Hello, Sweden, Can You Hear Me?

Are there no phones in Sweden? According to the news on New Zealand's Radio Live, Julian Assange is fighting his extradition to Sweden to face charges of sexual assault. Of course, like most reporting on Assange and Wikileaks, it is flat out wrong. Assange has not been charged with anything--not in Sweden, not in the USA, nor anywhere else.

Swedish police want to question him about accusations of sexual assault. Fair enough, but do they really need to extradite him to answer questions? Have your people call his people. Exchange letters. Use email. You could even send your prosecutors to England. It's not that far. It would be easier and cheaper than fighting the extraditon case in court and transporting Assange to Sweden. It's weird. These are pretty simple solutions. It's almost as if Sweden has some ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the alleged sexual assault.

They Hate Us For Our Freedom Camping

My wife and I spent 1 year freedom camping in America, 1 year freedom camping in Australia, and the last 8 months freedom camping in New Zealand. The level of hysteria over this issue in New Zealand is unlike anything we've experienced. We were planning to extend our visa from 9 months to 12 months, but now we're wondering if we shouldn't just cut our losses and travel to a more hospitable country.

Before I get started, I want to make one thing clear--littering and leaving shit for others to clean up is not acceptable. Afterall, the whole reason we are here is to enjoy New Zealand's natural beauty. I strongly support severe penalties for littering of any sort, both for locals and tourists, but the demonization of freedom campers in New Zealand is pure hysteria.

Thanks to Campbell Live and the echo chamber of NZ talk radio, it is accepted truth that freedom camping is synonomous with littering and public defecation. The media has created a climate of hostility towards freedom campers. Now, a freedom camping couple (Kiwis no less) have been violently assaulted. Of course, the media says they're not to blame. Afterall, they never promoted violence, they just promoted the outrage that led to the violence.

Now, the talk radio hosts are condemning the "alleged" actions of the vigilante, even as they brainstorm non-violent methods of harassing freedom campers. Radio Live's Jeremy Parkinson even claimed it is the duty of all New Zealanders' to harrass freedom campers to protect their country. Great idea. Self-annointed deputies waking up and harrassing strangers in the middle of the night certainly won't lead to violence.

The whole freedom camping issue has become nothing less than a witch hunt. First of all, the accepted truth that freedom camping is synonomous with littering and public defecation is ridiculous. Of course, there are some freedom campers who litter, defecate, and leave the mess for others to clean up, but who exactly determined that this is representative of a majority, or even a significant number of freedom campers?

It is easy for Campbell Live to go looking for evidence of misbehaving freedom campers. Toilet paper and human poo makes for great TV. But how do you find evidence of well-behaved freedom campers? There is none! They leave the place as they found it, perhaps better. No litter and no poo? That makes for terrible TV!

In the past 7 months, as we've traveled throughout NZ, we've witnessed 1 freedom camper littering, and 3 Kiwi's littering. We didn't see any human waste, but since we weren't filming for TV3, we didn't go sniffing around for it either.

Not surprisingly, the media focus is on the international freedom camper. Nothing like a little xenophobia to help fuel the fire of outrage. It's always the fault of those international tourists. Apparently, the numerous Kiwi freedom campers, multi-day trampers, hunters, fisherman, beachgoers, OE travelers, etc.--they never litter or defecate. Kiwis are special. This sort of behavior just isn't part of their culture. At least that's what Jeremy Parkinson says.

Our experience says otherwise. Freedom campers seek remote spots where they're unlikely to get hassled. Unfortunately, partying Kiwi hoons also seek out remote spots where they're unlikely to get hassled. As a result, more than once, we've found ourselves cleaning up after Kiwis before moving on.

Just outside Kaka Point, we parked literally on top of a seaside trash heap. The foreshore was layer upon layer of rusty old farming equipment, auto parts, and appliances. Who knew that international freedom campers traveled with so much baggage?

On the west coast, a beautiful Denniston lookout has been turned into a dump site. We found an abandoned car, a rusty barrel, old fencing, irrigation pipe, lawn waste, and part of a broken toilet. How's that for irony? Foreign freedom campers finding a discarded Kiwi toilet.

