The Thorndon Bubble

The end of an era

2008-01-23T10:41:00.000+13:00

The Thorndon Bubble is leaving blogspot, and moving to it’s new site at http://www.thorndonbubble.org. I will leave the old website up for a few days until I delete it permanently. I have imported the posts from the old site, so you won’t lose anything (important for those who are using aggregators to compile blog posts), although i wonder how many people still link to this old site.

When I think about when I set up the first blog, it was always my intention to expand the website, and I knew that meant leving the blogspot nest and setting up my own website eventually. I hope that you all find the website useful and informative, but more importantly, I hope you stick around.

The Bubble hits the airwaves

2007-03-12T20:13:00.000+13:00

Well to be honest, Geoff Hayward is. I'll be on the new VBC station (88.3FM) every Tuesday morning from 10 - 10.30 am. Topics will be around three major headings: Campus, National and International political topics.

So, Tune in to the VBC tommorrow.

2007 Treaty Debate Series at Te Papa

2007-01-11T14:35:00.000+13:00

6.30-8.00pm. Soundings Theatre, Level 2, Te Papa Tongarewa.
Free entry.

Thursday 1 February: Fishing for answers - Māori and the Fisheries

In the three decades since the widening of the Waitangi Tribunal's powers to investigate historic claims we have heard the contemporary meaning of Article 2 of the Treaty debated extensively, culminating, in part, in the passing of the Maori Fisheries Act in September 2004. What does this development mean for Maori commercial fishing and the future relationship of Māori and Pākehā with the sea?

Thursday 8 February: The Big Picture - Where is the Treaty?
The term 'living document' has become synonymous with the Treaty of Waitangi in this country, with its three short articles being debated in contexts their original signatories could never have imagined. With so much interpretation and analysis, will the original intentions of this document remain, and does it have a place in the multicultural society of our future?

After attending last year's series, I highly recommend going. Details on the speakers are here.

The Dom on the money with political apathy

2007-01-08T15:32:00.000+13:00

From today's editorial:

"In a settled democracy like this, voters rarely take their right to vote seriously. It is usually only when their little world is on the verge of being up-ended that they get involved. By then, it can be too late, leaving unrealistic expectations and over-the-top invective in its wake. But, if residents and ratepayers want a city, district or region that allows easy living and creates a healthy, wealthy local economy, they need to be prepared to shrug off their apathy. Posting a ballot paper to local voting officials every three years is just not enough."

Decisions are made by those who show up. Although I don't know about a wealhty local economy (maybe it's the socialist in me)

Australian Universities beat NZ at level of investment

2007-01-04T11:11:00.000+13:00

And yet somehow, I am not surprised by the report. In fact, the only surprise I have is the opinion I share with the NZVCC with the need for the Government to take University investment seriously. The level of investment, particularly building depth in existing programmes is something I am in favour of, and recent reforms have only hinted at it.

The rhetoric supports “economic transformation”. This transformation requires a commitment to fresh, new ideas, nurtured in high quality research institutions like universities.

But of more importance is the challenge to improving the quality of research and courses within the university. Even the argument “it’s not how much we spend, it’s where we spend it” does not hold water: eventually a severe lack of investment will lower the overall quality of university study. It is time to stop the rot, and give students, current and future, an assurance that the government will be as diligent to improving our universities, as students are in improving their grades. When buildings crumble, so will test scores, and who will take the blame for that?

Midterms: my breakdowns

2006-11-09T09:23:00.000+13:00

In August, I stated a number of midterm election races that were ones to watch. So, with nearly all of the results in, I thought I should go through and see how they went.

Gubernatorial

Michigan(Is it the AMWAY?)

It wasn't AMWAY's day: Gramholm securing her second term, beating Dick DeVos. Expect to see her star rise in future years.

California (Can Westley terminate the Governator?)

Perhaps the most dissapointing of races, Schwarzenegger getting home in a canter. But it is perhpas the first time an incumbant has been able to win on (for the most part) 'green' issues...food for thought in later elections, even in NZ.

Senate

Connecticut (A Three Way Dance)

This one as well failed to live up to expectations. Lieberman winning the only race that mattered, after losing the DNC nomination. Still, he has vowed to work within the Democrat caucus, which could be seen as an olive branch to his former party, or an attempt to consolidate his position and shut down notions of a repeat in 2012, or it could be that he just could not take the leap to the GOP.

