Undergroundnetwork

Putting us all to shame

undergroundnetwork — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:09:06 +0000

Having just finished an internship at the New Zealand Herald, I can safely say I’m working my way into the right career. I enjoyed every minute of the two-week stint, from the despair when the deadline was approaching and the story had stalled (why won’t you pick up the phone/call me back!), to the elation when at the last minute it all fell into place. Maybe that is a feeling that seasoned journalists lose after some time on the job, but that was a real thrill for me. Thankfully the chief reporter gave me heaps to do and I got more published than I expected. The Herald has been running a series on “Unsung heroes”, asking for the public to nominate an exceptional volunteer they know and awarding the winners a cruise. The other intern and I had the privilege to meeting and talking to many of these people and telling their stories. Many of these people are truly inspiring. These are the sorts of people we should admire and aspire to be like, not celebrities or socialites. Not all of us can put in the hours that most of these volunteers do, but we should either give a small amount of time or donate some of the money needed to support their work. I know I am guilty of not always handing over loose change (that I will only spend on beer or burgers) to fundraisers on the street and outside shops, even being somewhat annoyed by having to try avoid them (it depends on my mood, I am usually nice, but sometimes I can be really shitty!). Now I know how important those funds are to these volunteers and their organisations, and the difference their hard work makes to society and those in need. The least we can give such dedicated people is our support.

Quality of news and subjectivity of views

undergroundnetwork — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:30:19 +0000

The next time someone claims that Fox news is a legitimate source of news, refer them to today. Whilst the BBC and CNN went live to the breaking story about the Israeli bulldozer rampage, Fox persisted with a story about cool advertisements during the 1980’s and something about Barack Obama being so right wing that his election could be considered an extension of George Bush’s presidency. Unless of course different countries get different Fox broadcasts, Fox’s credibility and quality have once again been shown to be lacking. Come to think of it, does Fox have news?

Of course the Jeruselum bulldozer rampage was a great tragedy and hopefully the death toll of the incident does not rise any further. At the time of writing three (including driver) are understood to be dead, with dozen injured, seven critically.

However, I did find it disconcerting that both CNN and BBC said the Israeli police are considering the attack to be a an act of “terrorism”. The term is of course so manipulated in its usage rendering it meaningless, but I can only see their decision to use the term as political and irresponcible. Firstly, on what grounds was the attack by definition terrorism? If it is because the perpetrator was an Arab or Palestinian, than this is clearly racist. If the perpetrator was of another race would it be terrorism? Was it the weapon he choose to use? Considering the Israelis devastating use of bulldozers against the Palestinian people, it is hypocritical for the Israelis to deem this attack as terrorism, regardless of the perpetrators actions, which I of course do not condone. Even foreign peace activists have been the victims of the Israeli bulldozer attacks. Was that terrorism? As of yet no one can clearly ascertain as to whether the perpetrators motives were political, or whether he was aligned to particular Palestinian group. Can it really not be ruled out that the attack was non-political (hard to imagine I know and understandably unlikely, yet still plausible)?

To me it appears that the haste in which the Israelis have used this term is politically motivated. As talks resume and cease fires are discussed, diplomacy could be potentially derailed by violence by either side. As it stands, Israeli “security” operations are still taking place in the Gaza strip. It appears each side is eager to resume full on conflict. The will of the civilians are, as always, ignored.

Freedumb?

undergroundnetwork — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:03:38 +0000

Finally! No more waivers from the Secretary of State to into the United States for Nelsen Mandela. Now the former South African president can go to Disney World or see the Lakers play and not even have to get Condoleezza Rice’s permission to so. Nelsen Mandela is a free man! With the ANC scrapped from the US’s terror list, Nelsen Mandela is no longer a terrorist!

With all the sensational rhetorical from US leaders over the years, one must ask what the reality is. For all the grand speeches and claims of freedom, America has been time and time again to be shown on the side of oppressive regimes. This is not America bashing or “anti-Americanism”, this is the reality. America supported Suharto in Indonesia, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And they supported apartheid in South Africa.

