The enthusiasm of youth

I actually thought this was satire when I saw it, this magazine is just trying so very very hard. Who the hell are these pod-people on the cover? 

On a more substantive note though, why is it that those who are trying to claim the mantle of Conservative are so keen to re-hash long dormant culture war arguments? Look at the two articles in the bottom right corner of the page. One is about abortion, and 'protecting the unborn' and the other is about abstinence. Clearly the two are linked, abstinence-only sex education leads to higher levels of teen pregnancy, however in this case it is safe to assume that particular link will not be made.

What this all boils down to is control, just as it often has with those who call themselves Conservative. Control over teenager's genitals. Control over the uterus. Which is odd, given that Conservatives often proclaim to believe in liberty, and freedom to choose to do what you want to do, such as the freedom to carry guns. This freedom is the supposed basis of every single conservative political argument, except when it comes to your penis or vagina. Then the state should have the right to tell you what you can and can't do. 

Good news in Afghanistan

No, this has nothing to do with the occupation, but to do with the Afghanistan cricket team. In short, they have just effectively won a tournament for teams who aren't test-playing nations. Their early qualification in the T20 World Cup Qualifying Tournament is huge, out of the 14 best teams who don't play test cricket, they are the first to secure one of two berths in the World Cup.

To do this, they had to beat the Netherlands, a team that has made multiple appearances at World Cups in the past, Namibia, a team who went through their group unbeaten and have also played at World Cups, Canada, who are 2nd only to the West Indies in the Americas, and 5 other sides. 8 wins from 8 games. A flash in the pan team would have not been able to do this so clinically and consistently. They also qualified ahead of Ireland, seen as by far the most likely candidate to be the next team to gain test status.

What makes this effort all the more remarkable, is that in organisational terms Afghanistan cricket is a level below many other teams at this qualifying event. Non-test playing nations are segregated into associate members of the ICC and below that affiliate members. Afghanistan is in the 2nd category. They barely ever get to play against top teams. In February Afghanistan played Pakistan in a one off match, and it was the first time an affiliate team had played a full member in an ODI. It is almost like Afghan cricket developed in isolation and evolved on it's own.

The ICC has a big decision to make. Is it now time to elevate Afghanistan a level to associate status? I would wholeheartedly say yes. They have proven themselves to be the best of the rest, and success should be recognised by the ICC. Cricket in Afghanistan is perfectly placed to be a growth sport, geographically the nation is surrounded by cricket in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, as well as having a population which seems to come together over cricket. Famously, even the Taliban were cheering on Afghanistan when they played Pakistan. The ICC should act quickly to consolidate these gains and bring Afghanistan further into the fold of cricket playing nations.

The effect of this could go beyond the sport itself. It is undeniable that matches between India and Pakistan are powerful forces for good in the region. When the teams played in the World Cup the leaders of each country attended and met, something that would be unthinkable without a good pretext. Cricket can provide an opportunity for enemies to meet as friends. Perhaps this is just what Afghanistan needs.

It was years ago, let it go

So the verdict on the Urewera 4 is in, and it is... inconclusive. Some charges have stuck, with each defendant being found guilty of half of the firearms charges against them. However, there were also some not guilty verdicts, mixed in with a big dunno on the major charge, Participation in an Organised Criminal Group. The Crown is considering a retrial. Is this really necessary?

Firstly, the Crown has scored a few token symbolic victories by getting guilty verdicts on some charges. This means they will have sent the desired message to other potential militant groups that they will follow up any and all activity and seek to punish them. The charges are hardly hefty, but they will be enough to secure a sentence of some sort.

Secondly, a vast amount of money has already been spent on these trials, and as this inconclusive verdict shows, there is no guarantee that a retrial would yield any better results. The trial by media has so far been intense, there is no way you could find 12 more potential jurors who hadn't already heard a lot about the case, and probably formed opinions already. The Crown should really look to cut their losses and get out of this one before they really start wasting serious amounts of money. (Well, more serious than the existing waste of money at least)

Lastly, doesn't this whole affair smack of bullying a little? The Crown obviously enjoys a massive advantage in terms of legal, financial and media resources, and yet they still can't decisively prove that the defendants were part of an organised criminal group. The only real power left to the Crown is to continue ruining the lives of the defendants, through endless court demands. A retrial could take years to set in motion, so far it has been almost 5 years just to get to this point. What more could the Crown possibly gain by more court proceedings?

At the end of the day the excuses put forward by the defendants as to why they were running around the bush with guns are just as compelling, if not more compelling, than the idea that they were planning on overthrowing the government. The idea that a band of about 20 poorly trained activists with very little popular support could take on the NZ Army and Police Force and a sizeable proportion of the adult population who would be against them is preposterous. The idea that anyone would be so delusional to think something like that could succeed is equally crazy. On the other hand, the idea that they were learning bushcraft (in which guns can be very useful) and skills to try and land security contract work is not really that odd. People upskill all the time, and the skills the defendants appeared to be trying to learn are in high demand around the world.

