• Vladimir Putin goes topless again

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

In my earlier post titled Cherie Blair on Vladimir Putin I included a picture of Putin holding a rifle whilst “hunting” and with his shirt off.

Now he’s done another publicity stunt; have a look at these photos from The Independent:

George W Bush on his ranch. Note the ear plugs: they're essential equipment for presidents who wish to ignore the voices of Decency, Justice, Truth, Peace, Common Sense, National Sovereignty, and Personal Freedom.

This is clearly a publicity stunt, and I find the idea of a Prime Minister willing to pose without a shirt unsettling, but presumably Putin’s public relations people knows what appeals to Russians.

What elements of these photos are important in a publicity sense?

• muscles and a body that’s apparently in pretty good condition for a 57 year old
• military style clothing, conveying strength, power, and force
• a rustic, rural, bucolic, sylvan, arcadian setting
• back to basics/the simple life, in the form of horses and fire (presumably Putin is preparing firewood)

These photos probably convey deeper meanings to Russians, but I’m sure that you get the drift. There is a widely held opinion that Russians like strong leaders, and if that is true the warrior-farmer, son-of-the-soil-of-Mother-Russia image conveyed here is right on the money.

There’s also an interesting parallel with one of the traditional publicity stunts of American presidents, i.e. inviting the press to take photos that show the President of the United States of America on his ranch getting his hands dirty with soil instead of the blood of foreigners.

Vladimir Putin is a former KGB officer, and I believe that he is still a thug at heart, just at American presidents are thugs at heart. Publicity stunts may hide the truth, but they will never change it.

~~~~~~~~~~

Election 2008: weather and fireworks

Weather Unfortunately the forecast is good for the entire country, with just a few showers predicted in some places. The Right doesn’t like fine election days because left wing voters are more inclined to stay home when it’s wet, which says a lot about the expectation of comfort, self motivation and personal enterprise of those who vote for the left. Some people say that left wing voters are less likely to have cars because they are oppressed, but in my area where over 50% of the population is welfare dependent every man and his dog has a car and a satellite dish. This includes those living in state housing.

Fireworks The election is three days after Guy Fawkes and surprise, surprise, Helen Clark has laid off the nanny state act this time; last year she was threatening the naughty children with a total ban.

In 2006 Marian Hobbs introduced the Fireworks Safety Bill* and it is safe to assume that a total ban on sales to the public is still on the Labour agenda. Notice that they call it the Fireworks Safety Bill, not the Fireworks Banning Bill. This form of lying by politicians is nothing new.

Personally I’d be happy to strap Labour and the Greens to a giant sky rocket and send them on a one way trip to Mars.

**********

* a couple of points from the press release I’ve linked to:

1) Hobbs refers to the “illegal” use of fireworks: if they’re being used illegally why don’t they just use the existing laws? In NZ there is a repeated pattern of introducing laws to cover something that is already illegal.

2) Hobbs says “This Fireworks Safety Bill allows for communities to hold public fireworks displays”. Well, isn’t she so kind, allowing the serfs to go and watch a regulated fireworks display. Let no one say that Labour is the Fun Police.

Click here to view more gems from Marian Hobbs.

• Anti-gang laws are contrary to natural justice and a violation of civil liberties

Wanganui District Council is trying to push through a law forbidding the wearing of gang patches and tattoos, and this is now a step closer to coming into force. Gang members are usually sociopathic thugs (like many politicians*), but that does not alter the transcendent issues here. What are the transcendent issues?

1) simply wearing gang insignia is not a crime against property or person. The classical libertarian definition of a crime is thus: It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property. As you read on you will see that we already have laws covering the threatening part, which is what this law is attempting to address.

2) this simply won’t work: the best way to deal with gangs is to legalise drugs

3) the police agree with me, saying that it won’t work and it will put the police in danger

4) like the Electoral Finance Act, this is yet another law that breaches the Bill of rights. The Mayor of Wanganui said:

One obstacle to the bill is that it technically breaches the Bill of Rights but Mr Laws said Parliament should put this to one side for the “greater good” of Wanganui.

There is a repeated pattern of the laws of NZ being put aside when they are inconvenient. Here Helen Clark leads by example.

5) there is another repeated pattern in NZ law, which is adding additional regulations to cover something that is already illegal. Liquor bans are a good example of this: we already have laws covering drunk-and-disorderly offences, but liquor bans are added to that, killing the civil liberties of the law abiding citizens who want to have a glass of wine at the beach and watch the sun go down.

There are already plenty of laws covering intimidation by gang members, and here is just one example:

Section 9 of the Summary Offences Act says:

Common assault
Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $4,000 who assaults any other person.

The definition of assault is:

Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning [emphasis added]

So, we have a law with a very broad definition of assault that includes threatening behaviour, but instead of using that they want to add another illegal law that breaches the Bill of Rights.

6) the law will cover tattoos. So will the gang members start wearing balaclavas to cover their facial tattoos? Will balaclavas then be made illegal in Wanganui?

7) the law will allow the seizure of tattoos that are gang insignia. Yes, the State can now strap you down and take away your tattoos. This is like a nightmarish science fiction movie come true.

8.) this opens the way for the State to outlaw other groups and insignia that it finds inconvenient. Many Christians are opposed to the anti-smacking law, and if they get too obstreperous will the wearing of crosses be made illegal?

This law is an example of the despotic Police State gone mad and should be opposed by all those who value personal freedoms and common sense.

**********

* here’s ten candidates for the diagnosis of “Highly Paid Sociopathic Thug”:

• Helen Clark, a.k.a the White Witch
• Winston Peters
• Sue Bradford
• Michael Cullen
• George W. Bush
• Barack Obama
• Vladimir Putin
• Joseph Stalin
• Mao Zedong
• Pol Pot

Helen will be pleased to know that she has the international status that she so desperately wants.