Dictators and malevolent political systems have been given the green light by successive administrations. Governments who are friendly to US/Western political and economic interests are supported, even if they do not act in the best interests of their people. Often these governments are overthrown by popular movements, which are usually hostile to the West and have an “extreme” political or religious agenda (Iran, Cuba, Afghanistan or Algeria for example). Although these regimes are often vilified by the West as “oppressive” or “freedom-hating”, these are the countries that often lend support to human rights struggles against western backed regimes. Fidel Castro was a great supporter and friend of Mandela’s during the struggle. Mandela did not forget his supporters upon his release and criticised those who felt Mandela should distance himself from anti-West supporters.

“Those South Africans who berate me for being loyal to our friends, literally they can go and throw themselves into a pool. I am not going to betray the trust of those who helped us.”

“I do that because of a moral authority … that we should not abandon those who helped us in the darkest hour of the history of this country,” Mandela said. “They gave us the resources for us to conduct the struggle and to win.”

Arguably the ANC did commit acts of “terrorism” but that term is as good as meaningless, especially as most definitions do not consider motive or the cause. What is the difference between Western hailed “freedom fighters” and “terrorists”? Mandela and the ANC did indulge in bombing and sabotage campaigns during their struggle, but had the West not made apartheid possible, would this have been necessary. Instead of supporting the rights of Africans, the West was propping up a racist regime and their war against their people. It was the CIA who tipped of the security police in 1962, leading to Mandela’s arrest. The ANC had been linked to African communist movements and allegedly the Soviet Union, so were condemned in the Cold War hysteria. The West had considerable economic interests in the region and South Africa was a key ally in the region.The support of the West for Apartheid was noted by black revolutionary Dr Martin Luther King in 1967.

“…The tragedy of South Africa is not simply in its own policy, it is the fact that the racist government of South Africa is virtually made possible by the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain…”

In the 80’s public opposition to apartheid continued to grow, yet Western countries still managed to allow South Africa to maintain its institutionalised racism. Despite the minimal criticism aimed at the former US president after his death, Ronald Reagan was a key supporter of apartheid in the 1980’s. It was President Reagan who placed the ANC and Mandela on the US terrorist list in the first place. In 1986, Nelsen Mandela’s wife Winnie accused the Reagan Administration of supporting “the racist white regime”. Britain was not innocent, with Baroness Margaret Thatcher opposing sanctions on the country and maintaining the party to be a terrorist organisation. And meanwhile New Zealand was tearing itself apart in 1981 when the Springboks toured.

“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care.” Mandela 2003

Yet this history has been well concealed through hollow photo opportunities and false respect. If people really respected the man, should they not acknowledge their mistakes and apologise for their countries’ support for apartheid? Is it that they willingly neglect to remember the past, or do they have a warped view of reality? Mandela is instead placed on a pedestal, given a Presidential Medal of Freedom, a pat on the back and given a bloody good 90^th birthday party. No lesson is actually learnt. And mistakes will again be made, dictators will be propped up, popular uprisings suppressed, and future Mandela’s will be imprisoned. And no doubt they will be lauded upon release, and more lovely photos can be taken.

While no amount of google search could find anything much of an apology or even an acknowledgment of US support for apartheid, 2004 Presidential Election winner Senator John Kerry came close when he said the United States has “moved closer at last to removing the great shame of dishonouring this great leader by including him on our government’s terror watch list”.

Condoleezza Rice appeared to be more concerned about looking stupid:

“(Removing the ANC was a) rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela.”

And some suffered from short time memory loss:

“The label of ‘terrorist’ will no longer be affixed to associates of the ANC — among them one of the world’s great heroes, Nelson Mandela. Our country stands with those who struggled to bring the reprehensible system of apartheid to an end,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman.

Britain’s Conservative Party is at least a little more honest than their counterparts across the Atlantic:

“The mistakes my party made in the past with respect to relations with the ANC and sanctions on South Africa make it all the more important to listen now. The fact that there is so much to celebrate in the new South Africa is not in spite of Mandela and the ANC, it is because of them - and we Conservatives should say so clearly today.” David Cameron 2006

It makes you think just how much influence politics and economics have in the way we view international figures. Monster can be condoned as necessary evils, and people’s heroes can be vilified as terrorists. It makes me wonder whether we always choose the right enemy and whether we have the right friends. Should we expect today’s villains from other struggles to be tomorrow’s heroes?

On a related topic I intend to write a post about Zimbabwe, looking at media coverage in the west and the possible options available to the international community to deal with the tyrant Robert Mugabe. Certainly no hero there!