Therefore I think it would be a colossal waste of time and money for any retrial to go ahead. The Crown has everything to lose and nothing really to gain, plus it is quite simply a bad look the longer this goes on. These people are no threat to the country. It's time to let them get on with their lives.

Please continue to turn your stove off

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/6593867/As-heat-rises-so-does-our-anxiety

Here we have a remarkable piece of anti-environmentalism dog whistle from Stuff, who are suggesting that actions such as "checking lights, stoves and taps were turned off, so they could reduce their global footprint." is evidence of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The implication of this article, based on the premise that psychiatric hospitals are starting to see cases of OCD based on fear of climate change, is that people who worry about such trivialities as their carbon footprint are mentally unwell.

Now this is not to denigrate sufferers of OCD. I've seen that condition and it seems like it is very difficult to live with. However, this article is a complete mockery of both sufferers of OCD and efforts to curb climate change. Consider this opening line:


Climate change is making people mad.


This is a fallacy. People are not being driven insane by climate change. They are taking precautions to limit their carbon footprint, and some people with obsessive compulsive tendencies are ritualising that behaviour to a degree deemed unhealthy. For the record, people should be doing the things set out in the article as crazy behaviour, such as checking that you don't use excess energy or water, or an excess amount of any resources for that matter. Why? Because Climate Change is a real, documented phenomena. Already temperatures are rising, and will continue to rise. The effects will be less terrible if people start to adjust their actions so they have less of a carbon footprint.

Is it any wonder that this story appeared on a Fairfax site? After all, the positions taken by Fairfax have never been friendly to environmental interests, and this is not set to change now that mining tycoon Gina Rinehart owns 15% of the company. This particular story would have an insidious effect. By connecting the actions needed to reduce human impacts on the planet with mental illness, it will seed the idea in reader's minds that efforts to fight climate change are crazy. It is not crazy to try and mitigate the effects of climate change, so like the title says, please continue to turn off your stove after you use it.  

"Peace For Our Time"

These were the words uttered by one of the doomed men of recent history. Neville Chamberlain is considered notable for one thing, that as Prime Minister of Britain he adopted a weak stance against Hitler in a policy known as appeasement. It was a dismal failure. By the time Chamberlain was removed from office, Hitler was master of much of Europe. The dominant historical narrative has since recorded Chamberlain as the cowardly chap who kept the seat warm before Churchill rose to give the Nazis a damn good thrashing.

Well, hindsight is 20/20. In 1938 when Chamberlain made that statement, the start of World War Two was still a year away. Hitler leading a resurgent Germany would have been considered a somewhat disturbing prospect, but very few people were predicting anything remotely like what was to come. More to the point, the life experience of Chamberlain himself gave him an excellent reason to avoid a war with Germany. He had already seen one first hand, and by all accounts WW1 was the most horrific event in living memory. 

Chamberlain's pursuit of peace was a brave and principled stance, given the geo-political situation of the time. Britain was still a mighty colossus compared to Germany, who were still recovering from the catastrophic events of World War 1. Britain also would have been able to call in a large coalition of willing allies. However, imagine the credibility such a move would have given to German ultra-nationalists, who would have justifiably become the best politicians to defend the nation against invasion. Given that Hitler was not yet the Hitler we know and loathe, it would have been reasonable to assume in 1938 that an attack on Germany would have caused the rise to power of a far worse regime. 

I for one am sick of the narrative promoted by the likes of the History Channel, which presents the conflict as an essentially simple struggle of good Allies vs evil Hitler. The problem with this analysis is that it acts as a justification for pre-emptive war. Imagine how many lives could have been saved if Chamberlain had stood up to Hitler. No death camps, no brutal occupations, no Blitz on London. If only it were that easy.

Whenever I read opinion pieces about the brewing conflict between the West and Iran, someone will inevitably Godwin up the comments and cast Ahmadinejad in the role of Hitler. This is clearly a pile of crap. There are no Iranian jackboots on foreign soil. Iranian military spending is about 1% of American military expenditure. (as well as being a lower percentage of GDP) Even on the nuclear question, Iran is many years away from developing a single bomb, let alone the capability to attack Israel. And yet, it seems more and more like that there will be a pre-emptive strike on Iran. I cannot imagine a more reckless and stupid course of action.

Soon the leaders of the Western world will face a choice. They might well take the truly cowardly option, to send the children of their nation into yet another war. A strike on Iran will only inflame Muslim anger further, driving up jihad recruitment and further weakening the moral authority of the 'enlightened' west. In the short term, the leaders will enjoy strong poll ratings and be seen as warrior kings. In the long term, they will do irrevocable damage to a region which has frankly suffered enough already. Why should the Muslim world sit idly by as yet another country is bombed back to the stone age? 

I hope Obama et al rise to the occasion and adopt the approach taken by Chamberlain. What the world needs is peace for our time. It was only through decades of uninterrupted peace that Europe was able to recover from the madness of the World Wars, and it is only through sustained peace that the Muslim world will be able to halt the influence of fundamentalist radicals. A truly brave set of leaders would ignore the polls and do what is right. Peace is not an easy thing to achieve, but we will never enjoy the benefits of it unless we stop pretending that somehow another war will make it happen.