Who's next?

Scapegoat. n. One who is made to bear the blame of others. See goat, fall guy, whipping boy.

Helen Clark does scapegoats well, doesn't she. First she puts the boot into the Exclusive Brethren, who she would like us to believe were almost single-handledly responsible for contemporary corruption in politics (anything to divert us from the very real corruption of an election bought with our money); now Mercury Energy, whose "heartlessness" she says (rather than a family's own bad lifestyle choices) is responsible for a woman's death ... anything, any lies at all, to get people's minds off the clusterfuck that her Government has become. Anything to avoid blame being pointed at her.

Still eighteen months before an election. Who's next? Do we all need to keep our heads down? As a blues singer said once, "Every culture needs a scapegoat to clean the shithouse." There's still an awful lot of shit to clean up 'tween now and next November -- if this strategy can last that long.

Cripple, cripple, cripple

What's more politically incorrect than attacking cripples? Answer, Penn & Teller, especially when it's them doing the attacking.

In their latest episode, Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit' show takes on all those government mandated cripple parks, cripple ramps and pro-cripple employment quotas which in the US all come under the rubric of the Americans With Disabilities Act. As they explain, the Act is yet another example of the unintended consequences of government action; as one disabled American against the Americans With Disabilities Act explains, far from making people more likely to help out those how need help, the effect has been the reverse -- it makes cripples walking lawsuits (or rolling lawsuits, if you will), an outreach arm of bigger government, and less well off than before:

Disability is not a civil rights issue .. nothing the government can do can make me equal to you in any way...

It teaches people they don't have to help others who need help...

Coercion never produces compassion...

This law they say will produce a more compassionate America -- I say it does exactly the opposite...

You can watch this hilarious and insightful episode in three parts on YouTube, here, here and here. [Hat tip Julian D.]

And check out too this clip of Penn and Teller on 'West Wing,' burning (or not) the American flag in the White House. If 'West Wing' was all this good, maybe I should have been watching it?

Libertarians: they're everywhere

I was surprised to see two libertarians featured so glowingly in this morning's Sunday Star Times.

Author Mario Vargas Llosa was profiled -- in a piece picked up from The Guardian no less, and online here -- supporting free markets, Margaret Thatcher and the war in Iraq, and saying that subsequent to his 1977 novel Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter,

his politics had decisively shifted. He says: "In my generation, it was impossible when you were young not to be very close to the left - the left seemed the way of justice, equality, the best way to fight against imperialism, colonialism, and then many things happened. I went to Cuba many times in the 60s and I started to have doubts, I became a bit critical." Having been a disciple of Sartre he went back and "reread everything, and I discovered that Camus [a staunch anti-communist] was right, not Sartre. I reread the thinkers who defended and promoted the culture of freedom. Then I was in Britain during Mrs Thatcher's revolution and I became very enthusiastic with the branch of liberalism which is libertarian, so this is what I am." A photo of him with Thatcher sits on a bookshelf.

The second libertarian to appear in the Star was local musician Bruce Lynch, who is -- or at least was, I haven't checked recently -- a Libz member, and who appeared supporting Neil Finn's view on the Prime Minister and local music that made headlines earlier in the week, that she "has hit the wrong note by taking credit for local music industry success."

No pop star, despite a stint touring and recording with Cat Stevens, Lynch works behind the scenes. He spent four years making the music for the Power Rangers TV series and is currently working on string arrangements for a new Anika Moa album.

Lynch is sceptical about the value of government schemes.

"(Politicians) put lots of money in and pump themselves up and we really haven't made much of a dent. We just create another class of people dependent on welfare."

Lynch's comments echo those of Finn in this month's Real Groove magazine: "I think there is a tendency in New Zealand at the moment, because of NZ on Air dishing out large sums of money, for people to have unreal expectations for what New Zealand music can achieve overseas or is actually achieving," he said.

"There's a perception that is somewhat hype generated at the moment that all this music's going out and making a big splash, and it's really not."

Finn's views don't represent everyone in the industry, but they are far from rare.

Lynch said there was a danger in creating too much expectation. "We've got schools for popular music, schools for engineers - we've got all those people out there with skills that nobody wants."

Libertarians: they're everywhere, and they invariably make an awful lot of sense. :-)

Which party?

Howard Phillips of the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party (a faith-based political party) makes an important observation.

Throughout history there have been three political parties – one is the party that believes in the sovereignty of God (and [Phillips] works with such a party, the U.S. Taxpayers Party); the other is a party which believes in the sovereignty of man and man’s reason - (and libertarians are of that view); and the third is every other party which believes in the sovereignty of the state – that the state is God walking on Earth.

Which of the three do you support?

Open Letter to Mark Burton: Democracy Rationing

Dear Sir

I heard your recent comments in support of so-called 'Campaign Finance Reform' on The Radio Network. As a New Zealand citizen and taxpayer, I wish to register a differing viewpoint.

This disgusting plan of Labour's to not only help themselves to public money to pay for election campaigning, but also to place restrictions upon personal donations to political parties, is another direct assault on the right to exercise free speech. It should be no business of yours, mine or anybody's as to whom individuals, businesses or organisations choose to support financially. None.

How dare you try to stifle that right.

Further, how dare you use public money, ie our money - not your own, to tell us who to vote for? Do your own damned fundraising - outside the trade union movement.

Don't for a second think that the electorate doesn't realise that Labour is furious because the Opposition raise more funds privately, although God knows why anyone would support them. The Nats are only one step up the Stupidity Ladder from your lot. But I digress. The point is that the choice to fund any political party must remain with the individual or organisation alone.

This Stalinism following hard on the heels of last year's election-spending rort is really too much. Your party has again demonstrated its abject lack of morality.

Yours,
Susan the Libertarian