Is Green the new Red?

undergroundnetwork — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:57:40 +0000

An advertisement for the Green Party in today’s Herald (near a great story about an incredible woman!) highlighted the party’s efforts on behalf of workers. With Labour not representing the worker masses as well as they historically having as they fight to claim some of the middle ground, the Greens threaten to possibly claim much of Labour’s core vote. Sue Kedgely’s Flexible Working Arrangements bill, which was passed in Parliament last year, will come into effect tomorrow (Tuesday 1 July) and give workers the right to request hours that fit in with their commitments. This law will be massive for families and for workers who are constrained by their jobs, opening up the possibility that people can work to live, not work to live.

Sue Bradford warned Labour not to take the workers vote for granted in 2006. She pointed out that paid parental leave and four weeks annual leave, both important pieces of legislation for workers, were both forced onto Labour’s agenda by coalition partners. Green’s have long since added social concern to their environmental agenda, but with the Flexible Working Arrangements bill, have they now well and truly taken the labour title of Labour? Is Green the new Red?

Admittedly I am a fan of many of Labour’s policies and many of their politicians, in particular Helen Clark and Phil Goff. However it is distressing that the party has lost its roots. In the pursuit of becoming more centrist and with the fear of appearing communist (the ridiculous claim is of course still made), Labour has failed to ensure the core foundations of society are solid. From this I mean the essentials necessary for a society to flourish. Children are still being let down in the education system, waiting lists are still too long, public transport, although improving, is neglected, the police force is unaccountable and the court system is in desperate need of reform. Children are going to school without lunch, young people are feeling alienated and marginalized and there are not enough doctors/nurse/teachers/and on and on and on. Meanwhile Labour cannot fund Herceptin, but have funds for all sorts of luxury pet projects. I know the government is trying to fix a lot of these problems, and having great success in many areas, but it appears easily distracted by more glamorous issues. This has been an area National has got a lot of electoral mileage.

I’m not saying the Greens have all the answers, but to be fair most of what they say is reasonable and, to be honest, they have a habit about being right about most things in the past (give it a year and Sue Bradford’s controversial Bill will be vindicated, mark my words!). Environmental awareness is certainly becoming accepted in most circles, including business. Although there is concerted effort by the party’s detractors to discredit the party as fringe, many of their commitments are to ideals that surely the majority of New Zealanders hold dear. And the polls perhaps reflect this (although don’t always trust polls!). So can the Green Party position itself as an appealing party to voters that may have been scared off by the past overemphasis on marijuana law reform which (although Nandor was a great inspiration to me) was effectively toxic policy for many Kiwis? Can the party claim the Labour unionist base? Can the party obtain social and environmental conscience family orientated voters? I’m not going to endorse a party on my blog, this isn’t America, but Labour should be warned that as centrist voters seep over to National in pursuit of the mysterious tax cuts, Labour may lose its bread and butter to those who feel neglected. Oh, and then there is the Maori Party! Labour really is in the shit.

I have an overwhelming lack of solid examples in this post to back up my point, for that I apologise. I should really find some examples, but I think most readers will get my point, and I expect a few will share my sentiment. That doesn’t make me right though.

On a slight tangent…

Some who object to the Green Party believe that it should focus only on environmental issues and not social issues, but clearly anyone who says this has either not thought this through or does not have two brain cells to rub together. What would an environment only Green Party do when issues on anything other than the environment arose in parliament? Abstain? Why even be in parliament? It appears to me that such people are leveling their criticism at the wrong party. Usually claiming that they support environmentalism but not Greens’ economic or social policies, these people would best be objecting to the parties they align themselves more with that have insufficient green credentials. Unfortunately for those who object to the party for having non-environmental policy, visitors to their website will see they have more policy than John Key could ever dream of! Here’s a list of all the things the Greens are campaigning on:

Politics is torture

undergroundnetwork — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:33:32 +0000

Coming from the country that gave us George W Bush and his colour coded scare chart, news such as this CNN story should no longer come as a surprise. It is an excellent example of politics at its worst. I’ll give you a snippet from the story:

During a contentious House hearing on harsh interrogation techniques for terror suspects Thursday, Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Massachusetts, was pressing David Addington, the vice president’s chief of staff, about meetings he attended while serving as Cheney’s chief counsel.

Delahunt asked repeatedly whether the topic of waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning, ever came up.

Addington replied that he could not discuss that because “al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN.”

