those societies have been so successful at ensuring that their citizens are generally free from want and free from fear. Slaves have many reasons for unhappiness, as do peasants, but now that most of those problems have been effectively solved (at least for most of us), the effects of status anxiety have become more important.

I think that the US was chosen as an example precisely because it is so unrepresentative of western democracies. The US is meritocracy gone toxic, where no-one has any security and thus anxiety is at its peak. It's an extreme case, allowing us to see the trends in their purest form - and it may also be a look into the future for the increasingly Americanised Anglospphere. I think de Bottan expected an understanding among his audiance that other countries did it better (for whatever reason); there was certainly a heavy subtext of laughing at the freakish Americans in there.

If you take de Bottan's thesis seriously, the question is not whether the US is really less class-bound than the UK; it's whether Americans think that it is. And fairly clearly, they do. The great American myth is that anyone can grow up to become President, grow up to be a millionaire, grow up to be a superstar. The fact is that the US has greater inequalities of wealth than any European nation, and that social mobility is declining - but Americans are blissfully ignorant of this. As a result, they are more likely to pursue the unattainable, and run smack into that unhappy gap between myth and reality.

As for comparisons with other western democracies, I don't think different attitudes are due to remnants of aristocracy so much as simply different values and an acknowledgement of luck and chance. In America, everyone is a self-made man; your status is seen as being the result of your own efforts. Everywhere else, we know that that's not the whole story. Life can deal you a crap hand, misfortune can strike out of the blue, talent can fail to be recognised. In America, the poor are seen as losers and blamed for their situation. Elsewhere, we're much more likely to say "there but for the grace of god go I". This acknowledgement that we could have been sharing their position, if not for chance (or might soon be sharing it if misfortune strikes), leads to more compassionate policies and attitudes.

Finally, I think de Bottan will probably have a fair bit to say about other reasons for status anxiety (such as consumerism) - but we'll have to wait for the next few episodes or buy the book to see.

Finally

The US has finally started to charge those of its soldiers who murder Iraqis. First into the dock is an army officer:

"The charge stems from a May 21 incident which took place near Kufa. Soldiers conducted a high-speed chase with a vehicle that they believed to be carrying suspected members of Moqtada Sadr's militia," [the US Army] said. "During their pursuit, soldiers fired at the vehicle, wounding the driver and passenger. Shortly afterward, the driver was shot and killed at close range."

(Implication: the driver tried to surrender, and the defendant shot him anyway. Or he was simply executed after being captured. Either is enough for a charge of murder).

The US needs to make a few examples of its soldiers, pour encourager les autres. The threat of prosecution is the only way to end their lawless behaviour.

There's a good post in the comments of Just Left's work-life balance thread on the idea of a shorter working week.

What the hell is going on?

A senior Tongan official doesn't attend a conference here after being asked to take a pregnancy test. Imigration's response? "It's her own fault and she should have realised she didn't need a visa anyway". Now there's a second official making the same claims:

Mrs Mafi, the first woman governor of a Pacific Island central bank, said she was also asked to take a pregnancy test and to present herself for an interview at the Immigration Service's Nuku'alofa office. She was surprised and "humiliated".

"I have had two children already and I didn't have them in New Zealand. I thought that being the governor of the Reserve Bank also, that there was some mutual trust and respect between ourselves."

She had sought an 18-month multiple-entry visa similar to those she had held in the past but was granted only a one-month visa.

What the hell is going on here? Why are we humiliating our friends? And will Immigration blame the victim again?

We simply should not be doing this. It's grossly invasive and humiliating, an insult to the dignity of any person. If we're worried about a handful of foreign mothers giving birth in New Zealand hospitals, then by all means bill them. But this sort of pre-emptive testing is simply vile.

Aquaculture settlement

I'm simply appalled that National is objecting to the aquaculture settlement as "space for race". For those who have forgotten their recent history, aquaculture was left out of the mammoth Fisheries Settlement several years ago as being too hard; today's announcement is an attempt to finally settle it. The settlement is in line with the previous deal, which gave 20% of all new quota to iwi, and nobody loses out. If there aren't enough aquaculture spaces remaining in an area, then the government will either find someone willing to sell, or compensate.

National meanwhile seems to have abandoned the consensus that we should right the wrongs of the past. Since they need the reminding, I'll spell it out: the reason Maori "get it for free" is because we stole it from them. Giving iwi a mere 20% of what they're entitled to seems to be quite a good deal for us. The reason we have a settlements process is because massive injustices were committed in the past, which stripped an entire people of their economic base and relegated them to disposessed poverty in their own country. After Orewa, Don Brash was at pains to recognise this injustice, saying that National would "set right" clear Treaty breaches, and "accelerate and then conclude the process of Treaty settlements". Today's reaction by his fisheries spokesperson show the lie behind that statement. Don Brash clearly has no commitment to righting past wrongs - at least, not when there's votes to be gained by bashing Maori instead.

Thoughts from Status Anxiety: America's pathological meritocracy

If you skipped Status Anxiety tonight, you shouldn't have. Alain de Botton - of Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness fame - is taking a look at one of the major sources of unhappiness in modern society: "status anxiety". This week he used America (and Grover Norquist!) as a stalking horse to look at meritocracy, and how it affects people's views of others, and their happiness.

The basic idea is this: under the Ancien Regime, social mobility was limited - if you were born a peasant, you would in all likelihood die a peasant. This decreased expectations, because your social status was not under your control - and if its not under your control, you're less likely to be unhappy at it not changing. Unhappy at the fact that Marie Antoinette is telling you to eat cake while you're starving, but not unhappy at the idea that you're not a noble living in a fancy castle per se.

Of course, the American and French Revolutions put paid to all that, and now in the West, we generally live in meritocracies. Social status depends less on birth and more on talent. How much more is a question of how cynical you are, but I think most of us would agree that there's at least some correlation (living fossils like the English monarchy notwithstanding). This has led to a rise in expectations - if just anyone (well, anyone with appropriate talent) can be a rockstar or corporate CEO, then why not you? It has also led to a corresponding rise in unhappiness as those expectations are not fulfilled.

Enter America. The United States thinks of itself as the most meritocratic society on earth, where anyone can grow up to be President ("your father doesn't have to be President first, but it helps!") Success is therefore seen as a result of effort, talent and hard work. The flip side of this is that failure is seen as a result of the reverse - of laziness and stupidity - or, as Grover Norquist put it between calling taxation theft and yelling at his office boy, of "choice". In America, the poor have "chosen" to be that way; simple bad luck - illness, your employer going bankrupt, being born in a shit neighbourhood with shit schools to shit parents - doesn't enter into it. As a result, they don't do welfare to any real extent, and the poor lead squalid, desperate lives.

It's an extreme example, and clearly pathological - and it doesn't need to be this way. Other western countries (NZ, for example) manage to be meritocratic, without descending into either a caste-system or the toxic "blame the poor" behaviour as practiced in the US. This is because, unlike the US, we do acknowledge some element of luck, and take steps to correct it. So here in New Zealand we try to ensure that everybody gets a decent start in life - decent healthcare, a good education - so that they have a chance to make the most of their abilities. And we try to ensure that there is a level beneath which you cannot fall, so that even those who then fail (or who fell through the cracks) can try again, or at least have a roof over their heads.

Americans (and ACT weenies) would call that "communism". I call it having some sense of fairness and decency.

The other solution to the problem of meritocracy (and one not mentioned by de Bottan) is self-knowledge. Knowing your strengths and weaknesses, what you can achieve and what you can't, will hopefully lead to a better alignment of expectations with ability, and therefore less unhappiness. Unfortunately, people have a significant capacity for self-delusion (Stephen Pinker thinks its evolutionarily adaptive to believe your own bullshit, at least some of the time), and so at least some of us are doomed to frustration as we chase dreams we can never attain. Such is the human condition, I guess.

De Botton also touched on religion, but apart from some laughing at twisted American churches who believe that worldly success is a sign of divine favour, it was all opium of the people stuff. And as a confirmed abstainer from that memetic drug, I'll leave it for someone who cares.

How much more will it take...

...before the American people figure out that Bush lied them into a war? Saddam's supposed arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons has not been found, and neither have his mobile laboratories or other production facilities. Why not? because they're weren't there - they were all dismantled during the inspection regime after the first Gulf War. And the 9/11 Commission has pretty conclusively debunked the idea of a Saddam - Al Qaeda relationship. The reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq have turned out to be lies, and over 800 US soldiers have died as a result.

If that's not a "high crime and misdemeanor", then what the hell is?

(Actually, we know what is: thinking that it's nobody else's business who you screw. Yeah, great sense of proportion there...)

New Fisk

Iraq, 1917

All the way to the top

The other day the Telegraph claimed that documents would shortly be revealed showing that the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib had been approved at the highest levels of the Bush administration. It seems that the shit has started to hit the fan already. Remember that prisoner who was ordered to be kept off the books and hidden from Red Cross inspectors by Lt General Sanchez? Well, it seems that Sanchez was getting his orders from higher up - specifically, from Donald Rumsfeld.

So, what else did he order then...?

I feel dirty

Having spent the morning slagging off United Future and calling them bigots, I then go and hand them a great wodge of free opposition research with which to beat Rodney Hide. I know the enemy of my enemy is my friend (or at least my useful idiot), but even so...

"Filthy fucking weasels"

That's what The Whig is calling United Future (and myself) for revealing/propagating the fact that ACT's tax policy would result in tax increases for the majority of New Zealanders. Rodney himself denies Gordan Copeland's claims, saying that:

My speeches and my questions in Parliament have all been concerned with the cost and implications of dropping the top rate of income tax including company tax to 20 cents in the dollar. Of course, that is not a flat tax because many people pay less than 20 cents. I have never suggested that their tax rates be boosted as you claim.

So, does this mean Rodney is officially repudiating ACT's goal in its 2002 tax policy of "a flat tax rate of no more than 20%"?

Or the words of former leader Richard Prebble in his post-budget presentation, where he advocated for "a flat tax rate of 20 cents in the dollar for both companies and individuals"? (A demand repeated in The Letter just two weeks ago?)

Or indeed his own words a year ago when you said that "The best tax policy is a low flat tax of 20 cents or less"?

A quick Google of ACT's website on the phrase "ACT flat 20% tax" shows that that has been their consistent policy over many years. Methinks that Rodney is being more than a little disingeuous here. As for The Whig, maybe he should check his facts first before launching into the name-calling.

Update: Meanwhile, The Whig seems to be having some trouble with the meaning of the phrase "flat tax rate". Apparently it's supposed to mean something other than a single rate of income tax (as advocated by Steve Forbes on ACT's website here).

The fact is that ACT has consistently advocated for a single, flat tax rate for years. And yet now, when somebody points out that its actually a tax-hike on the poor, that’s not what they really meant? Pull the other one; it's got bells on.

More on Civil Unions

The Civil Unions thread over on Just Left seems to be ticking along nicely. Meanwhile, Big News has expanded on some of his thoughts. One of his concerns is that both supporters and opponents of change aren't distinguishing between the two bills involved. Partly that's because the media has talked about it as if it was one piece of legislation, and partly it's because opposition has focused on the CU Bill. Just to summarise:

The Legal Recognition of Relationship (Omnibus) Bill will remove unjustified discrimination on the basis of marital status from existing laws, allowing de facto couples to do things like fixing their partner's toaster or visit them in hospital. It does this regardless of the gender of those concerned.

The Civil Unions Bill confers state recognition on partnerships by creating legal "Civil Unions". These unions are gender-blind, able to be accessed by both straight and gay couples, but it is expected that (at least at first) the primary users will be gay couples who cannot presently access the Marriage Act.

The primary purpose of the Civil Unions Bill is to confer status, on the basis that the government should not be formally recognising some couples but not others. Dave rightly asks why that status isn't conferred through same-sex marriage. And I agree - the government should be amending the Marriage Act to make it gender-blind. But, like the government, I don't think that's politically possible at the moment - too many bigots around, some of them with their hands clenched around the government's nads. And in that situation, progressives should grit their teeth, support progress now, and keep on fighting for true equality.

