Dinosaurs vote for asteroids

From the Indie:

Britain's biggest union is in talks to form an "unholy alliance" with rightwing Conservatives to oppose next year's referendum on electoral reform, The Independent has learnt.

Unite, which has more than 2 million members and is the largest funder of the Labour Party, is expected to throw its weight behind the No2AV campaign early in the New Year. It will commit funding to the campaign and mail anti-AV literature to members.

The decision raises the prospect of union officials campaigning side by side with local Tory party associations to oppose electoral reform. The move also puts Unite at odds with Labour leader Ed Miliband, who announced earlier this month that he would campaign in favour of changing the voting system.

.oO SNIP Oo.

However the other big union, Unison, which represents the majority of public-sector workers, is likely to abstain from taking sides in the vote. The decision by Unite and the GMB is a boost to the No camp, which yesterday revealed the names of 114 Labour MPs who have pledged their support in May's referendum. These include Hazel Blears, Jim Fitzpatrick, Keith Vaz and Margaret Hodge. In contrast around 60 Labour MPs, including most of the Shadow Cabinet, have said they will campaign for a Yes vote. (1)

The idea that a trade union would ally with the Tories to prevent progress marks a new low in intelligence among the forces of social democracy. It shows that, in fact, the tradde unions can be every bit as reactionary, stupid, and anti-democratic as the forces they are supposed to be opposing, and that they are more interested in maintaining a two team stranglehold on power, content to take their turn in charge every decade or so, rather than advance the ideals they are supposed to represent.

Proportional representation will entrench the social democratic majority in power, and allow meaningful long term reform. It will mean the Tories never again enjoy the disporportionate sway they held in the 80s, which effectively broke the Labour party and allowed the Tories to implant their corrosive ideals and policies for a generation.

I just can't get my head around the imbecile tendency in some parts of the Labour party, as shown by their opposition to proportional representation AV. Surely, the strategic benefits of it are obvious to anyone other than the dimmest tribal warrior. Yeah, it might mean coalition with centrist parties, but it will mean the Tories are far hobbled far more effectively. If Unite really had the interests of its members at heart, rather than just getting its paws on power every now and again, it would be campaigning for a 'Yes' vote - and demanding the Labour party support real proportionaal representation, not the feeble halfway house of the Alternative Vote.

Voting to keep first past the post is like dinosaurs voting for asteroids, because it will mean whatever Labour manage to accomplish while they're in power will be obliterated whenever the Tories get back in.

1 - "Labour split as 114 MPs say 'no' to voting reform," by Oliver Wright. Published by the Independent, 30th of December, 2010. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-split-as-114-mps-say-no-to-voting-reform-2171786.html)

Bastards yet again

While we're on the subject of Uighurs, what about this?

Last December, 20 Uighur refugees were forcibly deported back to China from Cambodia. Now, one year later, they’re still missing.

The ethnic Uighurs from northwest China had been applying for asylum in Cambodia because they feared persecution and torture in China. They fled China’s Xinjiang region during a crackdown that followed deadly riots there in July 2009. Hundreds of Uighurs were arrested, and several were executed, after what Human Rights Watch called “grave violations of due process.”

Just one day after the Uighurs were deported last year, China’s Vice President arrived in Cambodia. That visit ended with $1.2 billion dollar grant-and-loan deal for Cambodia. (1)

And, if you're still struggling to wotrk out what's going on, maybe this will help:

Ablikim Abdureyim, one of Kadeer's 11 children, told relatives who visited him in prison last week that he was mistreated, placed in solitary confinement and that his health has been deteriorating, supporters said.

Amnesty International said Abdureyim was confined after refusing to sign a document denying that he witnessed an unspecified "controversial incident" in the Urumqi city prison.

Catherine Baber, the rights group's Asia-Pacific deputy director, urged China to release Abdureyim and called his treatment "the latest example of systematic human rights abuses suffered by China's Uighur population." (2)

Life sentences, torture and disappearances. These are our valued trading partners.