“Right,” Delahunt responded. “Well, I’m sure they are watching, and I’m glad they finally have the chance to see you, Mr. Addington.”

“Yeah, I’m sure you’re pleased,” Addington shot back.

“Given your penchant for being unobtrusive,” Delahunt said of Addington’s ability to stay behind the scene.”

Apparently there is some political mileage to be gained here. The Republican’s believe Delahunt wished to make Addington a target for al Qaeda.

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said “the congressman’s comments were inappropriate,” and Republican Rep. Steve King expressed outrage that Delahunt said he was happy about the staffer becoming a “publicly televised target” of al Qaeda

“With Rep. Bill Delahunt’s remarks inciting al Qaeda to violence, David Addington and his family will need protection until the war on terror is over,” King, of Iowa, said in a written statement. “I wonder if Bill Delahunt is ready to guard Mr. Addington’s home and family.”

Really, in the greater scheme of things, who is this Addington guy? Is he really a potential target for al Qaeda? According to the Department of Homeland Security, every American is a target for al Qaeda! Addington is hardly top of al Qaeda’s to do list. Yet according to King he is now a “publicly televised target” and will “need protection until the war on terror is over”. And if anyone from al Qaeda does actually watch American television, would they really watch C-span over the Daily Show?

Meanwhile, attention is diverted for the issue at hand, and that is whether the Bush Administration is using torture against untried, uncharged “enemy combatants”. It seems whenever anyone tries to bring those reasonable for human rights abuse to account, the Republicans go on the attack.

So far the Bush Administration and Republicans in general have done an excellent job of remaining unaccountable for their actions, not just on torture or the ridiculously named “War of Terror”, but for global warming, hurricane Katrina, the health system, the economy, science, and by most accounts, every other facet of governance. How many more months does the rest of the world, and of course all rational Americans, have to suffer? Not many more, not many more!

Who are these people and why should I care?

undergroundnetwork — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:34:29 +0000

Are you new to Auckland’s social scene? Here’s a quick guide to who’s who on Planet Socialite.

Rachel Glucina will tell you where it’s at in “Spy”, the gossip pullout magazine in the Herald on Sunday. The Herald website describe her on their website as a “gossip queen”, who “reports on the latest parties, fashions and celebrity events around town”. I’ve only flicked through the magazine once, and although I did not expect to, I did not recognise anyone. Who are these people? Are they celebrities? What do they do? Are they just rich? Did they earn that money, or are they just the spoilt brat of an investment banker, or something? Are they even nice people, or just egotistic “socialites”? What is a socialite anyway? Someone who goes out and socialises? I sometimes socialise! You probably socialise! Are we socialites? And if not, why not? And why should we care about those people that are bloody socialites? Because they dress nice? Because they drive nice cars? Because they know people who actually are famous? Please Rachel, why should I care? In fact, why should anyone care? And people actually do care! Why do they care? I must be missing out on something here, such as how wonderful a trivial existence must be.

I’ve rallied against celebrity before, but these people aren’t even real celebrities! They are just friends with celebrities. Can you be a celebrity by association? Who is more pathetic? The person who is celebrity because they once sung a two minute 30 one hit wonder, the person who is celebrity by association, or the person who follows the movements of a meaningless celebrity (or socialite!) they have never even met?

The Herald took a risk adopting a tabloid format for their Herald on Sunday, but has insisted the size will not determine the quality of the paper. As long as Spy is inserted, I beg to differ.

In one hand the match, in the other the hose

undergroundnetwork — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:35:41 +0000

I’m not sure where I heard it, but apparently arsonists are often firemen. I would love to provide some statistics to support this wild claim, but my google search came up short. Who needs facts right? I did find this story from the US’s Staten Island and this American study on “Firefighter Arson”, so I’m not making it up. Apparently 33 firemen were charged with arson in 1993, according to the South Carolina Forestry Commission. I think that is only in South Carolina, which makes it all the more surprising. So I imagine these deranged firemen (Reader’s Digest’s most trusted 2008), walking around with cans of gasoline and boxes of matches, lighting bush fires and setting letter boxes alight. 10 minutes later they turn up with the boys in red, on the back of a firetruck, ready to douse out their earlier handiwork.

I don’t know how prevalent the problem is. And I don’t know why these guys do it. Are they bored? Do they not already have enough to do? Aren’t they just making more work for themselves?

