Archive for the ‘Ban Bans’ category

Hodgson tries the truth

October 2, 2006

Bernard Darnton notes a curious change in tactics from Labour “strategist” Pete Hodgson: telling the truth. In yesterday’s Sunday Star (yes, I’m a day behind … yes, thank you, it was a good weekend) Hodgson admits the central point of Darnton’s case against the Labour Party’s Pledge Card:

“…the public would say that it is clearly for political purposes – and for Christ’s sake, of course it is, you know?

“If it wasn’t we would put out a pledge card the day after the election not before it.”

Asked if that meant it was electioneering, he said, “Yes.”

So much for the voluble denials up to now, then. That admission should save a lot of court-time. Meanwhile, in the same report, comes news that Labour still intend to press ahead with law changes brough on by their claims of “confusion” over election spending:

Proposed changes to election campaign laws — expected to include a ban on third-party funding and the use of anonymous trusts — are with the government and due before cabinet within weeks…

If this isn’t one of the greatest attacks on free speech in this country’s history, then I’m a muslim. A “ban on third-party funding” means that you or I many not pay for ads that oppose the government during the election period. In the US, where they still know a bit about free speech, such proposals are called “speech rationing.” Perhaps we should start seeing it that way here as well.

UPDATE: Generation XY has this photo (right) that pretty much sums up the efforts of Hodgson the “strategist”: Ignoring the advice of pundits everywhere, when deep in the hole Clark and co refuse to stop digging. Head to Gen XY and suggest a caption. My contribution: “Clark and Co help dig their political grave. “

LINKS: Card was electioneering – Hodgson – Bernard Darnton
Yes, Labour’s pledge card was electioneering Hodgson admits – Sunday Star
Speech rationing and mud-slinging – Not PC (Sept 22)

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour, Darnton V Clark

Bigots can be ordained, but gays can’t

September 29, 2006

I guess you’d expect me to post about the Presbyterian Church’s decision to ban homosexuals from being ordained in their church, news which is making waves today.

But why should I comment? What the trustees of the Presbyterian church choose to get up to is none of my business, any more than it’s any of my business what the Mormons, the Destiny Church or the Exclusive Brethren get up to.

It’s their right to be bigoted and to believe nonsense, just as it’s my right to have nothing to do with them — and your right to make fun of their antediluvian attitudes– but what they choose to do in the privacy of their own churches is certainly none of my business.

LINKS: Presbyterian Church votes to exclude gay ministers – NZ Herald

RELATED: New Zealand, Religion, Free Speech

Real footy tomorrow!

September 29, 2006

Tomorrow in Melbourne thirty-six high-performance athletes will chase a pointy ball around an oval field with 120,000 fans screaming them on in the stands, and millions more around the world yelling at them through their TVs and big screens — yes, it’s time once again for the annual showcase of the world’s most libertarian sport: It’s AFL Grand Final time!

Time for some great sport, and for those of you who don’t understand the thrill, Thomas Bowden tries to make it clear in the context of a more authoritarian sport:

The essential value of spectator sports lies in their capacity to illustrate, in a dramatic way, the process of human goal-achievement. They do this by making the process shorter, simpler, and more visually exciting than it is in daily life–and by giving us heroes to admire… Ultimately, sporting events like football’s Super Bowl offer a microcosmic vision of what “real life” could, and should, be like.

Heroes aplenty there are onfield tomorrow, along with thrills, spills, high marks, spectacular goals, great human drama … in short, over two hours of non-stop Australian Football, indisputably the world’s most libertarian sport.

I say “most libertarian sport” since AFL is a team sport, and unlike tennis, say, which is explicitly individualistic, AFL shows in microcosm both the social conditions of libertarian society in microcosm and the spectacular results. The rules are all designed to keep the game going, to protect the guy going for the ball, and to stop one bloke initiating force on another bloke … at least while anybody’s looking. Just like libertarian guidelines for society. And the result of those rules is a full-blooded clash of both intellect and athleticism — no “neckless wonders” on these fields — where the competitors quite literally reach for the sky.