What would that true equality look like? One option is that mentioned above - making the Marriage Act gender-blind, thus allowing same-sex marriage. Another is for the government to abandon the "marriage" word to the religious wackos who think they own it, offer only Civil Unions, and relegate "marriage" to a legally meaningless thing you do in church. This isn't actually that much of a change - the contents of the Marriage Act are already entirely secular - so all it would entail is gender-blinding and a rebranding (or simply a repeal, as we would have the CU Bill). Either option achieves the same results as far as I'm concerned.

"A tax cut for every worker"

United Future has rightly skewered ACT's regressive tax policy, pointing out that a flat income tax of 20% would result in a tax increase for three quarters of New Zealand taxpayers.

So much for ACT's public rhetoric of "a tax cut for every worker". All they care about is reducing the amount payed by their wealthy friends and backers.

So, why did they fight that war again?

US Vice-President Dick Cheney still seems to think that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam was in bed with Osama. Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission disagrees. Their preliminary statement on al-Qaeda says that

We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States.

While al-Qaeda had grovelled at Iraq back in the mid 90's to be allowed to set up training camps, Saddam told them to bugger off - and there was no collaboration post September 11th either.

So, why did the US fight that war again?

Fresh Python

This won't hurt much

Healthy

Five other candidates for a byelection which is pretty much a foregone conclusion. That's a reasonably healthy democracy, I think.

And OTOH, they're all relatively boring candidates. We need some Monster Raving Loonies to liven things up!

Via Just Left: An online petition in support of the Civil Unions Bill:

http://www.petitiononline.com/civil/petition.html

Karpinski fingers Sanchez and Miller

With careers (and pensions) on the line, the serious finger-pointing is beginning, with Brig Gen Janis Karpinski (the commandant of US prisons in Iraq and ultimate commander of the MPs at Abu Ghraib) laying blame for events there at the feet of Generals Sanchez and Miller.

In a radio interview for the BBC, Karpinski said that Lt General Ricardo Sanchez (the commander of US forces in Iraq) "should be asked what he knew about the abuse", and that Maj General Geoffrey Miller (the commander of Guantanamo and new commander of Abu Ghraib) told her to treat detainees like dogs:

She said current Iraqi prisons chief Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller - who was in charge at Guantanamo Bay - visited her in Baghdad and said: "At Guantanamo Bay we learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing that they have."

"He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them."

None of this gets Karpinski off the hook, of course - she is responsible for everything that happened in her command, whether she knew about it or not, and guilty of a gross failure of leadership for allowing torture to occur "on her watch". But what it does tell us is who else ought to be in the dock with her. And it's becoming clear that both these generals are in this up to their necks - Miller for recommending that Abu Ghraib be "Gitmo-ized", and Sanchez for authorising abusive interrogation techniques and ordering that a prisoner be hidden from Red Cross inspectors. So why aren't they being held to account?

Non-denial denials

The headline screams "Rumsfeld says torture not allowed". But when you look at what he said, there's an enormous gap in his words which some journalists really ought to be probing into:

Mr Rumsfeld sought to dispel fears that the US military was regularly using methods of torture.

"There is no wiggle room in the president's mind or my mind about torture," he said.

"That is not something that's permitted under the Geneva Convention or the laws of the United States.

What Rumsfeld wasn't asked - and didn't say - was whether the beating, humiliation and sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or the use of "water-boarding" on "high value" prisoners, counted as "torture". Why not? Because saying so would expose the above as a "non-denial denial", reliant on the same sort of hypertechnical parsing that Clinton once used to deny having sexual relations with that woman.

From the legal opinions we've seen, it's quite clear that the Bush Administration does not regard what it is doing as torture (the pain isn't "severe" enough; there's no permanent harm done; no fingernails are pulled or live electrodes used; its being done by Americans). And if it's not torture, it's not illegal... (yet still shameful enough that they must do it in secret and try and distract people from it with fine-sounding words about how torture is unAmerican...)

So, the next time that Bush or Rumsfeld or Powell or whoever stands up there at a podium and spouts one of these non-denial denials about how torture is illegal under US law, journalists should challenge them. They should be hold up photos from Abu Ghraib, read out descriptions of what is being done to prisoners in US custody, and ask after each one "is this torture," "Would it be torture if it was done to an American"? The answers - or "no comments" - should be revealing...

The final part of Morgue's trip to Palestine is now up.

A moral Chernobyl

Christopher Hitchens calls Abu Ghraib "A moral Chernobyl", and he raises an interesting point: that it's not just a matter of how far up this goes (who gave the orders, who knew, who looked the other way), but of how far down as well. I've been occasionally thinking on similar lines, but in a darker direction. My worst nightmare is that the American people will look at Abu Ghraib, see the horrors their government has wraught, and go "so"? And if they do, the idea that the US is a beacon of liberty and human rights will truly be dead...

Thoughts on Bullshit, Backlash, & Bleeding Hearts

As I mentioned a few days ago, I was sent a copy of this book. So, what did I think of it?

Well, it's good. Like the original Treaty quiz, Bullshit, Backlash, & Bleeding Hearts aims to introduce some facts into the debates surrounding race relations and the role of the Treaty in this country. It succeeds admirably. It has a good quickie guide to how we came to get to where we are today - the history surrounding the Treaty and the subsequent breaches and injustices on the part of the crown, to our more recent attempts at remedying the situation - as well as deflating some of the more common myths surrounding current policies. "Undefined" treaty principles? Been defined since 1989. A "Maori veto" on development? A right to be consulted (the same right that everybody else has, to boot) is simply the right to try and make your case, not a veto. A "Treaty gravy train"? The government has spent about 0.1 percent of its spending over the past five years on the settlement process, and Maori are getting back a fraction of what was unjustly taken from them - some gravy train.

There's a few sticks poked in the other direction, but they're more in line of solutions to current problems than deflating myths. Rather than relying on boilerplate references to Treaty principles in legislation, we should instead analyse the issue, figure out how the Treaty applies in this particular area, and write specific clauses to suit (as was done in the Local Government Act). And rather than thinking about the Treaty as a one race, one vote "partnership", we should think about it in slightly weaker terms, as a co-operative venture. The metaphor here is that it's like moving a couch - you're setting out to do something together, and you have to take care of one another on the way. The good thing about this view is that it has a place for more recent immigrants as well - because everyone that lives here is part of the New Zealand project.

(I've generally interpreted "partnership" as meaning that Maori must be equal participants in our society, rather than being relegated to its fringes and ignored...)

So, will it actually do any good? Depends if anyone reads it, I guess. Unfortunately, the very people who need it most seem to think that you're a "conceited dickhead" for thinking that basing your views on facts rather than bullshit might be useful (a view they quickly discard when they want to push Greenhouse denial). But Michael King's History of New Zealand (which presents much of the same information on racial injustice, only in more detail) seems to have taken off in a big way, so maybe this will too.

The untermenchen are getting uppity

The Iraqi interim government is demanding that US military contractors be subject to Iraqi law. The US is not impressed. Untermenchen, demanding to be able to sit in judgement over Americans! Next they'll be wanting to actually run their own country or something!

Update: Spelling corrected on the advice of Running Blog Capitalist. Those similarly outraged by my choice of language should check out this article from the Telegraph a few months ago, in which a British army officer accuses the US of casual racism and viewing the Iraqis as untermenchen:

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful."

I knew I should have put in a link.

The torture memo

The full text of the "torture memo", where US government lawyers argue that the President is not bound by either Congress or the Constitution, is available here.

BTW, anybody else think Bush's response to this just doesn't stack up? When asked about it, he says things like "we act according to the law" - but the whole point of this memo is to weasel ways to say that torture is legal. Unfortunately, no one in the US media has actually had the balls to fire back with "so does that mean you torture people, or that you don't?"

(It's also amusing to see Bush - the man who pledged to "restore honour to the White House" - engaging in the same sort of hypertechnical parsing that he criticised Clinton for. But maybe it's just a matter of proportion. After all, Clinton was screwing an intern! He was having sex in the oval office! How can a little thing like torture even begin to compare to a crime like that...?)

Update: Looks like I was wrong: during a press conference at the G8, the BBC did have the balls to ask Bush the obvious question. Unfortunately, his answer was just more of the same:

QUESTION: Mr. President, I wanted to return to the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that U.S. officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law.

So when you say that you want the U.S. to adhere to international and U.S. laws, that's not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified?

BUSH: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. Maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.

We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws. And that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions from me to the government.

Well, it might provide comfort if Bush would actually say something so simple as "torture is wrong" or "lawyers can argue that anything is legal, but at some stage you have to draw a line", rather than engaging in all this dodging around the point. It's not as if he hasn't been given the opportunity...

Part 7 of Morgue's trip to Palestine is now up.

A minor victory on the Identities Bill

The government has backed away from removing the automatic right of citizenship by being born here in the new Identities Bill, but it's still far from perfect. The chief problem - and the one I did my nut about when the bill was first floated - is that the government can take your passport off you and forbid you from travelling "where national security is threatened". While this has been tightened up considerably, with the introduction of a time-limit and rights of appeal to the High Court, it still is not enough. The balance is still tilted too far in favour of the government; the default is that you lose your passport until you successfully appeal (assuming you can afford to). This flies in the face of the presumption of innocence, one of the pillars of our whole legal system. Furthermore, it will allow unscrupulous Ministers to abuse the system, relying on the expense or length of the appeals process to effectively bar people from travelling overseas for specific events (my obvious fear here is the targeting of those wanting to attend international protests or conferences, where NZ participation may be embarrassing to the government-of-the-day). Unless it shifts the balance so that the government must go to court and prove its case before being allowed to forbid travel (surely a requirement in a free and open society?), or an automatic, cost-paid, expedited appeal (which amounts to the same thing), this move should be opposed.

The bill also tightens up the requirements for moving from residency to citizenship - a move which seems to be driven mainly by mean-spiritedness and a desire to pander to Australian fears about people using us as a "backdoor" to their country. This goes against our long tradition of being a generous, open and welcoming nation, and it should likewise be opposed.

So, while there's been a minor victory on this bill, there's still a lot of fighting to be done.

Civil Unions

Just Left asks about Civil Unions. Where do we all stand?

To be blunt, I don't think it goes far enough. As a matter of basic equality, gays are entitled to have their relationships recognised by the state. The way we currently do this is through marriage. The government should go the whole way and amend the Marriage Act, not try and implement some "separate but equal" status to keep gays in the ghetto.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's politically achievable at this time. And Civil Unions are certainly a progressive step - granting everything but the name. In a country with strong anti-discrimination legislation like ours, that may not be so bad. So I'll support the bill as a progressive step, while continuing to push for full equality.

"But what about the children?", you ask? Well, what about them? Contrary to the assertions of people like the Maxim Institute, state involvement in marriage is not about children. We inherited our marriage laws from Britain, and their original reason for getting involved was to prevent the "perils of clandestinity" - i.e. bigamy. We have state involvement to provide a register - so we know who is married and who is not - and standards - so other people cannot say that you are not married because the ceremony wasn't conducted according to their peculiar religious tradition (the latter being the primary reason for the British introduction of civil marriage in 1836). It's really the same reason for government involvement in land titles - to provide clarity and enforceability.

I think the above sort of framework is perfectly justifiable in a liberal society, provided it is done on a non-discriminatory basis. And that's where our current legislation falls down. We allow heterosexual couples to marry, but not gays. This should be corrected.

Check out those Panther Moderns!

OK, it's not a Panther Modern suit, but its close: Japanese scientists have invented an "invisibility cloak". It's essentially a giant array of pixels and a few cameras; the view from the cameras is projected on the opposite side of the cloak, so you blend into the background.

Obviously, the military is very interested.

According to David Farrar, I was the second most prolific Kiwi blogger last month. The most prolific being NZPundit, of course.

Ah well, it's not as if I needed a life anyway...

Energy: why Lomu won't save us

If you've been paying attention to the news, or my occasional posts on energy policy, you'll know that the biggest medium-term problem we face in that area is Maui running out. In a year or two, the last few GigaJoules will be extracted, and we'll have to rely on other sources. Unfortunately, because Maui gas was so ridiculously cheap, it discouraged exploration, so we don't have many other sources. We're already seeing the consequences of this - Methanex (the people who turn natural gas into fertiliser and industrial chemicals) have been bid out of the market, and electricity prices are already rising in anticipation of the generators having to pay more for the gas they burn.