Do other professions do a similar thing? What about journalists? What if it is a really slow news day? Should you just run another real estate story as your lead? Should you make a story up? Or, should you do as this Macedonian journalist did, and really make the news?

Although he has only been charged and not yet convicted for murder and rape, if Vlado Taneski did commit the crime, he did not do a very good job at hiding his guilt. He practically printed his involvement, by reporting facts that had not even been made public by the Macedonian police. So he came to the scene with malice and a weapon and returned later with a pad and a pen.

If convicted, it would be interesting to know the man’s motives. Not just for the horrific murders, but for writing about them afterwards. This is one of those stories that really shock you, like the German cannibal, or the Amish gunman. I just find that so bizarre.

Not too mention the ethical issue of getting too close to your story.

I suppose like not all firemen are heroes, not all journalists are superman. My perception of the world is shattered.

Who is a threat to whom?

undergroundnetwork — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:42:06 +0000

In the Western corner, nestled between the Mediterranean and half a dozen hostile neighbours, with a population of over 7 million, now 60 years young, with a nuclear arsenal believed to number 150 warheads, defender of Zionism…. ISRAEL!!!

In the Eastern corner, wedged between terrorist havens of Iraq and Afghanistan, with a population of over 65 million, with controversial nuclear programme claimed peaceful, defender of Theocracy… The Islamic Republic of IRAN!!!

Let’s get ready to RUMBLE!!!

All right, enough hype. Let us be serious for a moment. Iran versus Israel. Both are religious states, both have substantial military capabilities, and both are guilty of crimes against minorities in their population. Yet both are viewed very differently in the eyes of the Western media and politicians. Let us look at both countries, and how the media depicts them.

Iran is by no means a model example of a perfect peaceful democracy. Apparently the home to the earliest charter of human rights, Iran is now a well-publicised abuser of the rights of its citizens. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution Sharia law is in place, and executions have increased as a result. According to political historian Ervand Abrahamian, “whereas less than 100 political prisoners had been executed between 1971 and 1979, more than 7900 were executed between 1981 and 1985. In 2004, a 16-year-old was executed for “crimes against chastity”. Homosexuality is also a crime punishable by death, with over 4,000 men and women having been killed for the offence since 1979.

However, there are claims by some of the sizeable Jewish residents that they co-exist peacefully in the Islamic state.

“Whatever they say abroad is lies - we are comfortable in Iran - if you’re not political and don’t bother them then they won’t bother you” Hersel Gabriel, BBC News

In fact surprisingly, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the entire Middle East. Rightly or wrongly, the media focuses less on this reality, and more so on the rhetoric of its leaders and their alleged nuclear weapons programme. Regardless, more focus should be placed on the human rights abuses, that is, the things we know to be occurring, rather than those we do not and can only speculate.

Supporters of Israel claim the Jewish state gets an unfair portrayal in the media. It is claimed Israeli attacks on Palestinians receive undue coverage, whereas Palestinian suicide and rocket attacks are ignored. The good things about Israel are believed to be neglected by critics and the media. It is popular for supporters to point out that it is the sole democracy in the region. The rights of Palestinians, it is argued, are respected within Israel, and the rights of women, homosexuals and other minorities are respected as greatly as in a Western democracy, and much more so than any of Israel’s Middle Eastern Muslim neighbours.

What are shied away from are abuses by Israel. No one with a conscience can honestly defend the shelling of a busy beach in Gaza in 2006, which ended a 16-month truce with Hamas or the disgusting use of cluster munitions against Lebanon (90 per cent of which were dropped in the last 72 hours, as a ceasefire was approaching). So try as one might, no one can sincerely and rationally absolve Israel of its share of guilt in the atrocities of the Middle East. And when international law deems Israeli settlements to be illegal, how can Israel been seen not to be provoking hostilities? If it were not for America’s veto in the Security Council, Israel would have certainly faced greater condemnation from the international community. Whether its supporters would humble themselves and join the chorus of criticism is unlikely. There clearly is a double standard.

To silence debate, anyone who criticises Israel is labelled an anti-Semite. The association is made between critics or opponents of Israel and the European persecutors who drove them from Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Critics are discredited as racist, and the atrocities committed by Israel can be swept aside. This tactic is used by everyone from Israel supporters on the street to US government officials.

“The distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that – whether intentionally or unintentionally – has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonising Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character,” US State Department report to Congress.