I say “non-stop,” because unlike other sports where whistle-happy Hitlers spend their time holding up play and seeking the spotlight, in AFL (just like in a good libertarian society) the umpires are all but anonymous, and held in the appropriate level of contempt. In other sports such as rugby for example, much talk goes on before a game about who the match officials are and what effect they might have on the game … in AFL however they’re just called “white maggots.” And no-one either knows or cares their names.

It’s often said that sport allows the opportunity to perfect and admire a particular set of skills. What we see in microcosm on an Australian Football field is the pursuit of the integration of mind and body — unlike soccer, for example, where the use of your arms are banned (and the skill of acting is raised to great heights), and unlike rugby or American football where following orders is strictly required for all but one or two players on each side (and unlike rugby league where thinking itself is banned) on an Australian Football field we see athletes who run up to two-thirds of a marathon every game — at a sprint! — while constantly evaluating their own and their team’s tactics and strategy, and all while planning and plotting to counter their opponent’s tactics and strategy.

And this all happens non-stop, in the cauldron of intense competition over more than two hours. If there’s a more spectacular sporting example of libertarian values in action, you’d die of sheer sensory and conceptual overload I’m here to tell you.

Tune in tomorrow about this time and experience the thrill. Here’s a run-down on teams and players and prospects. Here’s the official AFL site with links, ladders and audio and video. And here’s a summary of North American TV coverage of the AFL Final. In NZ, of course, you can catch it on Sky.

Oh yeah, and go the Eagles!

LINKS: The joy of football – Thomas Bowden, Capitalism Magazine
2004 Mark of the Year – Drop Punt site (includes You Tube highlights)
Real Footy site
AFL official site
AFL Finals series – Fox Sports
2006 Grand Final Parties – Australian Football Association of North America
AFL TV schedule for North America and Canada – Australian Football Association of North America

RELATED: Sports, Philosophy, Objectivism

DDT ban removal will save millions

September 19, 2006

I haven’t yet taken time to praise the WHO decision to rescind the long-overdue banning of DDT, which has seen millions die unnecessarily from malaria. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I’ll simply post the ARI press release on the matter (below), with which I wholly agree.

Meanwhile, Richard Tren from the organisation Africa Fighting Malaria has still had no response from his open letter to Greenpeace calling them to account for their decades-long support of the ban, and suggests their “various inconsistent and contradictory statements beg several questions”:

First, if, as Mr. Krautter asserts, Greenpeace should not be characterized as opposed to the use of DDT in malaria control, why should the organization describe its use in malaria control as a “cycle of misery?” Furthermore, why does Dr Santillo consider that the restricted and careful use of DDT for malaria control is “a step in the wrong direction?”

Second, please, could you detail the financial commitment that Greenpeace itself has made to developing new malaria control technologies, and include any details of the success achieved? Given that Greenpeace informs us that it is “committed to seeing more effective methods for combating malaria,” we assume that it has followed that up with actual investment.

Third, please, could you detail the lobbying and advocacy efforts that Greenpeace has undertaken to ensure that public and private funds are invested in the search for chemical alternatives to DDT?

Africa Fighting Malaria applauds the constructive and positive role that [some other environmental] organizations have taken with regard to DDT for malaria control. The criticism that Greenpeace has leveled at the WHO, and by implication, some of the world’s leading malaria experts and scientists is damaging to malaria control programs and ultimately will cost lives in Africa.

Ask the next bearded young man who stops you on the street and asks you to donate to Greenpeace any one of those questions, and see what answer you get.

Anyway, here’s what the ARI’s Yaron Brook has to say:

WHO Sides with Humanity Against Mosquitoes and Environmentalists

Irvine, CA—The World Health Organization, conceding that alternative methods to fight malaria have failed, will start encouraging the use of DDT around the world.

“For anyone who cares about human life, this is excellent news,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “The widespread use of DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitoes can prevent the infection of hundreds of millions of people every year and save millions of lives.”

Before environmentalists managed to ban or severely restrict its use, DDT led to a dramatic reduction in malaria cases wherever it was used.

“The decades-long environmentalist opposition to DDT never had any basis in science: for half a century DDT use has been proven safe to humans and deadly to mosquitoes.