Missouri (History never repeats)

Well, it did, but not for Talent. This was a barn burner, with the result being close, and a campaign that was muddied with the state referendum on stem cells and the appearance of actor Michael J. Fox, and the controversial comments of Radio Talk show host Rush Limbaugh in response. In the end, McCaskill picking up the swing state.

Rhode Island (it’s all about the electoral math, stupid!)

A bittersweet victory for the Democrats, with Lincon Chafee, one of the most liberal republicans losing his seat, means that the Republican's caucus will be even more on the periphery than before. Bipartisanship just got a bit harder. Unsurprisingly Sheldon Whitehouse won the primary and the Senate election by seven points.

New Jersey (No One Likes Anyone in the Garden State)

Seen by some analysts as a referendum on State Governor (and former Senator) Jon Corzine, this eventually was superseeded with the states dislike for the President's performance, Robert Menendez being elected for a full term (he served the remaining year of Corzine's term)beating the republican candidate, Thomas Kean, Jr by 8%.

House

Arizona 8 (Kolbe’s out, who’s in?)

This race lived up to it's expectation. Gabrielle Giffords won over a number of challenges for the blue ticket in a marginally red state, going up against Randy Graf (who narrowly lost to the outgoing Jim Kolbe in the 2004 republican primary). Giffords easily beat Graf in the election, replacing the retiring Jim Kolbe, who again, a quite liberal republican (Kolbe is also an openly gay republican) and so the victory is bittersweet for bipartisanship.

Florida 22 (Unlucky 13?)

Another big win for the Democrats, removing stalwart Clay Shaw, a 12 term congressman. Shaw had perhpas his toughest rival in Rob Klein. Klein, who had the weight of the DNC behind him, strong credentials as a fundrasier, and Shaw's own controversies (Shaw had been criticized for refusing to return $30,000 in campaign contributions from ARMPAC: the organisation at the centre of the Tom DeLay scandal)in the end took the state away from the Republicans, in a blue district.

Indiana 8 (The bloody eighth!)

With its long history of incumbents being ousted, this did not dissapoint, with John Hostettler beaten comprehensively by Brad Ellsworth. Hostettler was unable to claw back his dismal popularity (in October they were in the 30-40% range), in spite of his history of wining tough re-elections.

Iowa 1 (Watch the signs)

In a battleground state like Iowa, any race is a useful indicator for the 2008 Presidential Elections. The blue state (although Jim Nussle, a Republican held the seat for 16 years), picked Democrat Bruce Braley over Republican Mike Whalen.

Illinois 8 (The empire strikes back)

Democrat Melissa Bean will be returning for a seond term, consolidating her 2004 win, with 51% of the vote, but well ahead of her major rival, David McSweeney.

Ohio 18 (another Ambroff casualty?)

Robert Ney's involvement in the Abramoff' scandal has cost his party this seat. Zack Space, a suprise winner of the democrat primary, beat Joy Padgett (who also won a tough primary). The result, a 30 point win to Space in a typically red state, is a real slap in the face to the GOP.

Pennsylvania 6 (Run to the hills)

Jim Gerlach repeated his 2004 win against Lois Murphy, right down to the 51% to 49% margin, his tactic of distancing himself from fellow republicans State Senator Rick Santorum (who lost his senate seat) and President Bush paid off...but only just.

Texas 22 (You reap what you sow)

This one will be put into a trophy and hung in the offices of the DNC headquarters. In a seat that only the Republicans could lose, they followed though with aplomb. Because of Tom Delay's bumbling, there was no Republican on the voter form, and the Republicans messing up their campaign for a “write in candidate” (which was expected to be local mayor David Wallace but the party went with Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, creating disunity within the local party apparatus), Nick Lampson won back part of his old district (that DeLay acquired in the 2003 redistricting) as well as his nemisis' seat. Vengance.

An animated version of the midterm results is avaliable here

Why?

2006-11-09T09:20:00.000+13:00

Labour scraps environmentally friendly school

Humour - Politicians Sweep Midterms

2006-11-09T09:13:00.000+13:00

From The Onion

(Hat Tip Aucklander at Large)

Rumsfeld's fall...wrangling the news cycle

2006-11-09T08:28:00.000+13:00

The media is reporting that Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld has quit. Considering that Democrats including newly elected Senator for Missouri Clare McCaskill had demanded for his resignation, was his departure not just a sacrifice for the appeasement of what looks to be a Democrat dominated Congress but a strategy to wrench the media cycle away from the Democrats. The shock annoucement certainly suggests that they pushed the annoucement...even more so when President GW Bush gave his support in Rumsfeld only days earlier.

Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill defeated at second reading

2006-11-09T07:32:00.000+13:00

And how so!

The vote was anticlimactic, with a 23 vote blow-out. The media specualtion that the vote would be too close to call was in the end unfounded. The NZH has the voting list. I think that the Government's proposed review would have swayed a few to vote no, but this was no sideswipe. It is also the course which might actually bring to light the issues of under enforcement and low resources devoted to education on promoting safer drinking. I don't think that the bill's defeat last night is a success for surmounting New Zealand's drinking culture, but it is a blow for harshly thought out, knee-jerk legislative responses.

I think that the efforts of a united political youth, as part of the “Keep it 18” campaign should be congratulated. They worked very hard and the bill’s defeat should serve as a big pat on the back. I hope that the movement continues to work for more education and enforcement, protecting at risk youth.

PS: The Select Committee report for the defeated bill is here

Kerry's bushism and a hidden truth

2006-11-02T08:24:00.000+13:00

Remember 2004? Remember when people waxed lyrical about Democratic Candidate John Kerry’s ability to speak with confidence and quality, well if there was a time where this bubble burst, you could not pick a worse time (apart from his own doomed presidential race) to step all over himself.

Kerry’s statement below could be as disastrous to the DNC as OBL’s video release in the days up to the 2004 race:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Is this a big deal…well it’s hard to say. Certainly with all the negative campaign advertising in all the senate, congressional and gubernatorial races (I have heard of a four to one ratio of spending on negative to positive ads), the muck raking would eventually reach the free media.

Kerry stepped all over the joke. I see how the joke could have worked, but it’s a bushism to be sure. The problem is that its timing was misplaced. It’s no wonder Kerry is not stumping for others in the few days left before the midterm elections.

But his comments belie a truth, which perhaps their republican opponents may have missed. The US military is a volunteer military. But I would not be surprised to see if that if you had a higher family income, you are more likely to go to college than the military. Likewise, I would not be surprised if you have a higher SAT score, then you will be more likely to go to college than the military.

But let’s also acknowledge that many people join the military in spite of the opportunities afforded them. There are intelligent people in any army, but to presume that the armed forces are a microcosm of the wider American nation is a misnomer. And we should not expect it to be. When have armies been directly proportional to the public? Never! Maybe the Spartans or the Russians in the Second World War. A military career is, has and always will be a one that is available to almost all, but is not desirable to all.

Don’t whinge, get a positive frame!

2006-11-02T07:30:00.000+13:00

I don’t think that Wellington Airport will ever disclose their reasons as to why they refused to place a billboard paid by the National party attacking the Prime Ministers numerous scandals. Which is a real disappointment, because some insight may be useful for National.

I have noticed a trend by National over the past year, to overstep the mark. They have been able to put the PM and the Government on the ropes, but then they go just a little too far and the public blasts back. While I cannot presume why this is continually happening, I wonder if National needs a new political strategist that can read the wind change.

I like to think that the airports decision was one of their disappointment with the over-reaction by National’s advertising campaigns. On TV3 news, they were able to find 3 “people on the street”, all of which were ambivalent or annoyed with the style of negative campaigning. I’m sure that had they picked people off the street in Clutha or Tamaki, they might find a different response. But I do think that the public has a low tolerance for muck raking, especially over old news. It makes you wonder if they even put these banners through a focus group.

What made things worse was according to TV3 National’s “whinging” over the airport’s refusal, and categorising the fear that the Government will retaliate is not just specious, it is ridiculous. I don’t think Auckland or Christchurch airports are worried about their position.

If we looked at this as any other company putting up advertising space on their property, we can see that in the end, it is at the discretion of the owner as to what goes up on their hoarding space. I not saying that telecom wouldn’t put up a hoarding from Labour praising the unbundling of the local loop, but they have that discretion. Discretion seems to be something that National does not understand at the moment.

So, could National have tried something different? Could it suggest something more positive? The answer is yes. Had the billboards pushed the party’s Blue-Green policy, it certainly could shift to the positive frame, tacitly attacked the government for their as yet absent policy, and got people thinking about an issue that will have a direct impact on their lives, or at the very least a tangible one.

National is stumbling over itself to win, and if it does win in 2008 with this strategy, it will be more because of luck than guile.

PS: With the Stern Report, the Blue-Green banner, would have been a master stroke, publicising National's opportunity for discussion in line with the dominance of the report in the media cycle would be a master stroke. What a pity it did not happen.