So no one can criticise this sovereign democratic state, for fear of being smeared as racist. The ridiculous thing about this slander is that Palestinians are also Semites. But don’t let facts get in the way of this foolproof tactic to silence critics and stifle debate.

I have no problem with there being an Israel. And I do believe that an Israeli state could coexist alongside Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian states. But this will never happen if world leaders and the media maintain a racist bias because they don’t want to be labelled anti-Semitic. Is it not also then anti-Persian to criticise Iran?

Zionism maintains that Israel is Jewish land. Judaism also maintains that Jews are God’s chosen people, an idea that can only resemble racial superiority. Hence comparison’s between Zionists and Nazis are to be expected, and although are certainly not fair and are based largely on conspiracy theories (yes, people still believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!) and true anti-Semiticism, the comparisons should not be dismissed outright. I have nothing against Jewish people, only Judaism, in the same way that I have no problem with Christians, only Christianity. And I have a problem with anyone who deem themselves superior to others. I think the religious aspect of this issue is for a large part the biggest problem. In the same way that religion is used to justify Islamic “terrorist” attacks against Israel, Israel justifies its own crimes as part of the Zionist goal. Israel is not a secular democracy; it is a religious state, with Judaism as its foundations. The occupation is justified because many Israelis believe the land to be their religious homeland and they will act militarily in defence of this belief. Palestinians and Israelis believe that the land is their god given right. And as religious disagreements cannot be resolved and compromises cannot be meet, not until Israel becomes secular and reject Zionism, and Palestinians do likewise with fundamentalist Islam, no resolution can be met. The same applies to Iran, where the root of their human rights auses is religious fundamentalism. However, arguably the root of the rise of religious fundamentalism is Western interference in the region, which is perhaps best left to another blog post (or read War for Civilisation by Fisk to see how religion was at the forefront of resistance to Western exploitation in the region).

The tension has been cast as battle between good versus evil. The propaganda from all sides has overwhelmed rational debate. Iran has depicted Israel as a “stain”, the “regime of occupation” and the “filthy Zionist entity” and the United States as the “great Satan”. Iran, on the other hand has been described as the “greatest threat to the Israel and the US”. The media’s role in twisting the debate is immediately recognisable when one compares the relative treatment of two similar comments made by two prominent officials in Iran and Israel.

In his 2005, “World without Israel” speech, Mahmood Ahmadinejad was translated to have said Israel must be “wiped off the map”. It has been argued that correctly translated he said the “regime occupying Jerusalem” must be removed not Israel itself. This correction has been made repeatedly to defend the President’s comments, but has been ignored by Western media. Although Ahmadinajad’s hostility towards Israel is real, his comments have been twisted for propaganda purposes. It cannot, of course, be denied Iran does pose a threat to Israel, but it is disingenuous to paint Iran as the sole agitator. He has since confirmed the statement that he does not believe Israel has the right to exist and his questioning of the holocaust illustrate not only his animosity towards Jews, but his complete ignorance and stupidity. However, the media and the West’s politicians have been less than equal in their criticism of similar aggressive comments by Israel and others.

Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister, Matan Vilnai, warned Palestinians would face a Shoah, the Hebrew word used for holocaust, if rocket attacks on settlements did not cease. Considering the horrifying loss of life in the Jewish Holocaust, it is utterly mind-blowing he would make such a threat, and even more unbelievable that the media would fail to follow up the statement with criticism or further inquiry. Yet Vilnai was still able to criticise one of the country’s Deputy Prime Ministers of trying to boost his own political standing by threatening Iran after Shaul Mofaz said military strikes to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons looked “unavoidable”. Israel is positioning for war against Iran, and it has been alleged they are considering striking to provoke a retaliatory attack to validate war.

To further illustrate the hypocrisy of the coverage of Ahmadinajad’s stupid yet misquoted comment, one can only look at former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who threatened to obliterate Iran, in her quest to appear tough on foreign policy to the electorate. George W Bush is also guilty of similar aggressive comments. Such moronic threats should be dismissed as irresponsible war mongering, and not tolerated from anyone, friend or foe.