“The environmentalists responsible for banning or tightly restricting the use of DDT are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and for the untold suffering of hundreds of millions more, most of them children.

“The environmentalists’ persistent opposition to the use of DDT shows that they are indifferent to human suffering. This is because environmentalism places the ‘preservation’ of nature above the requirements of human survival and prosperity. Given the choice of eradicating malarial mosquitoes with a man-made pesticide or condemning millions of people to suffering and death, committed environmentalists have consistently opted for the latter…”

LINKS: World Health Organization (WHO) Announces New Policy Position On Indoor Residual Spraying For Malaria Control – Medical News Today
DDT cleared for fighting malaria – ABC News
Calling Greenpeace to account – The Commons Blog
Open letter to Greenpeace – Richard Tren, Africa Fighting Malaria
Ayn Rand Institute News – US Politics Today
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum

RELATED: Environment, Health, Politics-World, Objectivism

More tributes to Oriana Fallaci

September 18, 2006

More tributes to “warrior for freedom” Oriana Fallaci here: London TimesReutersNYTAP (1)AFPGuardianWSJLATWash PostNew Yorker (June)AP (2)Daniel Pipes [Hat tip Arts and Letters Daily]

And I enjoyed this from Robert Spencer writing at ‘Front Page,’ last year, reminding us just how good a warrior she was.

Oriana Fallaci, who received the Center for the Study of Popular Culture’s Annie Taylor Award in New York Monday evening, has been a warrior for human freedom ever since she joined the anti-fascist resistance in 1944, at age fourteen. For over six decades, she has fought against those she has labeled “the bastards who decide our lives,” opposing all forms of tyranny and oppression, from Mussolini and Hitler to Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. She amassed a fearsome reputation as an interviewer, recounting of Ariel Sharon: “‘I know you’ve come to add another scalp to your necklace,’ he murmured almost with sadness when I went to interview him in 1982.”

Other scalps on her necklace include that of Henry Kissinger, who termed his interview with Fallaci “the most disastrous conversation I ever had with any member of the press.” While interviewing the Ayatollah Khomeini, Fallaci called him a “tyrant” and tore off the chador she had had to wear in order to be admitted to his presence. According to Daniel Pipes in his introduction of Fallaci Monday night, she is also apparently one of the few who ever made the irascible old man laugh.

Today, at seventy-five years old, Fallaci still stands for freedom. She is suffering from cancer. She stated with her usual directness at the Taylor Awards ceremony: “I shall not last long.” But she has dedicated the four years since 9/11 to trying to awaken her native Italy, Europe and the world to the magnitude global jihad threat, which most analysts continue, whether from willful blindness, ignorance, or a misplaced strategic imperative, to misapprehend. Pipes noted that “she has her differences with the President. When he says that Islam a ‘religion of peace,’ she has said, ‘each time he says it on TV? I’m there alone, and I watch it and say, “Shut up! Shut up, Bush!” But he doesn’t listen to me.’”

And it isn’t, of course, just Bush. Fallaci spoke fervently Monday evening about how Western nations are selling their own homelands and culture to their mortal enemies. “We seem to live in real democracies,” she said, “but we really live in weak democracies ruled by despotism and fear.” Western elites – government and media – are paralyzed by fear, afraid to speak out against the life-destroying aspects of the Sharia law that Islamic jihadists want to impose on the rest of the world. The risk of offending Muslims is, in their calculus, apparently greater than the risk of national or civilizational suicide.

Alexis de Tocqueville, according to Fallaci, explained that in dictatorial regimes, despotism strikes the body: the dissenter is tortured into silence. But in democratic regimes that have succumbed to corruption, despotism ignores the body and strikes at the soul. One is not tortured for dissent; instead, one is discredited for it. To affirm the patent fact that Islam is not a religion of peace today renders one “unelectable,” or “bigoted,” or beyond the bounds of what is fit to print. In despotic democratic regimes, Fallaci observed, everything can be spread except truth. That is indeed the present-day situation.