Geoff Hayward, VUWSA President

2006-10-05T09:32:00.000+13:00

While the Thorndon Bubble (and it's authors) do not engage in self-promotion (that is done elsewhere);

Congratulations to Geoff who was elected 2007 President of the Victoria University Students' Association.

Hypocrites!

2006-09-15T09:52:00.000+12:00

I was going to write a piece on this. Luckily, Russell Brown made the call:

"But I wasn't terribly impressed with National's Judith Collins tearfully accusing Mallard and Benson Pope of dragging Parliament into the gutter on Morning Report today. It was Collins, you may recall, who smirkingly implied that Benson Pope was a "pervert" in the House, probably beginning the current descent."

More information is available, courtesy of the NZH.

Here is part of a piece that will feature in next Monday's Salient:

For those MPs who would attack any others integrity external to their job, I can only say that you are scum. And we have seen a lot of it, even recently, for example the David Benson-Pope (Labour, Dunedin South) scandal. While National’s main attack, and the reason why this stuck around a long time, was the issue of misleading (lying) to the House, there was always at the bottom of all this, the character assassination of Benson-Pope by political opponents. In fact the question that he had apparently lied to was challenging his integrity as a Minister while trying to prevent student bullying (Thanks Judith Collins (National, Clevedon) and Rodney Hide (ACT, Epsom)...The TV footage of Trevor Mallard (Labour, Hutt South), retorting “…speaking of affairs!” which stunned Brash from answering his question is like finding evidence that Nostradamus had predicted something 9/11 after it happened. But it’s hard not to see now what he was alluding too, and that’s walking down the same dark path as his fellow colleagues in the House.

[You can add Benson-Pope's retorts to the list as well]

Let’s be clear here. There’s no evidence that Brash has had an affair (although a lot of rumour), and likewise, no evidence that these allegations have come from the recently resurfaced Brash emails (or for that matter, a co-ordinated campaign by Labour). But allegations are all you need in politics, like the old saying goes “never let the truth get in the way of a good story” and this story is tasty pulp for the printer. And it will be interesting to see how this all pans out."

Good, but you aren't the ones to say it

2006-09-12T08:30:00.000+12:00

It's rare when I agree with the editorial staff of the Dominion Post, but today's Editorial gets it right: wlefare system is still failing people, although solutions are hard to come by.

The problem is, it isn't the Dominion Post that has to say this, and not even the Government...it's the people who are apprently "abusing" the system.

Section 59 Policy Impact Night

2006-09-11T06:49:00.000+12:00

Policy Impact Evening: Repeal of Section 59

Wednesday 20th September, 6pm

Hunter Lounge

Level 2, Student Union Building,

Victoria University of Wellington

Parliament is deciding whether to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act. What
does this mean? How will this effect yourself and others? Is repeal the
solution?

Hear from a range of Academics and NGO representatives on the issues
surrounding repeal, including:

Professor Bill Atkin (School of Law, Victoria University)

David Kenkel(UNICEF New Zealand)

Dr Jan Pryor (Roy Mackenzie Centre for the Study of Families)

Mike Coleman (Barnados New Zealand)

Dr Sandra Grey (Social Policy, Victoria University)

Liz Moore (PhD student in Criminology, Victoria University)

Steven Gore (parents.org)

Sonya Hogan (Save the Children New Zealand)

There is no charge for this event. All welcome.

The last day of Submissions on the section 59 bill are tomorrow

2006-08-30T13:22:00.000+12:00

This Thursday is the last day of oral submissions on Sue Bradford's (Greens, List)

Crime (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill.

Go and find out what the media never reports on. You'll be suprised.

Justice and Electoral SubCommittee 9.45 am - 11.30 am

Room 4, Parliament Buildings.

Hear some of the last of the 300+ oral submissions being heard on this Bill by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Khandallah debate on section 59

2006-08-29T14:03:00.000+12:00

The section 59 debate stopped by at Khandallah last night. A debate hosted by the local Presbyterian Church featured local MP Peter Dunne (United Future, Ohariu-Belmont), Sue Bradford (Greens, List) and Family Integrity Leader Craig Smith.

My word of the night was fascination. There was a part of me that wanted to see a genuine, even handed debate. I was robbed of that. Entering the Church hall, I found myself accosted by a proud woman behind a modest table, offering me pamphlet after pamphlet of Family integrity's postion on smacking and section 59.