But according to the Sunday Star-Times, there's some hope: explorers in the Great South Basin (the area around Stewart Island) are chasing some pretty good prospects - including "a prospect potentially so big it has been named Lomu". They're also paying a lot of attention to the "Toroa" prospect, which is estimated to hold twice as much gas as Maui.

This is great, except for one small problem: it's all in the wrong place. Our gas power plants, and gas infrastructure, is all in the North Island. And because there's no gas or gas infrastructure in the South Island (no, the "landfill gas" system in Christchurch doesn't count), there's not much of a market for it there.

So, we either have to move the gas to a market, or move the market to the gas. Either is likely to be expensive.

Moving the gas to the market will mean shipping it around in LNG tankers. This apparently adds a substantial amount to the cost (almost doubling it, according to one estimate I've seen), but allows us to use our existing gas and electricity infrastructure. The fields being explored are all a fair way offshore anyway, and so tankers may be cheaper than an undersea pipeline. And once the stuff is on a boat, it doesn't matter so much how far it goes.

Moving the market to the gas is a much bigger prospect. This would involve building a pipeline infrastructure and powerplants in the South Island. It would also involve having to seriously upgrade the national grid (particularly the Cook Strait Cable), and shift the generation balance even further in favour of the South. OTOH, think of the jobs! Invercargill would become a gas boomtown (so I guess they'd be in favour of it).

But I'm foolishly talking as if we actually have a decision here. We don't. We've devolved power in this area to the market, which means that it's really up to people like Genesis, Contact, NGC and Methenx. And this means that we have a problem, because either option involves enormous upfront capital investment (the latter far more than the former), without which nothing at all will happen. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and if they don't solve it, we all lose.

Worse, even if we do solve the infrastructure problem, Lomu won't save us anyway. Either way, we'll be paying more for gas and electricity, whether because of transport or infrastructure costs. This applies no matter how much gas we find in the South Island. The only way we can escape our medium-term energy problem is by finding more gas in the North Island - and I haven't heard much good news on that front. While there are areas worth exploring off Northland and the Wairarapa, I haven't heard of anybody looking there. If it is planning to offer incentives for oil and gas exploration (as mentioned in several post-budget speeches), then the government must ensure that that exploration happens in these areas, where the gas can actually be used, rather than at the arse-end of the South Island.

Wow

A house in Auckland got hit by a rock. Just a small one, though, so there's only a big hole in the roof and some damage inside, rather than a smoking crater.

I'm surprised that the insurance company is paying for the damage; if a falling meteorite doesn't count as an "act of god", then what does?

The consolations of philosophy

I've been watching Alain de Bottan's Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness on Saturday mornings for the past month, and lamenting the fact that it doesn't have a better time slot. It's excellent TV - educational, witty, and encourages you to think - but condemned to obscurity becase of its timing (after Willie Jackson, for Christ's sake!)

Now I see that TV One is showing his other series, Status Anxiety, during primetime on Thursday nights, and I'm eagerly anticipating it. I should also read the book some time, but my reading list just gets longer and longer...

As for Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness, it's been interesting viewing. De Bottan focuses on philosophers that aren't normally a part of the traditional academic curriculum, mainly because he's interested in people that give actual, useful advice about the practicalities of how to lead a relatively happy and fulfilling life. Anyone who's stdied philosophy at university will know that this isn't what you look at - instead, it's all about epistemology, the study of language, general theories of ethics or how the mind works. Academic philosophers simply aren't interested in something so mundane as practical advice on being happy - that's the domain of (sneer) self-help manuals, not a respectable subject for academic inquiry.

Which is interesting, because Socrates was the original self-help writer (though he never wrote anything down, and his advice can be boiled down to "start thinking"). His core question was about "how we ought to live" - and not just in the sense of how to lead an ethical life, but also how to lead a happy one. But somewhere along the way, philosophers have decided that that question just isn't very interesting (or nowdays, that you can't publish any papers on it), and so have wandered off to ask about other things instead.

Not that I'm really complaining, because I think that questions of political theory, logic and ethics really are more interesting anyway. Or at least, certainly require a little more thought. One thing that you really notice about the people Bottan talks about is that most of the time they're reminding us of what we already know. Montaigne said that happiness is about being comfortable with yourself. Seneca said that unhappiness (and anger in particular) was a matter of frustrated expectations. And Epicurus said that friends are more important than money. This is pretty much folk wisdom, stuff your mother tells you when you're four, and the fact that we need books or TV shows to remind us of it simply shows how fucked up most of us are.

Blogging pays off

David Slack has sent me a copy of Bullshit, Backlash and Bleeding Hearts. I'll knock it off over the weekend and hopefully post something about it when I'm done.

Equality, one state at a time...

Having won in Massachusetts, the battle over gay marriage has now moved to New York...

Bring on the dancing Cossacks

National is accusing the government of "Communism by stealth" because its "working for families" package significantly reduces income gaps between families.

They look at two families, both single income, two kids, one on $38,000 and one on $60,000. After accounting for income tax and government transfers, the first family's net income is $42,860. The second family gets $45,236. The difference is only ~$2500! Communism!

Of course, that small difference does not result because the government is penalising the higher income family (or, for tax-haters, it is not "penalising" them any more than they are now); the difference results because, essentially, one family gets assistance, and the other does not. The higher income family is basically paying tax but receiving no direct income support, while the lower income family is effectively getting all its tax back, plus a some extra on top.

In other words, National's core problem with the scheme is that it is so generous. Generous to the extent that some families are getting almost $200 a week extra in the hand from the government.

This generousity may very well cause people to value time spent with their children higher than the marginal returns of working an extra hour, but so what? We work to live; we don't live to work. The fact that we now need effectively two incomes to support a family where we previously needed only one has been a very real (but mostly invisible) impoverishment of New Zealanders, and this will go some way towards correcting it, at least for some people.

But National is right - the incentives set by this scheme will have an effect on the economy. The labour force will shrink, as people with children decide not to work part time or work that extra hour. But this simply means more work for the rest of us. There is still plenty of underemployment in this country - people who would like to work longer hours - and I'm sure the 93,000 people on the dole wouldn't mind filling in a bit here and there. And the fact that they should be able to get higher wages as the labour market tightens is not going to hurt one iota.

Hmmm... more people being able to spend more time doing the things they enjoy rather than working, more opportunities for the unemployed to move into work, and upward pressure on lower-end wages. If this is "communism", then bring on the dancing Cossacks!

Update: Added link to table. That'll teach me not to read the Herald the whole way through before posting.

Charter TV

I watched "State of the Nation" tonight, and was struck by how ambitious it was. The old, corporate TVNZ would never have tried something as risky as sticking a hundred people in a room for two hours and letting them talk. This was clearly Charter TV.

But did it work? Well, it was interesting seeing our national conversation on the Treaty, race relations and foreshore on the TV, and the informational segments were both humourous and informative. At the same time, people didn't actually seem to talk much, and they talked primarily to the camera rather than to each other. Which, I guess, is why nobody had changed their minds at the end. Why would they? Rather than a conversation, they'd seen a collection of (only vaguely linked) positions and questions.

And on the other hand, it may have been successful in getting people to talk (or at least think) about some of the issues, and in getting some facts into the arena. But I guess we'll never really know (unless David Slack's book sales spike enormously).

I was impressed that it managed to remain so civil for most of the time, even though there were some ugly views expressed. The ugliest by far, BTW, was the older Pakeha woman who was upset about Maori "returning to the province" after having been all but completely evicted. While she was factually incorrect, just think about what she was saying: "we'd ethnicly clensed them, and they had the gall to come back!" Even when its based on falsehood, that's a very, very ugly worldview. The traditional slanging over cannibalism pales in comparison.

Finally: TVNZ should sack their stats mook. The analysis of their phone poll was so lacking that the only thing you could tell was that most callers were Pakeha. They should have compared down, not across...

A question

Was Winston too drunk to watch TV during the 80's? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for him thinking that Anita McNaught is a "foreigner"...

A manifesto for liberal internationalists

Timothy Garton Ash has what is effectively a manifesto for liberal internationalists in the Guardian today: Beyond the West. The central question is "what duty do we in the free world (the West) owe those in the unfree world?" His answer is "freedom" - primarily freedom from want and freedom from fear. As for how we should meet this obligation, he suggests practicising what we preach on free trade by ending unfair trade barriers and subsidies, increasing foreign aid and private charity, strengthening governments to avoid "failed states", promoting universal human rights, and working to undermine regimes which fail to protect them.

Lest this remind people too much of the crusading Tony Blair, there's also a healthy dose of humility thrown in there as well - both about our right to impose solutions, and our effectiveness in doing so. The aim should be to help people to "find their own path to freedom, in their own countries, in their own time and, wherever possible, peacefully", rather than knock over a country and try to free people by killing them. We should provide the tools (advice on establishing a constitution and a working government, based on our own formative experiences) and the pressure on regimes to change (by for example linking trade and investment to human rights), "but then it's up to them". This is both realistic - democracies don't grow overnight, but rely on a vast cultural infrastructure which is mostly invisible to those of us who actually live in them - and respects people's freedom to choose the form of government best suited to their particular needs.

Still busy

As you can tell from this morning's post, I'm still busy thinking about my essay. But it should be done by tonight, and normal service will resume shortly. In the meantime, check out The Grey Shade, who has some interesting things to say both about government spending and the "precautionary principle".

Sheep and trousers

People objecting to the hoax butchering of Shrek the sheep on Eating Media Lunch on the grounds that "it's animal cruelty"? Talk about not getting it!

EML's whole point was to draw attention to the dichotomy between our love of Shrek and our everyday slaughter of other members of his species. "Look! Cute fluffy animals, cute fluffy animals, cat getting stuck on a fan, cute fluffy animals, sheep being slaughtered. Lamb for dinner, anyone"?

On the one hand, saying that the sheep was the famous Shrek was an attempt to create empathy with a "trousers moment". For those who don't understand the reference, in his essay "Looking Back On The Spanish War", George Orwell describes not shooting at a man who was

half-dressed and was holding up his trousers with both hands as he ran. I refrained from shooting at him. ... I did not shoot partly because of that detail about the trousers. I had come here to shoot at 'Fascists'; but a man who is holding up his trousers isn't a 'Fascist', he is visibly a fellow-creature, similar to yourself, and you don't feel like shooting at him.

The media circus surrounding Shrek has caused many people to think of him as "a fellow creature". The thought of him being slaughtered and eaten upsets us (and not just on economic grounds). But if Shrek, why not other sheep?

And on the other hand, it was also saying "it's just a sheep, goddamit!" Shrek is ultimately "just a sheep", and that is what happens to sheep. So why all the fuss about him?

Either way, it was an artful skewering of common assumption, and a great example of why I like EML.

Build the other dam

The loonies are now trying to exploit the fading electricity transmission crisis to ram through the Dobson hydro scheme, saying that it will provide electricity from the "perpetually renewable and entirely free energy source provided by the high rainfall on the West Coast".

This is true. However, it's in the middle of a conservation area, and that fairly much rules it out. The whole point of a conservation area is to conserve, not to dig it up whenever it is convenient.

But more importantly, the advocates of development are trying to build the wrong dam. Dobson would flow into the West Coast's local grid - but its not the West Coast which seriously needs local generation; it's Nelson/Marlborough. And there's a planned hydro scheme which will provide that local generation, just about to start the RMA process.

Trustpower's Wairau Valley scheme is a dog technologically. It's a "mini-Aqua", a canal-diversion with multiple small power plants and next to no storage capacity, so its really missing the whole point of hydro. However, unlike Dobson, it's not in the middle of the conservation estate, and unlike Aqua, it's actually popular with the locals. Both of which mean that there are likely to be far fewer problems with actually building the thing.

So, why are National, Greypower, industry and United Future advocating so strongly for environmentally destructive development which doesn't actually serve our needs when there's a popular option which does which can be built with far less hassle just sitting there? Beats me.