1 - "20 Uighurs Still Missing After Being Sent Back to China in 2009," unattributed article. Publsihed by NTD TV, 22nd of December, 2010. (http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_china/2010-12-22/126167258980.html)
2 - "China urged to probe Uighur 'torture'," unattributed article. Published by AFP. Reproduced by Google News, 22nd of December, 2010. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iqg3aS0stiN43TR0fDu0CFC13COg?docId=CNG.60eb4047766bf2f855b1e742fd8c9784.ca1)

Bastards again

After the disgusting 15 year sentence handed out to Uighur journalist and blogger Halaite Niyaze (1), the Bastards of Beijing have decided to stop being nice and doled out a LIFE SENTENCE to Uighur journalist Memetjan Abdulla.

His crime? Translating a release by the World Uyghur Congress and putting it up on his website (2). This merits a life sentence for supposedly inciting people to riot.

This happened back in April, but has only just been revealed. Another blogger, Gulmire Imin, was apparently sentenced at the same time as Adulla, also to life imprisonment (3).

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2010/07/bastards.html
2 - "China sentences Uighur to life for reporting riots," unattributed article. Published by the Press Association. Reproduced in The Guardian, 24th of December, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9421797)
3 - "Uyghur Web Moderators Get Life," by Shohret Hoshur and Rachel Vandenbrink. Published by Radio Free Asia, 8th of August, 2010. (http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/sentence-08082010190802.html)

Sporting National making a match of it, again?

Some time ago (the 7th of March, 2008, to be precise (1)) I pondered if National - in opposition but well ahead in the polls - were so bored with the inevitability of their victory that they were deliberately acting all hateful and useless to even things up a bit. This was the time of John Key's "We'd love to see wages drop" gaffe, his absent mindedness about what his party's policy on treaty settlements was, and Bill English promising to flog off Kiwi Rail at the first opportunity.

The same sporting spirit manifest again, with National deciding that, really, it is silly having a 20 point lead in the opinion polls, and since Labour don't seem to have any ideas at all on how to reduce it, they'd better give them a helping hand.

I can't think why they'd do something so obviously stupid as threaten to open up ACC to competition - well, I can, but that would mean they were both ideologically driven and boneheadedly stupid as well (2). It's better to assume they're trying to make a match of 2011. After all, it would be pretty depressing to be trounced twice by arrogant, dim free market fanatics.

Nick Smith's announcement is a gift to Labour, if they have the nous to take it (a big if, I'll grant you). It's one of these divisive issues where the real differences between National and the electorate is made clear - and not to national's advantage. And because it's something that lots of people have experience of, and which can be phrased in fairly straightforward language, it might have some resonance.

Even better, the fact that any changes won't take place until after the election means 2011 can effectively be ABOUT the future of ACC. The battle lines can be very clearly drawn, and the electorate given a straightforwards choice between the status quo, or hideous mess.

(n.b. I may have shown my preference there)

I can even discern the makings of some sort of policy platform here:

• PROTECTING our ACC from the freemarket.
• RESTORING your rights as workers by repealing the 90 days rule.
• KEEPING the employer contribution and government subsidies on Kiwisaver.

Which is nice an worker focused, and has the advantage of being good policy.

1 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/03/sporting-national-make-match-of-it.html.

2 - "ACC levies unchanged, work cover opened up," by Vernon Small. Published by Stuff, 21st of December, 2010. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4481101/ACC-levies-unchanged-work-cover-opened-up)

Daily Mail plumbs new depths

The Daily Mail really is a horrible rag, isn't it? A deranged woman murders her child, and the Mail fixates on the fact that she happens to be a Muslim (1).

Must have been a major dilemma for the Mail though, horrible case like this. Do they go with the Muzzie bashing angle, or run the "Where were Social Services" routine. Obviously, in this case, they went for the first option. Mad people do terrible things. That she was listening to the Koran isn't relevant at all, any more than the fact that Mark Chapman was clutching a copy of The Catcher In The Rye when he shot John Lennon.

This really does mark stupendous depths of venal, hate raking for the Mail.

1 - "'Mother cuts out the heart of her daughter, four, as she listens to recording of Koran in ritual killing'," unattributed article. Published in The Daily Mail, 18th of December, 2010. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339665/Mother-cuts-heart-daughter-4-listens-recording-Koran-ritual-killing.html)

Politics's loss is the military's gain

I've just had my attention drawn to this (1):

The gentleman talking is one Colonel Alan West, who has just been elected to congress, who appears to have retired after some 'controversy' surrounding his treatment of an Iraqi prisoner (2).