Most of the liberal and conservative mainstream not only will not feature trenchant criticisms like Fallaci’s of the violent and supremacist impulse within Islam; they will not even discuss them. Those who, like Fallaci, speak the truth about the motives and goals of the jihadists are vilified and marginalized, while the purveyors of comforting half-truths, distortions and lies fill the nation’s airwaves and newsprint. Fallaci herself faces the most frivolous of frivolous lawsuits in Italy for defamation of Islam; a Muslim group tried to have banned her searing, passionate response to 9/11, The Rage and the Pride.

Why does all this happen? In her speech Fallaci explained that it was to a great degree because “truth inspires fear.” When one hears the truth, one can only be silent or join the cause. It is a call to a personal revolution, an upheaval, a departure – perhaps forever – from a life of ease and comfort. So most will prefer not to hear the truth — in no small part because of the difficulty of living up to it.

Yet the real heroes, she said, are “those who raise their voices against anathemas and persecution,” while most succumb — “and with their silence give their approval to the civil death of those who spoke out.” “This,” Fallaci declared, “is what I have experienced the last four years.” She described how, since 9/11, the whole of Europe has become a “Niagara Falls of McCarthyism” – with the new Grand Inquisitors of the Left persecuting and victimizing all others. […]

Fallaci told the audience that she faced three years in prison in Italy if convicted in her trial for hate speech. “But can hate be prosecuted by law? It is a sentiment. It is a natural part of life. Like love, it cannot be proscribed by a legal code. It can be judged, but only on the basis of ethics and morality. If I have the right to love, then I have the right to hate also.”

Hate? “Yes, I do hate the bin Ladens and the Zarqawis. I do hate the bastards who burn churches in Europe. I hate the Chomskys and Moores and Farrakhans who sell us to the enemy. I hate them as I used to hate Mussolini and Hitler. For the cause of freedom, this is my sacrosanct right.”

What’s more, Fallaci pointed out that Europe’s hate speech laws never seem to be used against the “professional haters, who hate me much more than I hate them”: the Muslims who hate as part of their ideology…

Read on here.

LINK: Fallaci: Warrior in the cause of freedom – Front Page magazine

RELATED: Obituary, Multiculturalism, Religion, War

Beer O’Clock: Delirium Tremens, Strong Pale Ale, 9%

August 18, 2006

Continuing the theme of pandering to requests from anonymous comments, this week’s Beer O’Clock from Neil at Real Beer goes in search of the legendary Pink Elephants of Huyghe.

The Huyghe brewery in Belgium has been in existence since 1654 but today’s beer – Delirium Tremens – is only about 20 years old. It comes in a bottle painted to look like pottery and with a label boasting its trademark Pink Elephants and (inexplicably) Alligators Wearing Sunglasses.

Beer wise, it is a bottle-conditioned, strong Belgian pale ale weighing in at a hefty 9%. The brewing process is complex and uses three different yeasts. It is considered a classic beer – one of Beerhunter Michael Jackson’s Top 500 beers in the world.

Huyghe also make a dark beer called Delirium Nocturum and a seasonal winter beer called Delirium Christmas (or Delirium Noel) – the labels have the famous Pink Elephants with little Santa Hats on and they are just too cute.

They also make La Guillotaine – the blandest 9% Belgian Strong Ale you will ever taste.

As for the name, Delirium Tremens (known popularly as ‘The DTs’) is a potentially fatal form of ethanol (alcohol) withdrawal. Christy Moore for one has a fine song on the subject. Several US states however banned this beer because of the name. Their loss.

The beer itself pours a lazy, hazy yellow with a compact, firm head. The nose is peppery, grainy, fruity (orange, banana) with a little late coriander spice. In the mouth it is smooth, yeasty, fruity (apple and pear) and little spicy (coriander and pepper). It has pleasantly long bitter finish.

Like many quality Belgian beers it hides its high alcohol content.

Take care, once the bottle is opened those marvellous pink elephants are never far away…

RELATED: Beer & Elsewhere

Petition to ban the … ?

August 17, 2006

What does Bastiat’s heavily satirical petition from the candlemakers and the idea to ban the single most deadly nuclear reactor have in common?

Guess.