Stupid, stupid, stupid

As one of his final acts in office, US viceroy Paul Bremer has excluded Moqtada Sadr and his followers from standing for elections or holding office for three years. Which means that they have absolutely no reason to lay down their guns.

Juan Cole expands nicely on that latter point:

Bremer's action in excluding the Sadrists from parliament is one final piece of stupidity to cap all the other moronic things he has done in Iraq. The whole beauty of parliamentary governance is that it can hope to draw off the energies of groups like the Sadrists. Look at how parliamentary bargaining moderated the Shiite AMAL party in Lebanon, which had a phase as a terrorist group in the 1980s but gradually outgrew it. AMAL is now a pillar of the Lebanese establishment and a big supporter of a separation of religion and state. The only hope for dealing with the Sadrists nonviolently was to entice them into civil politics, as well. Now that they have been excluded from the political process and made outlaws in the near to medium term, we may expect them to act like outlaws and to be spoilers in the new Iraq.

Hopefully the interim government will be smart enough to overturn this moronic decision. It's both a matter of standing up for the right of Iraqis to choose their own government (rather than having the Americans try to limit its scope from the beginning), and a matter of self-preservation. The Sadrists are a relatively popular and well-armed faction, and excluding their leaders from peaceful politics hands them a legitimate justification for violence.

Good news for a change

The Italians last night captured the mastermind behind the Madrid atrocity, and the Belgians rounded up a cell actively plotting terrorist attacks. And how did they do it? Not by overwhelming military force, not by invading a small country and bombing it back to the stone age, and not by torture - but by good, old-fashioned law-enforcement techniques.

If you see the fight against terrorism as part of a "war of civilisations", then nothing shows the superiority of western democracy better than this. Terrorists are criminals, and they're going to be treated as such. And in the process, we won't be creating any new Osamas (or at least, it is vastly less likely). Maybe the Americans could learn something here...?

Victory to the Iraqis

The US will get their resolution, but the Iraqi government will get to be consulted over major military operations, and can tell the Coalition to bugger off.

A victory for the Iraqis, I think - and all made possible because the international community stood up for them against their occupiers.

You can read the latest draft resolution here.

Busy

Bloggage will probably be light for the next few days, as I try and get words out of my head and onto paper for an assignment.

Shocking familiarity

A small part of the BBC's D-Day docudrama (on Prime on Sunday night) covered on the story of a British commando who was captured while scouting beach defences before the invasion. And there was a shocking moment of familiarity, when they showed him in his cell, tied naked in what the US would now call a "stress position"...

Where it leads

A story I missed a few weeks ago shows both the ultimate destination of the Bush administration's doctrine of unfettered executive power, and the unintentional humour of tyranny:

A former Russian intelligence agent who attempted to investigate possible government involvement in a series of deadly apartment bombings was sentenced Wednesday to four years in prison on a charge of revealing state secrets.

Darkly funny, but also blatant. And the rest of the article is simply scary - disappearing evidence, politicised prosecutions, and some rather convenient "coincidental" murders. All seemingly performed by an executive which thinks itself above the law.

Princeps legibus solutus est

The Pentagon just keeps on leaking. The latest is classified legal advice to Donald Rumsfeld contending that

The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued. Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no "moral choice was in fact possible."

What's striking is the degree to which this mirrors the Nazi "defence" for Crimes Against Humanity at Nuremberg. The Fuhrer gave the orders, and the generals had "no choice" but to implement them. The Nuremberg Tribunal took a very dim view of this argument. Out of 22 defendants using it, only 3 were acquitted; 12 were hanged. All the Nuremberg defence does is tell us who else should also be in the dock.

What's also striking is that it shows us exactly how far the US has sunk. The United States was originally conceived as "a government of laws, not men". Yet now they have government lawyers arguing that

In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority

and

authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

This strikes at the very core of freedom. If the President's Men can do whatever they like, with no laws applying, then no-one is safe. There's a reason why western democracies say that the rule of law is supreme and that not even the government is immune: because immunity encourages abuse. It makes us reliant on the goodwill of the powerful, and we have sufficient knowledge of humanity's flaws to know that that is simply not enough. While law cannot by itself prevent abuses (the US's quite clear laws against torture and Crimes Against Humanity did not prevent Abu Ghraib), it can discourage them, and at least allows punishment after the fact.

It also shows the vital importance of the Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi cases, currently before the US Supreme Court. The administration's arguments in those cases rely on the same doctrine of unfettered executive power, and now we know exactly where it leads. If the Supreme Court decides for the government in the Padilla/Hamdi case, then liberty will be dead in America.

(Interestingly, during the oral hearings one of the Justices asked whether that doctrine permitted torture; the administration's response was, essentially, "our government doesn't do that sort of thing". Two days later, the photos hit the papers...)

A GE project the Greens should support

Genetically modifying crops to make petrol

While it's not a solution to our dependance on finite fossil fuels (short version: not enough land area), it's still a good idea. And the CO2 released when the fuel is burned comes from the atmosphere in the first place, so it's greenhouse-neutral into the bargain.

And OTOH we already have the technology to ferment crops into alcohol to run cars; it's a substantial contributer to Brazil's fuel supply. The problem is not lack of technology, but that it is (as yet) uneconomic to adopt it.

David Slack's book, Bullshit, Backlash and Bleeding Hearts, is due out on Tuesday.

And meanwhile I'm condemned to wade through ancient Treasury documents and stuff by Jane Kelsey...

Bishop a bigot, film at eleven

I'm struggling to find anything intersting to say about Bishop Vercoe's bigotry. Really - a Bishop said homosexuality is "unnatural". Why is that surprising?

OTOH, trying to excuse the comments as the product of "a cultural context" is fairly stupid. Sociologically, everything has a "cultural context" - even US torture at Abu Ghraib. But that simply provides understanding, not exculpation.

And on the third hand, it does provide an excuse to quote Lyndon Hood on the idea of government legislating for Biblical morality and "family values":

the further the goals of government get from the material wellbeing of its people, the closer it gets to the gas chambers. Trying to make people behave according to particular moral standards is the spiritual equivalent of making the Trains Run on Time

Better just to stop people from physically hurting one another and leave things such as family structure or sexual preference to the memetic marketplace where it belongs.

Calling a spade a spade

A report by the UN's Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights has for the first time called a spade a spade and accused the US of committing war crimes in Iraq.

The report lays the charge in relation to two areas: the "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of prisoners, and the detention of family members and destruction of the homes of suspected insurgents. And it is quite mild, saying merely that "the above-described acts might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal".

No shit, Sherlock.

No doubt the American bloggers will be screaming at this, but the report overall seems quite fair. It emphasises the good intentions of Coalition forces, and acknowledges that the US is taking steps to prosecute those involved. It is more aimed at ensuring that such crimes never happen again, "addressing the legacy of brutal authoritarian rule", and establishing a proper human rights framework for Iraq, than with specifically calling the US to account. And there's plenty of caveats like this:

At the same time, it has to be recognized that the Iraqi people have been relieved of the massive, systematic and institutionalized violations of human rights that took place under the preceding regime, and that they now have the prospect of arranging for their own democratic governance under the rule of law and in the spirit of international human rights norms.

So, really, I don't think the US has anything to complain about.

Those who are interested can read the full report here:

Report of the High Commissioner : The Present Situation of Human Rights in Iraq [Advance unedited version]

Guess I need to make another job-ad

First, the Director of Central Intelligence.

Then, his Deputy Director of Operations.

Who's next? And do their resignations have anything to do with this?

Shouldn't I be doing something else?

As preparation for another assignment, I'm considering the ways in which Labour has retreated from the 80's and 90's "reforms" since being elected. Not economicly, but with regard to the organisation and management of the public service.

A few of the examples I can think of:

• (Re)-amalgamation: in the 80's and 90's we were very keen on single-purpose organisations, and on separating policy advice from service delivery. And so we split everything up. Labour has reversed this - recombining WINZ and the old social policy ministry into the Ministry of Social Development, reuniting Ministry of Health and the Health Funding Authority, and combining several related ministries into the Ministry of Economic Development.
• Bringing SOEs back under control: The SOE model was supposed to keep state-operated businesses at arm's-length from the government to prevent political interference. But this may have gone too far, and resulted in both a loss of capability and in SOE's acting contrary to the purpose for which they're constituted. An example of the first is the electricity industry - corporatisation has allowed long-term planning for New Zealand's energy needs to fall through the cracks, meaning that our electricity market does not guarantee security of supply or even of delivery - hence the Electricity Commission. An example of the latter is the TVNZ Charter, designed to turn TVNZ back into a state broadcaster rather than a bunch of corporate whores.
• Capacity building: It became apparent in the late 90's that the emphasis on "outputs" and "key result areas" was leading to management by checklist. This resulted in a long-term loss of capability in the public service - stuff that wasn't on the checklist simply didn't get done, and staff and units that weren't immediately and obviously useful were dumped. It also led to a "silo mentality" among managers - they looked only at their narrow function (as defined by their checklists), and anything else wasn't their job. This led to the debacle of the 1999 election, when the Department of the Courts refused to make its staff available to assist, despite it being one of their responsibilities in the past.

  Labour has made a lot of noise about "rebuilding the public service", and has thrown money at "capacity building": funding some things simply so they exist. They've also encouraged a "whole of government approach" (a fancy word for what Sesame Street called "co-operation") to ensure that messes like the 1999 election never happen again.

• Restoring the public service ethos: Once upon a time, public servants were actually public servants: anonymous politically neutral professionals who were there to serve the public rather than themselves. The "reforms" undermined that traditional public service ethic and replaced it with corporate values. Selfishness, short-term thinking and corporate excess became common. And so we got Christine Rankin, golden handshakes, and excessive "team building" exercises at exclusive hideaways.

  Labour has tried to stamp this out and restore proper public service values. They ditched Rankin, convened a "State Sector Standards board" to examine the question, directed departments and Crown Entities to end excessive management payouts, and had the State Services Commissioner lay down the law. And it seems to be working. OTOH, this sort of thing takes a generation to rebuild, whereas it takes only a few quick years to destroy.

If anybody has any other good examples, I'd love to hear them.

Risky

The Greens have decided not to stand any electorate candidates next election.

It's a risky strategy, but one that makes clear the stakes. If you want a solid Green voice in Parliament, you'll have to give them your party vote.

There's also the question of whether electorate candidates are a worthwhile expenditure of resources for a small party anyway. The Greens have only ever won one electorate seat - Coromandel - and they lost it soon afterwards (and to National, at that). Fighting locally costs money for little obvious return, and may split votes from allied candidates (though MMP complicates this). And OTOH, contesting a few well-chosen electorates may be worthwhile, and could raise the party's profile.

It's an icky problem, one that ACT has been wrestling with as well, and I guess we won't know whether the gambit pays off until election night.

The more interesting news is that the Greens may finally be accepting that they've lost on GE, and are willing to cut a deal with Labour in the future. Maybe the threat of Don Brash sharpened their minds a bit...

Help Wanted

Why we have public services

Further to the below, Jordan Carter has a good post on the subject of "what % of GDP should we spend?", which lays out the consequences of shrinking relative government spending. The overall conclusion?

There is a really clear link and a really obvious point to be made: you get what you pay for. If people want a lower tax ratio, then they will have to accept one of two things:

* poorer quality public services; or
* privatisation of some public services.

There are no two ways around it, and it is on this ground that the next election will be fought.

Obviously, I'm for decent, well-funded public services. As I point out in this post, generous public services are neccessary for people's freedom to be meaningful. If we want everyone to be able to pursue their individual vision of the good, then we have to insulate them from risk - the risks of being born poor, falling ill, or being crippled in an accident, for example. And we do this by providing publicly funded health, education and welfare systems. That way, everyone gets a decent start in life, and there is a certain level beneath which you cannot fall. It's called giving people a "fair go" - something which this country is renowned for.

Those who want to shrink public services do not want to give everyone a fair go. And that is why we should oppose them.

"Land of the free"

A university student mounted a protest outside a US Armed Forces Recruiting Centre in Boston, dressed as a hooded Iraqi prisoner and standing on a box... and got arrested. The charge? Making a hoax bomb threat. People might have thought he was a terrorist, you see.