At the heart of the tension is Iran’s alleged nuclear programme. Ahmadinejad vehemently denies his country aims to obtain nuclear weapons:

“We’re fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear-weapons arsenals. This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased organization and the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We don’t need any weapons. We’re a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.” Ahmadinejad to Der Speigel

The West is not convinced. Although Iran claims their plans to enrich uranium are for peaceful energy producing purposes, critics argue the Islamic state aim to produce nuclear weapons. Israel characterises Iran’s nuclear program as an “existential threat”. The IAEA has not settled the dispute, having stated that it appears the programme finished in 2003, yet also stating that the country is not cooperating with inspectors. Considering the threats surrounding the programme, the stakes are high. It should be vital to establish facts from fiction before acting. The misinformation that lead to the Iraq invasion of 2003 is testament to the power of propaganda. Ensuring this does not occur again does not appear to be the priority of an international media that laps up the chest beating of warmongers.

The obvious hypocrisy of this is that not only does much of the West possess thousands of nuclear weapons, but Israel undoubtedly also has such weapons of mass destruction. Despite the hard line being taken with Iran and North Korea, and the volatility of the region, Israel has not even the courtesy to inform the international community of their arsenal or be party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Despite their denials, their nuclear capabilities are the world’s worse kept secret, exposed by Mordechai Vanunu in 1986, confirmed by a slip-up by Prime Minister Ehud Omert in 2006 and confirmed by Jimmy Carter in 2008.

So who is a threat to whom? Who is the bad guy? Is there a good guy?

But where does the truth lie? Is it possible, as perhaps the respected Independent reporter Robert Fisk would have as believe, that each side is in the wrong. Despite many on the right slandering him as biased against Israel and the United States, anyone who has read a great deal of his work and is honest would acknowledge he is critical of all sides in the quagmire that is the Middle East. However, with all the hyperbole and propaganda, it is understandable why people might view Fisk and others’ equal treatment of all guilty sides with suspicion. With this in mind, how should we approach the situation? Should anyone be taking sides, or should the world aim to involve all concerned nations in dialogue and attempt to defuse the tensions? Have the world’s media distorted the debate to ensure conflict is inevitable?

Iran is dangerous, but so is Israel. The actions of Israel should be held to the same critique as Iran or any other nation. Let us not be deceived by propaganda, political point scoring, or by racist ideology. Let us call a spade a spade.

Political Parties of New Zealand

undergroundnetwork — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:39:57 +0000

I’ve added political parties’ websites to the side of this blog. This is to make it easier for readers to refer to the political parties’ websites I have just skewered, to get their side of the debate. As much as I despise many of the ideas some of these parties have (in fact I find only a handful at all savoury), I believe it is important in a democracy to have their voice heard. And it is important for us all to listen, no matter how pathetic their reasoning is. And it is also important for us to critique their policies, pointing out weaknesses and strengths. It is also important we debate the issues with those we disagree with, keeping discussion as civil as possible. That is the beauty of the blogosphere I suppose.

I encourage everyone to have a look at all the websites. It is fascinating to look at the ideas of parties that you did not know existed. Obviously someone believes in the ideas, otherwise there would be no party! Some parties haven’t yet got websites, so will be put up when available. I could not find ones for New World Order Party, which sounds interesting, and Taito Field’s Pacific Party.

Is it worth noting that when I had thought I had finished putting down all the parties, even some of the most obscure, I realised I had forgotten United Future! Is Peter Dunne’s Party doomed to be forgotten come election time? Time will tell.

Here’s a list of all the parties currently registered for the 2008 election.

ACT New Zealand

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Direct Democracy Party

Jim Anderton’s Progressive

Libertarianz

Māori Party

New World Order

New Zealand First Party

New Zealand Labour Party

New Zealand Pacific Party

The Alliance

The Family Party

The Greens, The Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand

The Kiwi Party

The New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit

The New Zealand National Party

The Republic of New Zealand Party

UNITED FUTURE NEW ZEALAND

“…and throw away the key!”

undergroundnetwork — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:17:00 +0000

Well-publicised recent murders have again re-ignited the public calls for greater punishment for perpetrators of violent offences. The usual cries come out, life without parole, harsher prison conditions and zero tolerance for offenders. The Sensible Sentencing Trust are, like usual, at the forefront of these calls, as are Bob McCoskrie’s Family First lobby group. Typically, such calls are emotive, usually from someone who has been directly affected by violent crime. Although we should not dismiss their opinions because often they are emotive and vengeful, their opinions usually do not focus on the root of the problem. All too often people’s ideas are not solutions to the problem at all, merely ambulances at the bottom of the hill. This is a complex problem, not one that is going to be solved by a simple answer. There are many factors and solutions to these factors are being all too often dismissed as “PC bullshit” as people lean towards discredited hardnosed solutions. The reactionaries always get their head above the crowd and scream the loudest, calling for blood.