Given that they want to ban free trade and hydrogen monoxide respectively, the Sues Bradford and Kedgeley might want to take note.

UPDATE: I’ve changed the link for ‘The Petition of the Candlemakers’ because I’ve just noticed the buggers at that first link only had up half of the bloody petition! Sheesh already.

LINKS: Candlemakers’ petition – Frederic Bastiat
Xxx kills 60,000 a year, WHO says
– Reuters [Hat tip Stephen Hicks]

RELATED: Economics, Environment, Humour

Wipe out the RotoVegas crims?

August 8, 2006

I haven’t commented on this so far, but I really can’t believe this is still causing such debate in the Commentariat. I’m referring to the question of whether or not to ban repeat criminals from the Rotorua town centre.

Isn’t the flavour of this similar to other questions that have people tangled up in knots? Should we ban smoking in bars? Should club members be allowed to blackball new members? Should employers be forced to adopt racial quotas? Should we be allowed to separate Muslim from non-Muslim bathers on Italian beaches?

The answer to all these questions is the same: “Who’s this ‘we,’ white man?”

That is: “Who owns the bar?” “Who owns the club?” “Whose place of business is this?” “Who owns the beach?” That’s right, the way to cut this Gordian knot is with property rights. If this was a Rotorua shop we were talking about, or a Rotorua shopping mall, ‘we’ would (or should) have no say in whom the shop- or mall-owner wishes to ban from his property. It’s the same with beach and bar and business and bordello: He who has the property makes the rules.

The reason you and I are still discussing this is that downtown RotoVegas is owned by the ‘public,’ ie., by nobody, so that rules on behaviour downtown can only be those implemented by the council and enforced by the police and objected to by ‘snivel libertarians’ with the cry of “Big Brother!” (To which I can only say, “Oh, Brother!”)

Enact or recognise property rights in the RotoVegas CBD however — for example, by granting shop-owners property rights in the ‘public’ areas of the town, just as they might have as part of a body corporate in a mall — and you’ll see that as those with a legitimate property right they can make whatever rules or policies they like consistent with their need to make a dollar.

Just another example of how private property de-politicises so called thorny issues.

Of course, another way of solving the problem is to actually lock up real repeat criminals (instead of people like Tim Selwyn), but I’m no more optimistic on that score than I am on this one.

LINK: 5 women, 111 convictions – Sunday Star-Times
Sun, sea and sharia on women-only Italian beach – Guardian [Hat tip Relative Humility]

TAGS: Politics-NZ, Property Rights

Trotter v Pedersen: Blame the Libz

July 21, 2006

It’s all the libertarians’ fault, apparently.

Chris Trotter is up in arms in his latest column — never a pretty sight. How dare Fed Farmers’ president Charlie Pedersen accuse environmentalists of “a war against the human race,” says Chris. How dare George W. Bush hire libertarian-leaning types like Gale Norton (right) and Lynn Scarlett (left) to run many of the agencies who until recently thought they were “responsible for protecting the United States’ environment”; with “catastrophic” results, says Chris — catastrophic, that is, for big-government advocates whose failed ‘ban-everything’ environmental policies have been slowly, quietly but inexorably (and thankfully) heading for the ashcan of history. (Read an interview with Scarlett here.)

Says Chris, who seems worried the same thing might be afoot here (if only!):

[Pedersen’s] attack on the environmental movement reflects his determination that the farming community should remain politically unaccountable for the environmental damage it is causing. Trading on the massive contribution farmers make to New Zealand’s export receipts, he has set his sights on rolling back environmental regulation in the name of economic security.

If Pedersen is in favour of rolling back environmental regulation in the name of property rights, then I’m right with him. If only he was. After all, that’s the only guaranteed way to have your environmental and economic cakes without eating either, as many of those libertarian-leaning types in the US already realise — one reason they’ve been rolling back so much of that failing big-government enviro-legislation over there.

Mr Pedersen’s speech [continues Chris] may represent the opening salvo of a campaign designed to bring about something very similar here. It would be a mistake to dismiss his ideas out of hand. What we consider extremism in one decade all too often becomes the conventional wisdom of the next.