Yet another example of the way the "war on terror" is undermining the very freedoms it is supposedly being fought to protect.

Update: Boston IndyMedia seems to have died under the load after being linked by Kos. I've mirrored the photo, and the stories are cached here and here.

Demanding a say

The new Iraqi government is demanding a say on the UN resolution which will legally end the occupation.

This will probably weaken the US/UK position even further. The occupation and handover are supposed to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people - so if the Iraqi representatives are not happy with the new resolution, it's a good reason for other Security Council members to vote "no".

Needless to say, I find this vastly amusing...

Old chestnuts and hard questions

David Farrar trots out the old chestnut of "tax-cuts equals higher government revenue" to defend a shrinking of government. Sigh. As I said to KiwiPundit months ago, you can prove anything with the miracle of compound interest. Meanwhile, in the comments, Jordan Carter asks the hard question: what would David cut or privatise? Tertiary education? Schools? Hospitals? Superannuation? Or benefits?

At the moment, core government spending (excluding SOE activities) is around 32% of GDP - and it's not enough to provide the public services that we want. Reducing it to 20%, as David advocates, will require not just cuts, but the elimination of some or all of these services. A gradual reduction, by refusing to grow the tax base with the economy, will result in a death by neglect and starvation rather than an active killing off of government services - but it will be a death just the same.

Now, the right can argue till the cows come home that providing health, education and welfare is not the proper role of government, and that these services should be provided by the private sector for private profit, but it's fairly clear the electorate doesn't agree. The social consensus in New Zealand is that these are core functions of government, and that a government that fails to adequetely provide in these areas is a failure. New Zealanders do not want a nightwatchman state; we want one that actually does something.

Charming

It's fairly clear from his post that NZPundit is in favour of being allowed to beat his children. But that's not the only thing he's in favour of:

Frankly I think there's a few adult women who could do with a decent husband administered spanking when they let their irrationality and emotionalism run amok, although I appreciate I'm probably in a minority on that concession to societal improvement.

Yes, he's in favour of wife-beating as well. Charming.

False hope

The Herald has done a poll showing that a majority of New Zealanders would favour relaxing our ban on nuclear propulsion and replacing it with a "Danish"-style policy. Russell Brown raises an interesting point though - National is misrepresenting the Danish situation entirely. Nuclear-powered vessels don't visit Danish waters because the Americans are politely bowing to Danish wishes; they don't visit because the Americans are unwilling to turn over design information which would allow the Danes to assess whether the visit was safe.

But more importantly, even a policy ban represents a false hope, because nuclear propulsion is not the real issue. The Americans have always been free to send a conventionally powered warship to visit New Zealand; the reason they haven't is because of the requirement under the law that the Prime Minister be satisfied that the vessel is not carrying nuclear weapons. In the 80's they had their "neither confirm or deny policy" - they couldn't tell us if we asked because that would compromise security. What National is sweeping under the carpet is that, despite Bush I's end-of-Cold-War announcement that tactical nuclear weapons would no longer be deployed on US vessels, the policy remains in place. Which is why we haven't had any visits since 1991 - all New Zealand Prime Ministers have taken the law as saying that they should at least ask, and to the US, asking is a problem.

Which suggests that the ban on propulsion won't be the only thing to change with National. If they want any US vessel to visit, they'll have to do one of either two things: accept "neither-confirm-nor-deny", rather than treating it with the contempt it deserves, or adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Either would make a mockery both of the law and our status as a nation.

Premature handover

Well, that's interesting. After forcing the UN to pick their candidate for both Prime Minister and President, the IGC promptly turned power over to the intirim government and dissolved itself. The "handover" has effectively happened four weeks early, making the diplomatic dance at the UN fairly academic. By making this move for themselves, the Iraqis have signalled that they will decide their relationship with the occupiers - not the UN, and not the US. And to kick things off, they're already demanding real power in their own country.

Somehow, I feel that this isn't quite what the Americans had in mind. The Independent is calling it "the day the stooges bit back", and it seems appropriate...

As for how much they can bite, it's an interesting question. 138,000 trigger-happy soldiers gives the US a practical veto on the interim government's activities. But OTOH, overthrowing the regime they've worked so hard to install would destroy what few shreds of credibility they have left. This gives the interim government a very long leash, and we'll probably see quite a bit of independence from them - maybe even the reversal of the US's economic "reforms" (designed to benefit American investors) and the cancellation of some of the more egregiously exploitative reconstruction contracts (ditto).

Here's another thought: having smashed the country into rubble and spent the reconstruction money on mercenaries and sweetheart deals for American companies, will the US now see this as an opportunity to walk away financially? "The occupation is officially over, so you're on your own"? It will be interesting to see if they live up to their obligations in Iraq - or abandon them.

Stating the obvious

Otago University researchers have discovered that beating your children is bad for them:

Smacking young children not only causes anti-social behaviour, but impairs academic achievement, according to a research review from Otago University.

Physical punishment of children has often been cited by children's rights advocates as a catalyst for bad behaviour in later life.

But the new study, from the university's Children's Issues Centre, said smacking was also associated with poor academic achievement, low IQ, inferior performance in standard tests and poor adjustment to the school environment.

Researchers surveyed more than 300 peer-reviewed articles, published at home and abroad in their investigation.

The Greens are right: This is a vindication those who have campaigned for the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. The government should take the opportunity to admit its mistake and change the law. Sadly, though, they're not doing it.

Meanwhile, I can hear the conservative family-values crowd screaming from here. And they're going through the usual checklist they follow whenever they want to deny inconvenient facts. NZPundit is already starting the "not peer-reviewed" line (which shows that he understands neither peer-review, the academic process in general, or the idea of a literature-survey), and Christian Heritage has "questioned its quality" on the basis that someone, somewhere, once said that smacking might not be bad. Can an allegation of communism be far behind?

What's next?

One of the hallmarks of the Labour government is that they have been mean - or as they like to say, "prudent" - with government spending. They've run large nominal surpluses every year, and funnelled excess cash primarily into debt repayment and the superannuation scheme. While this hasn't given them many big policy announcements (the "working for families" package is the biggest single project so far), they have delivered significant affordable progress in many areas. But a side-effect of this is that, having put so much into the social dividend this budget, the government's hands are effectively tied for the next few years (at least if they want to continue being prudent; a future government could always stop those extra debt repayments or even borrow more - and interestingly enough, National is talking about doing exactly that while promising tax cuts. Party of fiscal responsibility indeed...)

In his budget speech, Michael Cullen talked about limiting new spending to about $1.6 billion a year for each of the next three years. After which, if things go well, we'll again be in a position to throw some more cash around. Which raises an interesting question: what's next?

There are lots of options here - lots of government departments which need serious re-investment after being starved of cash during the 80's and 90's, and lots of other things we'd like to do. Properly funding the police so they can investigate burglaries again would be a start. Or ensuring that schools are adequately funded so they don't have to choose between teachers and maintenance. And reducing or removing the crippling burden of student debt is obviously high on my agenda. But there's something which trumps all of that: health.

If there's one thing for which New Zealanders can be said to be happy to pay their taxes, it's health. We want a decent, functioning health system. We want to be able to see a doctor when we need to, without having to take out a loan to do it, and we want to be able to get treatment for common conditions sometime before we die of old age. And at the moment, thanks to a decade of cost-cutting, restructuring, and attempted privatisation, we're not getting it. In the papers every day we're seeing the same stories: inadequate facilities, cuts to services, growing waiting lists, people suffering for years because they lack the points to get a simple operation. It is long past time to fix this.

The government should start looking ahead, now on how best to fix the health system. It should establish a task force to review the entire structure, with an eye to seeing what else is needed. It should avoid restructuring - excessive restructuring is one of the reasons we're in this mess - and should instead focus on the question of resources. What do we need to spend and where do we need to spend it in order to get the health care we need?

It should deliver a few of the highest priority changes as new spending over the next few years. But the ultimate aim should be a massive injection of funds when it becomes affordable in three years time - to do for health what they've just done for working families.

And the bonus for the government? It would send a strong message to voters that they are looking at the serious problems and are planning more than just tinkering around the edges and incremental progress. It would allow them to establish a vital point of difference between them and National: a commitment to well-funded, effective government services. And it would give them the perfect slogan for next year's election: "re-elect Labour to fix health".

Must read

The full text of Eating Media Lunch's interview with Robert Fisk. There's a lot more there than was broadcast, so read it all.

Taking politics seriously

One of my correspondents has informed me of an American student going home for the primaries in order to "vote out Bush". Laudable, but is there an actual need to go home? New Zealand allows its citizens to vote whereever they are in the world, provided they can reach an embassy to collect papers or cast their ballot; doesn't the US do the same?

The other shoe drops

OK, so maybe Lyndon Hood was right after all: having stirred up fear over an impending power crisis, Transpower is now demanding amendments to the RMA and fast-track authority to ensure it can upgrade the grid in time - and threatening "US-style" blackouts if it doesn't get its way.

(That's an interesting turn of phrase, BTW, since the chief cause of the California blackouts was power companies gaming the system and artificially creating shortages to reap windfall profits - but I digress)

My initial reaction is one of anger. Transpower is an SOE; it exists to do a job. Rather than doing it, they've decided to sit on their arses and act as a shill for business. They need to be brought back into line. The Shareholding Minister should be calling board members into his office and asking them to explain why they've let this happen, why Transpower didn't ensure that the network was upgraded to meet rising demand (which they knew about, because they'd modelled it), and what steps they have personally taken to ensure that Transpower fulfilled its primary purpose of operating, maintaining and upgrading an efficient national grid. And then, he should fire some of them. Transpower has suffered a gross failure of management, and the board is ultimately responsible. They should pay for it.

Unfortunately, while that would be satisfying, it wouldn't fix the problem - because it is inherent in the SOE model itself. What we are seeing here is the effect both of market imperatives and of the corporatisation of what was once a public service. As long as Transpower makes its decisions based solely on the market, and as long as it thinks of itself essentially as a large corporation constituted to make profits for its owners, rather than as a vital piece of publicly-owned infrastructure, then we are going to have problems. The only way to fix them is to bring Transpower back under closer control of the state.

Look at the roads. Like the national grid, they're a vital piece of infrastructure on which people (and the economy) depend. Yet they're not run as an SOE. Instead we have centralised funding and planning to ensure that the network goes everywhere we want it to go and carries the traffic we need it to. It's not perfect - just look at Auckland - but the system generally works and is at least certain of its purpose: to build, maintain and upgrade the road net for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. This is how we should run the national grid - not as an SOE, but as a Crown Entity with a charter which lays out very clearly its purpose. This does not rule out making a profit - it should obviously charge power companies enough to recover its costs - but the chief concern should be running the infrastructure, not trying to maximise returns.

"Terrorists"

Apologists for Abu Ghraib make a great point of referring to all Iraqi prisoners as "terrorists", as if that justifies what happens to them. In this they're following the line set by the occupation spokesman, Brigadier Kimmitt, who says things like "people are in Abu Ghraib for a reason". Unfortunately, according to a secret US Army report leaked to the New York Times, that "reason" is often simply showing dislike for the invaders:

General Ryder, the army's provost marshal, reported that some Iraqis had been held for months for nothing more than expressing "displeasure or ill will" towards the US occupying forces.

And some of these people were then tortured by interrogators who refused to believe they didn't know anything.

Despite what the Americans think, disliking them is not terrorism (or if it is, then it strips the word of all meaning). Imprisoning and torturing people for that is resurrecting the "crime" of lese majeste. Americans fought a revolution to be free of that kind of tyranny; is it any wonder that Iraqis are doing the same?

Why should we increase government revenue and expenditure as GDP grows? The answer is right there on the front of my local rag: Palmerston North Hospital's emergency department is too small to cope, and due to a lack of resources within the hospital acts mainly as "a gateway to keep people out ... rather than as a front door to let them in."

This is just one example, but a common one. Our public services were run down during the 90's, and (despite some tinkering by Labour) still require substantial reinvestment to recover. We should give it to them. Rather than giving away additional revenues as tax cuts to the rich, the government should take the opportunity to rebuild our public services, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Contradictions

David Farrar's article has also laid bare an interesting contradiction in right-wing thinking.

