El Gringo

It was a sad day for humankind when Japan managed to secure a majority vote in the current International Whaling Commission meeting. What I don't get though is how Japan can actually get away with their claim of scientific research, period. To me it seems ludicrous that the "normal" countries seem to even be having these arguments with Japan. 
Point 1 - wheel out this amazing scientific data Japan, for the world to see.  Come on, dazzle us with your amazing facts that justify all this. From what I have heard through documentaries, the data is total nonsense and clearly demonstrates the falsity of it all.  Surely, after all these years of so called research, there would be a plethora of worthy data to back up their claims.  Why oh why don't the other countries come down hard on the Japanese government and demand that they publish this data for the world to see.
Point 2 - Japan is buying votes from developing countries through the guise of aid.  Surely this is tantamount to bribery and corruption, not only a practice that is supposedly criticised by the developed world but is (i.e. the aid) also totally irrelevent to the decision on whether whaling is right or not.  As such, any votes that are associated with aid should be dismissed.
Point 3 - If whaling is such an important aspect of Japanese culture, as I'm sure it is claimed, then surely Japan would have no issue with putting it to the people of Japan to vote if they should continue whaling.  From what I have heard, the eating of whale meat in Japan is a dying practice anyway and the meat is even being pushed in schools now to try and build the support.  It totally astounds me that a country that bases a large part of its culture on nature and harmony would even want to practice whaling anymore.  I wager that the majority would not wish to continue with whaling. Why isn't this challenge put to the Japanese government outright - proove that the "people" of Japan actually want to continue whaling.
Point 4 - There are so many points to argue but when I heard this one from the latest IWC meeting, it is such a joke that surely Japan lose total face over it and should be denied whaling on this point alone: the whales are consuming fish and competing with the Japanese fishing industry. I could not believe that the other governments even let them table this as a serious item.  The world's fish stocks are so totally depleted by mankind, of which the Japanese play a significant part. How dare they even suggest such a stupid point.  Hello, how about the gazillion 30km drift nets that Japan have used ?! And besides, I am yet to see a Right Whale hunt down Blue Fin tuna.  What a total joke. What an insult to the whales and what an insult to the plant.

I believe it is time the IWC cut this diplomatic bullshit and put the total heat on Japan, period. Watch this space for more.

Ok, Tony Blair has honoured us with a fleeting visit to Auckland after doing a tour of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne and catching up with his buddy John Howard no doubt.  John Campbell from TV3 had an “exclusive” interview (who cares if it was exclusive or not, surely it’s more important what the interview was about) to ask the hard questions.  Oh yeah.  Fair enough, he did ask Blair directly if he regrets the façade that was presented as the excuse to start the war with Iraq.  And as usual Blair gave a totally bullshit answer about the need for democracy, stability in the Middle East, how much the people wanted democracy, and get this – putting “Western standards” aside, no-one wants to be ruled by a dictator.  That is, the same rhetoric that is given without actually answering the question.  However, this is where I don’t get it.  Instead of letting Blair get away with this answer why didn’t Campbell then ask Blair that if he is so concerned about the issues of dictatorships and freedom, what is Blair now doing to address foreign policy practices, given that Britain is siding with the US who has a history of putting puppet dictators in power (as does Britain with the likes of Mugabe), plus the fact that Britain was supplying Saddam with arms to wage the war against Iran when it suited Britain. That is, we know that Western governments meddle with countries when it suits and help create the huge mess in the first place.  Blair kept answering by turning the focus to “going on from here” but surely the question of whether any lessons have been learnt from the past should have been put him. 

Am I missing something here? I just don’t understand why these types of questions are not asked.  Is Campbell instructed on what he can/can’t ask ? In all this nonsense with Iraq, when the same “he was bad and needed to go anyway” answer is given.  Why do the they (reporters) never ask  “well, why did you wine and dine him in the first place when it suited you, knowing full well that he was a megalomaniac?”

I would so love to hear that question. Maybe it has been asked and is hidden amongst the piles somewhere.  How do I find out if it has and what the answer was ?

Ok, rather than just having a rant section about politics en masse, I named this section “Nonsense Politics” to talk about what I see as some of the more ludicrous aspects of politics.  I do believe that a truly sincere political system does have some important function in society to help keep things in check (humans, by nature, do need keeping in check) but there are so many aspects of it that are focussed around genuine lies, deceit, cruelty, greed and domination, etc.  Need I go on?  If the political systems of the world were really as sincere as they make out to be I think it would make such a huge difference to our existence.  Is it unreasonable to strive for this?

You may find a lot of the discussions in here focus on Foreign Policy and the likes of the issues going on in the Middle East but I believe these are probably some of the more significant areas going on right now and we should be concerned and asking the truly hard questions.

I see in the news today - "Australia to buy new lockheed missiles for figher jets".  Um, why ? Apparently they have a range of 400km, how useful. Who the heck does Australia plan on using these on.  Maybe the money for this "undisclosed number" could be put to better use investing in working on peace projects with neighbouring countries so no-one wants a war in the first place - perhaps if they focussed more on Indonesia's appalling record if abusing and killing it's people.  Gee, I wonder if Australia's ties with the US has anything to do with this.  Argh, bring on the sensible people.