It was an uncomfortable wait at first, people were trying their very best to keep themselves restrained. It was pretty clear by now that the meeting hall with a capacity around 50 was going to be full to the brim.

Regarding the speakers, each took their first comments off a script, Bradford rattling hers off like it was just another day at the office, offering the same arguments in support of her bill. I was interested in her criticism of fundamentalist groups like Family Integrity, in comparison to the mainstream churches, which have been supporters of repeal. She also was the only speaker to mention in their opening remarks any reference to the scriptures, taking time to highlight the inconsistencies between the old and new testaments.

She had some very key observations regarding the issue, trying to reconcile the removal of the rule of thumb (or legislation to that effect), but not legislation tacitly condoning physical violence on children: “I despair that parents see their rights to physical assault on their children transcends the rights of their children…”

She closed her remarks with her own approach to parenting (as a mother of five) as being one from a position of peace and love in a nurturing environment.

Craig Smith spoke next, choosing to almost replicate his oral submission to the Select Committee earlier that day. “This is not a bill to repeal anti smacking…this is a bill that is anti-parental authority”. He elaborated on the current legislation; nothing that ‘reasonable’ and ‘correction’ are important elements of section 59, detailing the context in which he believes that physical punishment is ok. (It should be noted that his organisation released the pamphlets detailing why the bible says “why we need to smack, what we use to smack [and] how we do it” but we will come back to this later). Repeal will according to Smith, “strip parents of their legal status” to use “parental hands-on authority” (a euphemism for physical punishment).

Smith could not see that there was any other effective means to discipline children: “how does any parent discipline their children without the use of force…there isn’t any!” and left with a sharp attack against the pro repeal movement, nothing that in spite of public surveys in the media showing “80% support against repeal of section 59, the pro repeal lobby knows better…they have the moral leadership of Joseph Stalin”

Smith literally left his religion on the table, choosing not to utter one reference about the scriptures, but planting a bible in front of him. Strange, considering that his organisation was giving out material that used the scriptures to support his arguments and after being asked twice by the audience (one of whom was the local pastor), he finally explained his stance, and one that he considered was not related to the repeal of section 59. It was as though he lacked the courage to speak in a church about his own faith in positioning himself on the wider issue of violence in the home.

Peter Dunne called upon “his old friend: common sense”, speaking candidly (and only as himself, United Future are having a free vote on the bill), feeling that the status quo was leaving too many cases of child abuse under the radar, but cautious as to the current bill as it is, only committing to support it, if he sees that it will actually make a difference (he initially voted down the bill at the first reading, citing that the “State should stay out of the household” and that the bill would be “neither practical nor effective”). Like Bradford, Dunne found any attempt to define reasonable force as “pointless” but was better than Bradford in detailing the fear of criminalising parents, and the need to “protect parents acting in good faith in normal situations”. He was upset at how the extremes had been given so much attention: “one shudders to think of one’s company that they seem to keep”

When public questions came around, the audience was clearly anti-repeal, featuring children who were happy to be beaten (I found out that they were with Family Integrity afterwards). Several people could not wait for the microphone, choosing to speak immediately about their faith, and one person commenting “god beats me up when I do bad”, and others whose questions where clearly pre scripted, including a venomous attack against Bradford on the issue of abortion: “how can you come here and talk about protecting children, when you support the murder of fifty children each year?”

Chester Burrows (National, Wanganui) as a member of the audience, took several minutes to explain his views on the subject. Burrows, Dunne and Bradford never seems so agreeable on how to move on the bill, suggesting some amendments (not defining “reasonable force” though)…surely that would have been something that the meeting could have picked as a topic instead.

I was dismayed at the lack of courage that Smith had in being clear about his faith, and the audience’s impatience…but it was a fascinating night.

UPDATE: The night was recorded for Maureen Garing's Spiritual Outlook on National Radio, September 17 at 5pm. Tune in for it.

Not again

2006-08-24T17:42:00.000+12:00

The "she was asking for it" defence has crossed the chamber and now seems to be obiter:

"They were silly, vulnerable and very drunk and the major complainant was clearly flirtatious," he said.

"This girl was partly the author of her own misfortune. She managed to get herself drunk."

So let me get this straight: if I get someone drunk and they then act drunk, that's an invitation for sexual adventure? You can't have it both ways! either binge drinking is bad because amongst other things you lose self control, or there is no excuse for enticing anyone against their will for any act, in this case sex. Especially with illegal drugs!