We are constantly told that the government should be "doing more" to produce higher economic growth, and that higher growth is good because it produces higher government revenue which therefore allows us to increase funding to government services - such as health, education, and welfare. Don Brash was at pains to point this out in early interviews - he wasn't advocating growth for its own sake, oh no, it was so we could better afford the things we wanted.

But when it comes round to the government actually collecting and using that increased revenue, all hell breaks lose. "They'll be collecting an extra $30 billion a year!"; "They should return this money as tax cuts!"

So, why should we pursue growth again...?

(This really pulls the rug out from under the right's tax-cut argument as well. So, we should cut taxes - and therefore spending on services - to produce higher growth, the eventual increase in government revenue being used... to support more tax cuts. And meanwhile the poor starve and the sick die. Fuck that for a joke).

Land of the free?

A San Francisco gallery owner who had the temerity to display a painting of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners has been forced to close indefinitely after she became the target of death threats, vandalism, and violence.

Ah, the "land of the free"... where "patriots" use thuggery to defend the destruction of the principles the nation was founded on, and those who speak out are intimidated into silence.

Disingenuous

NZPundit's new "high-brow" group-blog is online, though if David Farrar's "tax and spend" article is any example, the brow is set rather low. David tracks the growth of government revenue since 1990, and points out that, according to the government's own financial projections,

[t]he increase from 1999 to 2008 is forecast to be a staggering $30 billion, of which over $20 billion is taxation alone. If re-elected Labour in 2008 will have state revenue of $72 billion, which is a gigantic 71% increase over nine years.

This is fairly disingenuous, even for a former spindoctor. Why? Because he is working in raw dollars rather than as a percentage of GDP. This allows him to throw big numbers ($30 billion!) around for shock value, but is misleading (to say the least). If you actually look at those financial projections, you get rather a different story, as can be seen from the chart below:

(Stolen from the Budget 2004 forecast financial statements.)

David is looking at total crown revenue and expenditure, and this does increase over the period 1999-2008. However, note the significant discontinuities in 2003. The government changed its accounting practices then, and now includes all revenue and expenditure of Crown Entities and SOEs in this category (for an idea of what is included, see the appropriate sections of the Crown Reporting Entity). So, in 2003 "total crown revenue" included things like Air New Zealand earning money by selling plane tickets; in 2002 it didn't. That single example is about $3.6 billion a year, by the way, so you can see how this makes a substantial difference.

The truth can be seen in the trends in tax and core crown revenues as a percentage of GDP (and indeed the trends in total crown revenue on either side of that accounting discontinuity) - they're remarkably stable. Tax revenue hovers at just over 30% of GDP, core crown revenue at around 33.8%, and total revenue at either 40% or ~43.5% depending on how you measure it. And that gives us the real story: the $30 billion increase in crown revenue (and $20 billion increase in tax revenue) that David is so incensed about is due primarily to GDP growth. In 1999, GDP was just a smidgen under $100 billion. In 2008 it is projected to be $167 billion. To paraphrase David, that's a gigantic 67% increase over nine years. And since the percentages of government taxation and total revenue are now stable (give or take that accounting discrepancy), they will naturally increase accordingly.

Vampires, vampires, sucking on your neck

On Saturday night I went to see the Bloodworks production of Dracula. I'd say good things about it, but I think Matt has already beaten me to it...

National Anthem

So I started out channel surfing between TV2's National Anthem and the movie on channel 3. National Anthem showed promise, Zed had a go and they even dusted off the Verlaines. But when I flicked over and found they had dragged out Paul Ubana Jones and the Top Twins to really get the kids rocking, I flagged it. I'd rather watch some guy wanking into a tube sock than watch the Top Twins (carefully checks paragraph to see that he wrote "than" and not "while").

I disagreed with the whole idea of the thing to start with... we should be having, what was essentially a telethon, for worthy causes... like feeding the world's poor, curing cancer or unseating George Bush in November... not for something like this.

When you think about it, it is the recording industry who will benefit from any new talent that develops from this exercise... and they certainly don't need our charity.

Blair, Antinomianism, and American Moral Exceptionalism

Geoffrey Wheatcroft has an interesting article in The Atlantic this month on The Tragedy of Tony Blair. Unfortunately it's not online, but there is an interview with him which covers some of the same ground.

One of the most interesting bits in the main article talks about Blair's constant hypocrisy - he "evinces strong morality in principle but a tendency toward notable amorality in practice". One way of explaining this is to say that Blair is a Manichaean and a consequentialist - he sees the world in black and white terms, and believes that the ends justify the means. But Wheatcroft goes further - he thinks that Blair isn't just a Manichaean, but an Antinomian:

The quaint sixteenth century heretics who took that name believed that "to the pure all things are pure," so if you were of the elect, you could eat, drink and merrily fornicate in the certainty of salvation.

Very often Blair is like that - not in the eating and so forth, but in his belief that his inner virtue justifies whatever means he chooses to employ.

Hence the lies, the spin, the "dodgy dossier" - though not because Blair is part of some obscure sixteenth-century heresy, but rather because of his utmost faith that the sun shines out of his own arse.

This sort of faith in one's own supreme goodness is also seen in the Americans - except the results are rather more dire. The belief in American moral exceptionalism, that America can do no wrong precisely because it is America, mirrors the Antinomian doctrine - what matters is not actions, but inner virtue. So, sponsoring coups against democraticly elected governments, running death squads, violating international human rights standards, the mass-killing of civilians - none of it matters, because America is (by definition) "the good guys". OTOH, we are yet to see whether this sense of exceptionalism covers torture and rape. The great hope of the Abu Ghraib scandal is that Americans will look at themselves and what their government is doing, and say "no more". The great despair is that that old belief in American exceptionalism will kick in, and they'll say "so what?" To the pure, all things are pure...

Part 6 of Morgue's trip to Palestine is now up.

Open season

A Chilean court has lifted former dictator General Pinochet's immunity from prosecution. Now there's a small chance that he'll finally face justice for his crimes.

Booty

Some of the books I plundered from the book sale today:

• Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution. Burke is the grand-daddy of British conservatives, an opponent of individualism and human rights who placed great store in custom and prejudice (meaning not bigotry, but literally pre-judging gut instincts - Leon Kass applied to politics).
• Alexis de Tocqueville's The Ancien Regime and the French Revolution. Got a lot of mention when I studied the period, and is supposed to be one of the chief early thinkers on the Revolution's causes.
• Not In Our Genes by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin. This is one of the books Pinker slags off in The Blank Slate, so I thought it was worth acquiring.
• Chairman Mao's Little Red Book - because it was there!

And several others.

But the big question is, when the hell am I going to find time to read all of this?

Sadr one, Americans nil

Remember Fallujah? In response to the murder and mutilation of four US mercenaries, the Americans invaded the place, killed 700 civilians, and then withdrew after it became apparent that they weren't going to get what they wanted. Well, the same is happening in Najaf: after demanding for weeks that Moqtada al-Sadr disband his militia and turn himself in, waging war in Shia Islam's most sensitive areas, damaging several major shrines and killing numerous innocents, the Americans are now... withdrawing because they're not going to get what they want.

It was obvious from the beginning that this was not a battle the US could win politically. So why did they fight it in the first place? Pressing hard and expending so much effort has made them look like losers - and pissed off a hell of a lot of people in the process.

Good on him

The Whig is following my advice and trying to organise a counter-campaign to oppose Greenpeace's views on GE-fed chicken. I wish him luck. Unlike those who simply whine and demand that other people stand up for their views, he is at least putting his, er, mouth where his mouth is.

One of the few good things about living in Palmerston North is the Red Cross book sale - and it only comes once a year. So naturally, I'm going to be one of the sad bastards queuing outside in the cold until the doors open...

The death penalty is a liability in the war on terror

The US's addiction to the death penalty may be about to disrupt the war on terror. They're trying to extradite Abu Hamza, a radical Muslim cleric living in Britain, on charges of hostage-taking and providing material assistance to Al-Qaeda. Bush's Attorney-General trumpeted that the maximum penalty for the charges was death. The problem? Britain hates the death penalty, and cannot extradite (or even provide evidence) unless assurances are given that it will not be pursued or carried out.

Abu Hamza isn't the only case where this is a problem - the UK has reportedly threatened to boycott Saddam's trial and refuse to turn over senior members of the Ba'ath party or provide evidence to Iraqi authorities if they face death.

In cases where the British have custody, the Ameicans are going to have to give way - which is really going to stick in the craw of the Bush administration. But strangely, I don't mind that at all.

In the guise of a book review, Crooked Timber has some interesting thoughts on why democracies lose small wars...

Exploiting the crisis

I see the threat of another electricity crisis has the loonies coming out of the woodwork again, with Holmes giving a lot of airtime to Brian Leyland's suggestion that we go nuclear. Regular readers will know that we think that's a dumb idea; New Zealand simply has too many earthquakes and too many active volcanos for it to be safe. And even if we look past that fact, it still makes no sense whatsoever simply on economic grounds. The capital cost is enormous and (unless we spend vast amounts of money seriously developing local industry) would require much of the equipment and expertise to be imported. Ditto fuel - while we have uranium, we have no local means of enriching it, which again means either serious investment to develop an industry or importing it from Australia (or worse, Britain). And then there's the cost of decontamination, waste disposal and storage. Simply put, there are much cheaper options. It's a telling indicator that even at the height of its "Think Big" madness, the Muldoon government didn't build nuclear - it built the (still ludicrously expensive) Clyde Dam.

Quite apart from that, we simply have no need for nuclear power in this country. We have 1000 - 2000 MW of additional hydro capacity waiting to be tapped (and possibly more), as well as one of the best wind resources in the world. We can easily aim for - and achieve - a green mix of hydro, wind and geothermal for baseload, with a small amount of coal or gas for peak load and "firming" - and all at a cheaper cost than nuclear.

Meanwhile, Fighting Talk's Lyndon Hood speculates that the impending South Island power crisis is a con. While I admire his healthy sense of cynicism, I think he's probably wrong. Potential supply problems in Marlborough were highlighted in Transpower's system security forecast (see Ch. 4, "South island issues"), though from the figures there it was not expected to be a problem until 2007. Unfortunately the SSF does not include similar data for Canterbury.

The February 2003 update presentation briefly mentions that "South Island load growth appears higher than SSF assumptions", but unfortunately does not provide further details. So it seems that the possibility for a problem was known over a year ago. What's interesting is that Transpower seems to have sat on it until the last minute, rather than warning generators or retailers (who could have shipped in temporary generation capacity or encouraged conservation measures given sufficient warning).

As for how to solve this, one obvious solution is to build more lines or otherwise improve infrastructure. Transpower hasn't done this becuse it's not profitable enough, and I'm unaware of any price feedback mechanism which can send them a signal to do it significantly in advance (meaning that it doesn't get built until after the fact). The other solution is to add more generation capacity in these areas, thus removing the need to transfer power in via the national grid. There are already plans for a 70 MW hydro scheme in the Wairau valley, which should be online by 2006 - 2007 (unlike Aqua, it seems popular with the local community, so the RMA shouldn't cause too many delays), and while I don't know of any concrete plans, Canterbury is likely to get a windfarm at some stage. As Transpower isn't talking about upgrading their lines until 2009 or so, it's likely that this sort of mid-size, local generation will end up filling the gap.

Delivering the social dividend

After four years of relative fiscal austerity, of delivering only small and incremental gains while running ever-larger surpluses, Labour has finally delivered the social dividend it was elected to do. Increased family support payments and wider eligibility. A new "In-Work" package which rewards low-income families. Free early-childhood education for 3 and 4 year-olds. More funding for education and health. Critics are dismissing it as a pre-election spendup and a lost opportunity to cut taxes, but this is what government exists to do: to provide those services, and to help out those at the bottom so that everybody can participate in our society and pursue their individual goals.