Herald online readers gave their opinion on the debate here.

Expectedly, most are the voice of madness! People who believe violence can be solved with violence and that deterrence will solve the problem. The roots of the problem are delightfully ignored:

“Try hard labour, used to work, and those who commit these crime need to feel the punishment, not get a tax paid holiday, which is what the prison system really is these days. Let them know what hard physical pain and mental torment is
People who offend against others don’t really deserve to be part of the human race, don’t kill them by lethal injection or electrocution that’s the easy way, treat them like the animals they are Chain them together, give them a pick axe each and put them in a whole in the ground where they can take there anger out on rocks.

It is time to stop being soft as it is evident that it?s not working and go back to basics”

“Troubled” from Auckland Central

“Let’s not muck around, there’s only one thing for it. Bring in the death penalty and criminalise gangs.”

“Don Trump” from Te Awamutu

“What annoys me is that nothing is going to change, unless there is a huge change in the justice system the crime is just going to get worse. These buggers know they can now virtually get away with murder nowadays and just get if anything a smack on the hand.

Bring back the death penalty I say, it should be a life for a life!”

“Ja” from Auckland Central

Of course there is always the voice of reason:

“* If the USA and England and Wales had the same population size, the USA would have 34 times the number of shooting homicides that the UK has.
* The USA still has the death penalty and all its police officers carry weapons.
* The UK has a much lower rate of these deaths than most countries. For example, Switzerland and Canada have three times the number of shooting deaths.
We need to think very carefully and research and observe other countries experiences before going down the road of arming police. Most police do a great job but we have bad apples as seen in recent rape charges, stuffed up investigations etc.
If we assume that arming police is a panacea to all crime ills then we are not only going to be disappointed we will find ourselves in a place of no return in the not too distant future.”

Tracey from Balmoral (one of many comments from a very intelligent and articulate woman).

“Getting “tough” on crime hasn’t worked in the USA, where crimes rates are 3 times higher than NZ.

I suggest a level headed response(!), one which addresses the causes of crime. If we are serious about reducing crime, maybe we should look at its social causes. Is it mere coincidence that violent crime is prevalent in a low socio economic area like Manurewa? Do people with good jobs and an education go out and commit violent crime.

Can we have some real debate instead of these rabid calls to lock criminals up and cut off various of their limbs?”

Stu from Wellington.

“Agree with brightsider (Glendowie)- how about addressing the issues which cause crime, rather than knee jerk reactions about giving police more power, capital punishment?
Prisons are partly about punishment, and also more importantly about rehabilitating criminals. There is no point locking someone up in an isolated room for 10 years. This is not only inhumane, but when they come out of prison they would not be in a state where they can have the necessary skills to socialise in our society.
Look at all the countries with the death penalty- would you actually like to live in them?”

“Zombie” from Auckland

I think what we often forget is that relative to other countries, this problem is not so great. This is certainly not a reason to turn a blind eye, but it is a reason to keep things in perspective. We also should not ignore the social and cultural factors that influence the crime-rate. Hysterics do not help.

It is a shame we cannot have an intelligent debate on the issue, and solve the root of the problem. Whatever that solution is, we can be certain that tougher punishment is not it. Other countries efforts confirm this. Do people really believe that would be criminals contemplate their sentence before they commit the crime? No, firstly because they do not believe they will be caught. Secondly, because a lot of crime is likely opportunist, where the consequence are not even considered. Thirdly, because some crime is the result of desperation, where people disregard the consequences. And finally, because for some people crime is their life, it is what they do, and they likely know no other way. These are certainly not excuses, but recognising them illustrates the flawed logic in many peoples thinking. Of course I am not an expert, but what we do not seem to see is experts calling for a harder line to be taken. This confirms I am likely on the right track, and the reactionary rednecks and Old Testament lobby groups are missing the point. Just like the Section 59 debate lobby groups sideline those in the know. Lets hear more from the psychiatrists, prison guards, police, sociologists, youth workers and social workers and less from those with populist agendas, politicians and lobby groups.