Too true. It does. Just look at what became of the Values Party.

This time however the ‘extremism’ Chris is worried about is not the extremism of his friends from Values, now known as the Green party, but the extremism of libertarians who, besides being “far-right” (according to The Trott-sky), are also apparently ZAPatistas. It’s a little hard to make complete sense of it all, really. Trotter seems at times to be trying to out-Wishart Wishart, and at others to be seeing the demise of the politically-correct mainstream.

Whatever he’s up to, he’s pulled out some good old-fashioned smearing to warn all the good comrades to Watch Out, There Are Libertarians About, with Charlie Pedersen in the saddle riding shotgun. And about that he’s at least somewhat correct. After all, if he’s going to warn about an intellectual revolution, he’d hardly be taken seriously if he suggested one coming from within National.

But about there being one, on that he’s right on the money.

UPDATE: Comments here from some of Trotter’s accused: ‘The man who shot JFK.’

LINKS: A preview of the future – Chris Trotter, Dominion Post
The reformers: Lynn Scarlett – ABetterEarth.Org
A closer look at Interior: An official explains its philsophical vision – Lynn Scarlett, PERC Report
Pedersen slams religious environmentalism – Not PC (Peter Cresswell)
Linz shot JFK
– Lindsay Perigo et al

TAGS: Environment, Conservation, Politics-NZ, Politics-US

‘We’?

July 21, 2006

Here’s one of my favourite jokes.

The Lone Ranger and his faithful Indian companion Tonto are riding through one of many canyons when suddenly rising from the hill on their right are hundreds of
Indians in war garb. They spur their horses forward when they realise that there
are hundreds of Indians ahead of them. Wheeling to the left they see hundreds of Indians rising from that hill. Things are looking ominous. They begin to back away in the direction from which they had come and they realise they are surrounded. They have fallen into an ambush.

The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto, his faithful and life-long friend, and says, “Tonto
my friend, I think I must say that I have treasured our many adventures together, but now I think we are doomed.”

To which Tonto replies, “What’s with the ‘we,’ white man?”

As you might have deduced, it’s not one of my favourites because it’s funny. It’s one of my favourites because that punchline can be used so often. You hear it all the time:

“What are we going to do about the state of our chooldren’s health/obesity/future/safety? [Delete any that don’t apply.]”
“How can we solve [insert latest fashionable concern]?”
“We all agree that [insert favourite liberal nostrum].”
“We should ban [insert latest Green concern].”
“We should pass a law.”
“We should get out more.”
“We should share more.”
“We should give more.”
“We should consume less.”
“We should stop
“We are destroying biodioversity/the planet/sustainability.”
“Shouldn’t we allow a degree of reserve when choosing which parts of nature we take for ourselves?”
“How should we feel about this?”
“Can’t we all just [insert favourite fashionable folderol]?”
“What are we all doing with our lives?”
“What are we gonna do now?”

Answer to all of these: “What’s with the we, white man?”

“We should share.” “We should recycle.” “We should compensate Maori for injustices of the past.” No. ‘We’ shouldn’t. If you want to do anything about anything, then you go right ahead. If you committed an injustice against someone then you pay up, but don’t make me pay for or share your feelings of guilt for things I didn’t do to people I never met. If you want to recycle, then you go right ahead, but don’t get the Government to make the rest of us join you or pay for your enthusiasm. Stop thinking of people as part of a collective; realise that ‘we’ are all individuals, and we all have the power of choice.

Ayn Rand’s novella Anthem has this to say:

The word “We” is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

To paraphrase Leo Tolstoy, if you want to change the world, then try starting with yourself. So what are we going to do about ‘our’ chooldren? Personally, I’m not doing anything. They’re not mine.

LINKS: Anthem Page – Noble Soul
Anthem, complete text – Noble Soul
Cue Card Libertarianism – Individualism – Not PC (Peter Cresswell)
Cue Card Libertarianism – ‘No man is an island’
– Not PC (Peter Cresswell)
Cue Card Libertarianism – Harmony of interests – Not PC (Peter Cresswell)

TAGS: Ethics, Politics