At the same time, though, it doesn't seem like enough. The government is still ignoring the elephant in the room - the student loans scam. While they've extended eligibility for student allowances, which will reduce the problem somewhat in the future, they have not universalised them, so people will still be having to borrow to eat. And they've made no mention of moves to reduce the debt burden on existing borrowers. Student loans are already having an enormous effect on our economy: they're preventing people from buying their own home (bad for the Kiwi dream, and bad for banks), and they're delaying the age at which people start families (bad for future generations). They are, to paraphrase Chris Trotter, a great steel straitjacket over our young people's future. Something needs to be done, and the longer the government waits, the worse it is going to get.

And unfortunately, it's not going to be done anytime soon. Labour is committed to being even more financially hard-nosed than the hard-noses, in wanting to pay down our gross crown debt to less than 20% of GDP. And the new spending contained in the budget has reduced room for maneuvre in future years. Effectively they're giving any future government a poison pill: if they want to cut taxes, then they must cut services or borrow to do so - both of which are likely to be unpopular with the electorate. It's electorally cunning, but it means that nothing significant is going to change for at least three years.

More when I've digestd the detail and seen more figures...

You've got to be in to win

Every time I make sarcastic remarks about how the odds of winning lotto are practically the same if I don't buy a ticket, some smart-arse reminds me that (as Lotto's latest advertising campaign puts it) "you've got to be in to win".

Hah! What do they know? According to a piece of email I've just received from a "Mr Antonio Gomez, Vice President", I've just won 850,000 Euros in a Spanish lottery - without ever having entered...

Iraqi sovereignty

The ultimate test of the sovereignty of the new Iraqi government will be whether it has control over the occupying forces after the handover. Will it be able to direct coalition military policy (tightening the US rules of engagement so that they don't shoot so many innocent people, for example), veto politically sensitive operations (such as a repeat of the Fallujah massacre), or ultimately ask the coalition forces to leave and never come back? Britain says "yes". The United States says "no". Which one do you think is actually calling the shots?

If the US is only going to hand over "sovereignty-lite", then the rest of the Security Council should tell them where to go. The UN should not sully its hands with acting as a rubberstamp for US Imperialism. The Americans will no doubt claim that refusal would make the UN irrelevant, but I can think of no better way to make the UN irrelevant than for it to fatally compromise the ideals on which it was founded.

That's an awful lot of "bad apples"

A secret report by the US Army has found that abuse of prisoners is widespread in Afghanistan and Iraq. The abuses described are sadly familiar - beatings, humiliation, outright torture and sexual assault - and include several deaths described as homicides. Despite this, no charges have been filed against anyone involved. I guess torturing prisoners is fine provided it doesn't make the TV...

Search term of the day

interrogation in the Treaty of Waitangi

When the market is the problem, deregulation is not the solution

ACT's response to the prospect of power supply problems in the South Island? "More market and less Government", of course.

Unfortunately, this problem is caused by market forces. It is not the case that TransPower has been prevented by the RMA from building further lines; it has chosen not to build them because it is not profitable enough. Privatisation or gutting the RMA will not change that - in fact, judging by the example of TransRail, privatisation will only make things worse, as the new private owners will demand a far higher rate of return on their investment and run assets into the ground to get it.

An efficient national grid is a vital piece of infrastructure with enormous implications for other sectors of the economy. It's a public good, just like roads or a justice system. The problem we are facing is that TransPower is trying to manage that public good by the imperitives of the market - and as a result, it's not running it properly.

The Official Information Act is your friend

About a month ago, out of curiousity mostly, I asked the government a few questions about what exactly New Zealand soldiers were doing in Iraq. Chief among these questions was "have they shot at anyone?". The answer, it seems, is "no":

The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) light engineer group in Basrah conducts monthly range practices on gazetted ranges in order to maintain weapon-handling skills. The typical ammunition expended during practice is 100 rouns of 9mm pistol ammunition, 2 belts of 5.56mm machine gun ammunition and 1-2000 rounds of 5.56mm rifle ammunition.

There has been one alleged accidental discharge of an NZDF weapon, currently under investigation, which took place on a gazetted range during a controlled training activity and involved no risk to human life or property. There has been no occurence of NZDF weapons being fired other than on a controlled range during training.

This has reassured me that, despite the fact that their rebuilding efforts haven't really achieved much, the deployment is mostly harmless. This doesn't mean that I particularly want them to stick around - it seems to be getting too dangerous, and it doesn't really seem worthwhile given their ineffectual rebuilding efforts - but it does mean that, at least for the moment, I can remain happy about it.

New Fisk

The things Bush didn't mention in his speech

The US Army is trying to silence those who have departed from the official line on Abu Ghraib being the acts of "a few bad apples"...

The market bites us in the arse again

Electricity companies are now talking of power shortages and brownouts in parts of the South Island this winter - not because of any lack of supply, but because the national grid can't cope with the load. Why not? Because Transpower (which, as an SOE, must operate under commercial imperitives) hasn't thought that there's been enough profit in it for them to upgrade the lines. In other words, we've been bitten in the arse by the market - again.

Why do we continue to tolerate this? We knew from TransRail that running a big piece of infrastructure according to free-market values meant running it into the ground. The national grid is simply too important to allow that to happen. If Transpower cannot properly plan and invest in infrastructure as an SOE governed by the free market, then we need to either bring it back under full crown control or turn it into a crown entity. Either way, it must have a charter which clearly spells out that its sole reason for existence is to provide, support and run a national grid which meets our electricity needs. If we fail to do that, if we continue to make important infrastructure decisions by short-term NPV analysis, then we're all going to be left in the dark.

Hard Choices

James Lovelock, arch-environmentalist and author of the Gaia hypothesis, says that nuclear power is the only green solution to the problem of global warming. And he's right. If we want to seriously prevent climate change, then we need to dramaticly reduce our use of fossil fuels now. And sadly, the best technological option to do so looks to be nuclear fission.

Climate change is a global problem. Nuclear power is, at worst, a local problem. Compared to burning coal, it is clearly the lesser of two evils. That isn't to say that countries like the US, Britian and China should focus only on nuclear; rather, that if they are serious about reducing greenhouse emissions and slowing global warming, it should play a larger role in their energy mix.

As for us, our situation is nowhere near dire enough to justify the risks of siting a reactor in New Zealand. We have plenty of options for "green" generation - and we're not being slow in pursuing them (this year's electricity demand growth will be met almost entirely by wind turbines). We're lucky enough to have good hydro, geothermal and wind resources, and this should allow us (once the market distortion of cheap Maui gas has passed) to generate almost all of our electricity from non-greenhouse-emitting sources, without having to resort to fission.

US to demolish Abu Ghraib jail

Very good - but shouldn't they have done this a year ago?

Mass psychosis

Another article about those loony American fundamentalists:

The Covert Kingdom: Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Texas.

The more I read about this, the more it worries me. All of that fear about some fundamentalist with a lust for armageddon like Osama bin Laden getting his hands on nuclear weapons, while back in America people with essentially the same beliefs have their man in the White House and their fingers on the button...

Part 5 of Morgue's trip to Palestine is now up.

Alternatives

With all the kerfuffle about teenage sex, I think its timely to remind people of the British solution: outlawing any sexual conduct or contact involving someone under 16. This has the side effect of criminalising a teenage snog behind the bike sheds. The police have been directed not to prosecute, but the effect is to make the law into a Trojan-horse size ass.

Must Read

Jim Evans on untangling the foreshore. The Whig - and Don Brash - should pay particular attention.

Political Theory 101: Thomas Hobbes

So, who is this Hobbes guy anyway? I keep talking about him, and referring to things as "Hobbesean". What the hell am I talking about?

Thomas Hobbes of Malmsebury is one of the first truly modern political philosophers. He wrote during the mid seventeenth century, around the time of the English Civil War. His general outlook was materialist - he tried to explain human psychology in terms of the motions of the body - and the unpopularity of his views caused a certain amount of controversy. His books were placed on the Index by the Catholic Church, and "Hobbists" were fired from Oxford. His notoriety as an atheist was so great that he was blamed by Parliament for bringing the "dreadful judgement" of the Great Fire of London upon them (god presumably having much the same discrimination and aim as the Americans). But it's really the political philosophy laid out in his Leviathan for which he is remembered, and which I'm primarily interested in.

The key question for Hobbes is how do we justify the State. By what right does the State claim its authority, and is challenging that authority ever justified? Hobbes answers these questions by imagining what life would be like if there was no government.

Firstly, he starts off with people. People are roughly equal in physical and intellectual power. While there are differences, none are so great as to automatically make any one person master; anyone can be overcome by treachery or a coalition of others. This rough equality leads to trouble, because it gives rise to an "equality of hope in the attaining of our ends". Where interests conflict (and Hobbes takes it as a given that they will, sometime), then no-one has any reason to give way to any other. The net result is that people will fight, and that no-one is secure in their life or property:

if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.

Hobbes calls this situation the "State of Nature, and characterises it as a "war of every man, against every man", in which

there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Or, to put it another way, it's Mad Max, or what people generally think of when they use the term "anarchy".

How do we get out of this mess? Hobbes believes that we all have some desire for security and an urge towards self-preservation; in fact, he thinks that it's not just an urge, but a moral duty; we ought to take whatever steps we think necessary to protect our own lives. And the rational step to take is to seek peace where others are also willing to do so. The problem with the State of Nature is that we each have a right to all things; Hobbes thinks that we should (if others are also willing to do so) surrender this right, and "be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself".

And so we have the "Leviathan" for which the book is named: people give up their right to all things to the State ("an artificial man; though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended"), which then acts as an arbitrator and enforcer of laws and ensures that people are secure. Hobbes goes off into absolutism at this point - because he thinks that it is necessary to prevent civil war - and it's about there that I lose interest. Locke or Rawls have better answers from this point on.

Why do I find Hobbes interesting? Well, firstly I think his formulation of the problem and its solution is essentially sound (though not historical). In a practical sense, we are as unconstrained as those Hobbes imagines in the State of Nature; any of us can kill, steal, rape, or rob. The only way we can live together as a society is if we voluntarily refrain from those courses of action. Hobbes may reach the wrong conclusions about the sort of government people should establish, but he at least gets the basics right on why we have some government rather than none.

Secondly, the argument he makes is essentially game-theoretic. The State of Nature is an enormous game of Prisoner's Dilemma, with the important difference that we can all talk to one another. In these circumstances, it is obvious that we should all agree to co-operate, and to punish cheaters. I find game theory a useful lens to view politics and society through on occasions, and so Hobbes is a good place to start.

And thirdly, I like his outlook. Like Machiavelli, Hobbes is a hard-nosed naturalist who talks about the world as it is rather than the world as it should be. He's pessimistic about human nature; while he acknowledges that we can be nice, charitable, generous and altruistic, he's too smart to rely on it. Likewise, he talks almost entirely about power and pragmatics (rather than authority and obedience) because he's not stupid enough to think that morality is a significant factor. We don't have a government because it is the moral thing to do or because its the way god wants us to live; we have a government because we have to. If you're a naturalist trying to build a political theory from the ground up or analyse the state without regard for "spookiness", then this is the place to start.

Old saws

Tony Ryall is harping on that old saw, parental consent for teen abortions. And so, in the same spirit, I'll just regurgitate what I said about it last year:

Parental consent laws mean parents forcing their children to have children. They treat young girls in bad circumstances like brood mares. Bill EnglishTony Ryall may be fine with that, but I regard it as a fundamental insult to human dignity.

People have a right to sovereignty over their own bodies - even teenagers. Forcing women to have children (or, conversely, to have an abortion) is a particularly invasive violation of that right, akin to sexual slavery or enforced prostitution. We throw the book at people who do that, and we throw it harder for people who do it to teenagers. So why the hell should we let parents get away with it?

Children are not property, and they should not be treated as such. Tony Ryall should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that they be.

Those wanting to pretend that there is or was no problem with the way US soldiers use force in Iraq may want to read this...

Friends in strange places

The Whig thinks he has friends in strange places over flag burning. Hardly. A quick look at the political compass or my previous posts on similar issues will show where I stand. I may be a lefty, but I'm very definitely from the libertarian or liberal end of that broad church.

Freedom may not be the only thing I believe in (I tend towards value pluralism, though I'm by no means certain about that yet), but it is absolutely central to my political philosophy. People need as much freedom as possible to pursue their disparate visions of the good. So, I support the greatest possible system of coextensive rights for everyone, and the widest possible sphere of state non-interference. And the sorts of justifications I accept for restricting freedom ought to be recognisable to any other liberal - consent, preventing harm to or preserving the freedom of others. There's no such justification for forbidding people from burning the flag, and so I oppose laws against flag-burning.