Get on Down to the ACC Meeting

2006-08-24T09:42:00.000+12:00

Auckland City Council meeting

Auckland Town Hall, 6pm.

Here's a chance to hear a number of speakers on the issue of section 59 before the ACC decide on a motion supporting Sue Bradford's (Greens, List) Bill to repeal the section from statute.

According to the NZH, Former Children's Commissioner Ian Hassall and Maxim Institute legal counsel Alex Penk will be at the meeting, debating the alternate positions.

If people are in the city, and want to see something more concrete than just a mud-slinging match, I suggest you turn up and see what happens.

Also, I cannot go (although I wish I could) so it would be nice if I heard what it was like afterwards

Just a quick thought.

2006-08-24T09:05:00.000+12:00

Did anyone else pick up on the serendipity of a New Governor-General and a New Maori King in less than three days?

Why wait?

2006-08-24T08:07:00.000+12:00

Why did the Governement wait to respond to the National-Greens deal on rates?

New Zealand First was going to get their deal with the Government in exchange for their support against Rodney Hide's Bill (Epsom, ACT), and there was

Was somebody thinking it could be used as a means to dilute the focus on Field or Parliamentary electon spending?

An interesting idea, but those topics were never going to abate with National. And this delay in the annoucement only begs the question: did the Government get sideswiped as to how far it would go in the media.

Just great. A reactive government, instead of a proactive one!

Sophia set's it straight,

2006-08-24T08:00:00.000+12:00

Here's a thorough piece on child welfare in New Zealand. I think the paragraph at the end really recognises the political reality.

Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu, 1931 - 2006

2006-08-15T19:43:00.000+12:00

"Ka mate tino tangata, tena ka rewa mai"

I just heard on Maori TV that the Maori Queen has passed on.

A decent first report has come via RNZ (although, I always wonder if like in the US, NZ media organisations have a piece like this waiting in the wings

The barbarity within the fog of war, Vietnam teaches us that no nation is "too soft" on war

2006-08-14T20:54:00.000+12:00

Today I read two articles which in itself underline the largest flaw in a proportional war: the humanity in the soldier (or its lack thereof)

A fascinating op-ed in the Boston Globe, in response to a NYP article on the west being "too soft in war" brings back that notion that 'no war is proportional or merciful: our enemies will not grant us that comfort upon us, so why should we upon then?'

This comment was incredibly blunt, but myopic:

"What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?"

But I felt that the retort was rather weak. So I went to look for an answer

I think that history provides a few clues to this: Soldiers are at their extreme, not human. They are not supposed to be so. Neither training, nor the experiences of war can guarantee the humanity of the soldier in all situations.

The LA Times article (Hat Tip: Truthout) on a recently declassified Pentagon archive, detailing over 300 substantiated claims of military atrocities on Vietnamese citizens by US troops sums up what is already happening in Iraq, decades later and it is likely that similar stories will eventually emerge, substantiated by military investigation, but far, far, far too late for any reasonable sense of justice to be delivered.

“The records describe recurrent attacks on ordinary Vietnamese - families in their homes, farmers in rice paddies, teenagers out fishing. Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity. Abuses were not confined to a few rogue units, a Times review of the files found. They were uncovered in every Army division that operated in Vietnam.”

So, all soldiers are capable of terrible acts, of atrocities: it seems hypocritical to even suggest that western governments are soft. But the issue of why these events are hardly the norm is the real issue. Soldiers do (and must) to a certain extent, take some responsibility for their actions, even if they are never punished by a higher power. In the end they probably get off far lighter, than the Government’s themselves. It’s harsh to suggest that the atrocities that occur today are a result of Government’s failing to prevent these atrocities, but the problem is that Western democracies, for their part have had to learn some proportionality. All out destruction usually hurts aggressors as much as their antagonists. We need a consistant reminder that soldiers fighting in our name are also as capable to breaching the measures of proportionality set by a state trying to be responsible, and even cross their own moral authority, as those who we accuse of being barbaric, cruel and inhumane.

The recent Israel-Hezbollah War has created another batch of atrocities; even Amnesty International is ready to admit the failure of the UN Human Rights Council to look at atrocities committed on both sides, and it is improbable that any inquiry will ever be set up. Again this oportunity to learn about the ultimate futility of a humane war will be lost in time.

Wars are brutal and people on all sides are victims of the barbarity within the fog of war. Let’s not delude ourselves to the point of considering any nation being “too soft”.