Sorry, what's the point here? He seems to be claiming Muslims are somehow displaying a unique impulse towards conquest, warfare and a religiously motivated desire to slay infidels even though they are acting pretty much like everyone else has acted throughout history?

Seems a bit of a silly argument to me, as non-Muslims and non-Islamic states have been indulging their penchant for violence and expansion for millenia. Verily, since before there were even Muslims! The Romans, afer all, were not followers of Mohammed.

So, according to Col. West, if Muslims invade another country or indulge in a bit of naval warfare, its because it is a requirement of their faith. Even though, in doing it, they're just behaving like everyone else. Because his argument is that - while Muslim states have historically acted in a way very similar to everyone else, invading, conquering, salting cattle and raping fields and so on, this is somehow different from the same behaviours exhibited by other cultures and countries. We invaded, we conquered, we salted cattle and raped fields on a far grander scale than the Muslims. Which would suggest, that there's nothing particularly different about them doing it.

Consider the empire building antics of the Romans, the British, the French, the Germans, the Austro-Hungarians, the Spanish, the Dutch, even the friggin' Portuguese had one. And that's ignoring for now the Vikings, the Saxons, the Angles, the Jutes, the Normans (though they were Vikings) and all the other various national and tribal factions that have been happily creating mayhem over the years. European history is a continual process of warring, invasion, conquest and colonisation. West is arguing that Muslim states and empires are somehow different because they behave in exactly the same way as Europeans! Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Nations have always sought more power and wealth, to maintain their status and to keep their standing armies busy. Armies were piling into Europe from that part of the world from almost before history - Darius I could hardly have been a Muslim, as he preceded Mohammed by about a thousand years.

The Muslim holy book says DON'T EAT PIGS, PRAY TO MECCA LOTS and SMITE INFIDELS It doesn't really say that, but lets pretend for now it does). So Muslims don't eat pigs, pray to Mecca lots and smite infidels. Fair enough. But then we compare their behaviour to ours. Our holy book (which informs our culture even if we don't officially believe in it any more) says YOU CAN EAT AS MANY PIGS AS YOU WANT, DON'T WORRY ABOUT MECCA and DON'T GO ABOUT SMITING ANYONE (I don't think the pigs thing was ever properly cleared up, but we kinda decided to assume pigs were okay). So we blithely eat pigs, don't care a damn about Mecca ... and smite just about anyone we feel like.

The obvious lesson from this is that the urge to smite stems from somewhere other than what is said in holy books. You can attribute it to some basic human instinct to smite, or some basic economic factor that forces empires to continually expand, but the holy books don't seem to have much to do with it. They might be useful in deciding who gets smote, but when that doesn't avail, anything will do.

As for the title of this post? Think about it like an accountant would.

1 - "Sura 9:5 says, 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them'," posted on You Tube by AmericanFamilyAssoc1, 9th of December, 2010. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYbaln3Uqfc)
2 - "The Struggle For Iraq: Interrogations; How Colonel Risked His Career By Menacing Detainee and Lost," by Deborah Sontag and Ian Fisher. Published in the New York Times, 27th of May, 2004. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/world/struggle-for-iraq-interrogations-colonel-risked-his-career-menacing-detainee.html?scp=1&sq=How+Colonel+Risked+His+Career+by+Menacing+Detainee+and+Lost&st=nyt)

Frailty, thy name is Moody's

They're never happy, these ratings agencies, are they. They threaten you with a credit down grade if you don't slash public spending. And when you do, this happens:

Ireland's credit rating has been slashed by five notches by Moody's, which also warned that the country faced an increasingly uncertain economic future.

Moody's said that the cost of rescuing Ireland's banking sector meant Irish debt was now significantly riskier. It also expressed concern that the deep austerity cuts due over the next four years will hurt domestic demand. The agency maintained a "negative" outlook on Ireland, and said that further downgrades are possible in the future. (1)

Do what they say, or they'll downgrade you. Do as they say, and they downgrade you. Seems to me, if they ain't got you one way ...

1 - "Ireland's credit rating slashed five notches," by Graeme Wearden. Published in The Guardian, 17th of December, 2010. (http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=507659435767768133)