Where I differ from right-wing or "big-L" Libertarians is that I want that freedom to be substantive rather than formal. Traditional libertarianisms (such as Rand or Nozick) talk about freedom a lot, but when pressed, you find out that that freedom is nothing more than a cruel joke. The shackles of the state are simply replaced - and strengthened - by contract law, with "consent" extracted by economic duress. The Enlightenment project of destroying privilege and extending universal rights has been perverted into a defence of economic slavery and the assumed privileges of wealth.

Fuck that. That's just freedom for the pike. I want something more.

In order for people's freedom to be meaningful, they must be able to exercise it - in practice, not just in theory. This means preventing the powerful from limiting other people's freedom (justifying employment law and anti-discrimination legislation), enabling people to make the most of themselves (hence state-provided (or at least regulated) education), and insulating them from the vagaries of fortune, of ill-health or poverty, so that they will be able to pursue their vision of the good (or at least not completely lose sight of it) regardless of circumstance (giving us social welfare and a comprehensive health system). In other words, your standard redistributive liberal-democratic welfare state, supported on the grounds that freedom is for everyone, not just the rich.

(BTW, the political compass graph is somewhat out of date, and does not include many of our newer political bloggers. If you want to be on the graph, then all you have to do is take the test and email me your score. My munged address is on the sidebar to your left...)

The witnesses are coming forward...

A military lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case stated that a captain at the prison said the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq was present during some "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," according to a recording of a military hearing obtained by The Washington Post.

The lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, said he was told that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez and other senior military officers were aware of what was taking place on Tier 1A of Abu Ghraib. Shuck is assigned to defend Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II of the 372nd Military Police Company. During an April 2 hearing that was open to the public, Shuck said the company commander, Capt. Donald J. Reese, was prepared to testify in exchange for immunity. The military prosecutor questioned Shuck about what Reese would say under oath.

"Are you saying that Captain Reese is going to testify that General Sanchez was there and saw this going on?" asked Capt. John McCabe, the military prosecutor.

"That's what he told me," Shuck said. "I am an officer of the court, sir, and I would not lie. I have got two children at home. I'm not going to risk my career."

[...]

At the April hearing, Shuck also said Reese would testify that Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, who supervised the military intelligence operation at Abu Ghraib, was "involved in intensive interrogations of detainees, condoned some of the activities and stressed that that was standard procedure."

More here.

Thoughts on regional unity

Simon Upton's column on EU expansion has got me thinking on the subject of super-national organisation in the South Pacific. The recent Australia - New Zealand Leadership Forum was explicitly aimed at bringing our two countries closer together, with talk of an eventual "single market" and even political union. And the topic of stronger co-operation has been raised at recent meetings of the Pacific Islands Forum. But what purpose would such co-operation serve, and what would the resulting forms of organisation look like?

The most obvious starting point is to look at the purpose of closer co-operation - and here we immediately begin to see differences with the EU. The driving force behind the unification of Europe has always been political - the early steps were taken with the explicit goal of making France and Germany so interdependent as to make future war between them impossible. While the EU has expanded since then, the goal has remained the same: to increase interdependence and stability, and thereby prevent war in Europe.

By contrast, the chief motivation underlying talk of closer relations between New Zealand and Australia is primarily economic. We want open access to each other's markets, and free passage for capital, goods, and people. But there's no driving pressure to unify to prevent war because war between our two countries is already unthinkable (and has been for a long time). Our shared history as British colonies, our enormous cultural similarities and the fact that we are so interconnected by family ties sees to that.

As for the wider Pacific, the motive here is primarily one of ensuring good governance, with a hefty dose of security. Discussion is driven by the larger states - Australia and New Zealand - who believe (with some evidence) that their smaller neighbours cannot properly govern themselves. Either they are plagued by corruption, nepotism, and outdated tribal structures to the detriment of their peoples, or are too small to be "viable". Either way, there is also a great deal of fear that these countries will collapse into "failed states" and so provide a haven for terrorists, drug dealers, and organised crime - all of which pose a threat to the larger states' security. And so we encourage them to get together - but primarily for our benefit, not theirs.

With these differences in underlying motivation you would expect the resulting organisations to look very different. So for example the EU is all about creating political and economic interdependence and unity, and so it has centralised political, legal, and bureaucratic institutions to serve these ends (a European Parliament and commission; laws and people to enforce them; a European Court of Human Rights; a common currency). But what would a future NZ-Australia or South Pacific "superstate" look like?

In the case of New Zealand and Australia, it probably wouldn't look like a superstate at all. Merging the two markets will require a lot of negotiation and compromise, but this can be done by the two governments sitting across the table from one another. While it will require shared regulatory authorities to set standards on things such as food and safety, there's simply no need for any superstructure over this. No need for an ANZAC parliament, no need for a court with jurisdiction beyond the intergovernmental agreements concerned, no need even for a common currency (while it would ease the way a little, it is not required). Political union may come by public sentiment, but there's no pressure there.

As for the Pacific, any supernational organisation created there is likely to be even weaker. The pacific states are mostly subsistence economies, with little in the way of industry or trade between them. So what reason is there to get together? Australia and New Zealand have suggested "pooled regional governance" and shared resources - for example, a regional police college and regional airline - but the suggestions all seem to be driven by an agenda of ensuring our security, rather than a real interest in the needs of smaller states. And given the past colonial history in the region, that's not a recipe for unification.

The thing is, there are plenty of issues that pacific states could get together on - controlling fishing in their vast exclusive economic zones, for example - and the problem of small-state viability is a real one that could be countered by reducing the duplication that multiple governments entails. But the latter is demanding something much stronger than the EU - stronger than the United States, even - and so is far less likely to happen. And it will absolutely never happen if New Zealand and Australia insist on being a part of it or on driving the agenda; the suspicions about colonialism and worries about dominance by vastly larger countries are simply too great. We may be better off stepping back, promoting unification as a solution to this problem, and simply funding it out of the aid budget, rather than trying to strongarm our smaller neighbours into doing things "for their own good".

Participate or perish

Drawing together some of the below with some comments made on NZPundit: why am I so keen for people to get out there and make their opinions known?

Simple: despite everything I think about the proper role of the state and the relationship between the state and the individual, the underlying basis of politics (the "facts on the ground", as it were) is ultimately Hobbesean¹. The social contract does not end the war of all against all - it merely outlaws force and the more obvious forms of coercion². This has the effect of moving our struggles into different battlegrounds - such as politics, civil society, and the market.

Liberal democracy is one way of providing a battlefield where people don't get killed - and I think its a good one. However even in a liberal democracy, great swathes of social, political and ideological "territory" are still up for grabs, undetermined by anything other than a naked clash of interests between disagreeing parties. And where a clash of interests is involved, you've got to be in to win. If you want other people to take your interests into account, you have to let them know what you think.

I regard it as axiomatic that if you are unwilling to advocate for your interests and in consequence get walked all over by people who do, then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

So: participate or perish. Vote. Advocate. Organise. Outsource, if necessary. But whatever, make sure that your memes are in the pool and that people know you care - because people aren't always going to be polite enough to ask.

¹ I say "Hobbesean" because he is the key thinker here, identifying the key problem: one of power and a clash of interests. While Locke identifies a far better solution to the problem than Hobbes' absolute Leviathan, and rightly puts the focus on "the consent of the governed", he muddies the waters of the State of Nature by trying to stick God and Christian morality back into it...

² Here I am using "social contract" in its weakest sense, of a widely shared consensus against using force and coercion, imposed on those that don't agree by force and coercion. I'm also using "interests" very broadly and abstractly, to encompass beliefs about how things should be done, "moral interests" and such - "advancing your self-interest" can here mean working in the cause of unselfish memes.

Update: Added link to Thomas Hobbes.

Well, that was quick

The government has backed away from its plans to decriminalise consensual sexual behaviour between teenagers.

What are the odds that Peter Dunne quietly threatened to withdraw confidence and supply over this?

Update: And on the other hand, what is Tony Ryall on? Contrary to his assertions, the government is not planning "to legalise older men having sex with 12-16-year olds, if they can prove they took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the young person and believed them to be 16-years-old or over." That's already legal. In fact, as David Farrar points out, the government is significantly tightening legislation in this area. There is already a defence of "reasonable belief" that someone was over 16; now you have to actually have asked...

Submit!

Parliament's Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee is finally soliciting submissions on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. If you have an opinion on this (and doesn't everyone?), then why not make a submission?

They're after 25 copies by 5pm on Monday, 12th July, sent to:

Miles Reay
Clerk of Committee
Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee
Bowen House, Parliament Buildings
Wellington

(No postage required)

There's a guide to making submissions here.

A progressive step

That's the only way to describe the government's plans to decriminalise consensual sexual behaviour between teenagers.

I know people don't want to face up to it, but (shock! horror!) teenagers experiment with sex. It is not neccessarily a good thing, but where it is consensual and non-exploitative, the threat of prosecution can only make things worse. If we put the interests of the child first (rather than the interests of outraged and scandalised parents), then we must acknowledge that this is something that should generally be dealt with by parents and educators - not the criminal justice system. The state should only be involved where there is coercion, predation or exploitation; beyond that, it should step back and leave teenagers to decide for themselves what they do with their own bodies.

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys strike back

Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 has won the Palme d'Or at Cannes.

This is one movie I will be shelling out money to see...

Say no to coalition impunity

The US/UK are trying to get the UN to grant their soldiers immunity from Iraqi law as part of the June 30th "handover".

There are three reasons to oppose this. Firstly, legal jurisdiction is a central part of sovereignty. Excluding American and British soldiers will undermine the sovereignty (not to mention the legitimacy) of the new Iraqi government. After all, what sort of "sovereignty" is it when you are forbidden from enforcing your own laws in your own territory? It is one thing to surrender those rights voluntarily, but to have them unilaterally denied? It makes the whole handover a joke.

Secondly, it's already quite clear that American and British civilian and military law have failed to deter abuses, and that there may be significant problems establishing jurisdiction over some people accused of crimes (such as civilian contractors). Making coalition forces subject to Iraqi law will solve this problem, and help ensure that members of the occupying force who commit crimes can be brought to justice.

Finally, there's the whole question of why this is before the UN in the first place. Normally status-of-forces-agreements covering things such as legal jurisdiction are negotiated between the countries involved, without the intervention of third parties. If the US and UK wish to remain in Iraq, they should negotiate such an agreement in good faith with the new Iraqi government after the handover - not attempt to unilaterally impose one by an outside agency. This is the sort of decision which should be made by the Iraqi people or their representatives, not by the US/UK, and not by the UN.

One of the biggest problems with the occupation is lawlessness - not just the lawlessness permitted by the occupiers, but the lawlessness of the occupation forces themselves. From day one, they've been killing civilians in dubious circumstances with no legal consequences. Whenever a bomb goes off, they start shooting at random. And then there's the beatings, abuse, humiliation and torture. US authorities have turned a blind eye to most of this (their rules of engagement seem to allow them to kill civilians at will and at random in the name of "force protection"); it's only with the recent Abu Ghraib photos that they've been spurred to act. And that simply isn't good enough. Granting immunity will continue the current US culture of impunity. The only way to change that culture is to subject US forces to a legal jurisdiction independent of US military or civilian authority.

(I've focused on the US in the last part because the UK is already subject to an independent jurisdiction: the International Criminal Court in The Hague. This acts as a strong incentive for the British to both set civilised rules of engagement (you may notice that British soldiers don't shoot at anything that moves), and to swiftly prosecute criminal behaviour and violations of the laws of war. They can't turn a blind eye or gloss over abuses, because if they don't prosecute, then the ICC will do it for them...)

Bush scores own goal - Iran 1 USA 0

This article (thanks to nz pundit for the link) might explain why Ahmed Chalabi has fallen so spectacularly from favour. There must be some very smug people in Tehran at the moment.

Crooked Timber has an excellent post on some arguments over liberalism. Some of the links in it are worth folowing as well...