In Dunedin, two surf beaches had signs warning people not to enter the water due to sewer discharge directly onto the beach. While we were there, officials put up new signs in the dunes adjacent to the surf club warning about exposure to arsenic and asbestos from the former ocean-front landfill. Near Greymouth, it was some unidentified poison in the water.

The one night we actually paid for camping was at the gorgeous DOC campsite at Purakaunui Bay. Fortunately, we were in a van. It would have been absolutely impossible to set up a tent amidst all the sheep poo. More irony...it was nearly impossible to walk from the van to the toilets without stepping in sheep poo. And all of this sheep poo was right next to a creek flowing directly into the ocean.

Unfortunately, this is often the norm here. There are 50 million sheep, 9 million cows, 1.2 million deer, 0.4 million pigs, and 0.3 million goats. That's nearly 62 million farm animals, and as far as I know, none of them are toilet trained. Compare that to the number of international tourists. At any one time, there are around 133 thousand international tourists in NZ.

A Ministry of Economics survey says 5% of those travel via campervan/motorhome/RV and that 2% of all international visitors camp at DOC sites. So, lets say 1% are freedom camping. Of those, lets assume 10% have no qualms about defecating outside, and that they only manage to find a public toilet every other day.

Do the math. That's 67 freedom campers versus 62 million farm animals crapping all over NZ every single day, and I'm not even including the dogs that crap all over the beaches. That's nearly one million farm animals per freedom camper, but by all means, blame the evil foreigners for fouling your waterways.

Since it is obvious that the poo and litter issue is being blown out of proportion, how about the focus on cheap vans?

That too is blown out of proportion. Freedom campers drive all kinds of vehicles, including no vehicles at all. Ever heard of tents? Some freedom campers hitch rides or travel on foot. Some ride bicycles. Some ride motorcycles. Some drive hatchbacks, sedans, wagons, utes, or trucks. And yes, some drive cheap vans. And some of those cheap vans have graffiti-esque paint jobs with words designed to offend. And apparently, that's working. Some freedom campers drive self-contained motor homes or house trucks. And some of those, like us, never use those on-board toilets!

Does that mean we're crapping all over NZ? No. Just like any other traveler, we use public toilets. They are available at rest stops, supermarkets, petrol stations, restaurants, visitor centers, shopping centers, libraries, parks, boat ramps, and trailheads. It's not that difficult to find a toilet, but some council policies force freedom campers far away from these facilities. Toilets that are available for free for 16 hours of the day are suddenly off-limits for the other 8 hours of the day. Why is that?

Money. That is the one aspect of freedom camping that isn't sufficiently examined. If a town or council welcomes freedom campers, you can bet that they do so because their economy needs the business. Just consider the differences between the freedom camping policies of Queenstown versus Wanaka.

Queenstown doesn't want to completely ban freedom camping because those are the people who support their bar scene. They are also the people who support their bungee jumping, jet boating, white water rafting, and other businesses that make Queenstown the "Adventure Capital of the World". Of course, Queenstown politicians have to simultaneously appease the snooty residents who don't want to share their piece of paradise with the riff raff. Their solution is to allow freedom camping 10km from town, away from residential areas--close enough to support local businesses, but hidden from the precious eyes of Queenstown's royalty.

Wanaka, on the other hand, completely bans freedom camping. It's a no-brainer for them. Unlike Queenstown, Wanaka businesses don't cater to the less affluent. Wanaka is a playground for the rich, and the rich kids don't want to play with the poor kids.

It is obvious that this dynamic was at play in the assault in Golden Bay. The assailant was a Christchurch man who is affluent enough to have an ocean-view vacation home in Pakawau, and his lofty reputation is so delicate that the court has granted him name suppression. He is a rich kid.

The poor kids were in a self-contained motorhome. One of them was a Kiwi. There was no suggestion that they were littering or defecating outside. They were not camping in a prohibited area. What they were doing was interrupting his view. That was enough of an outrage that the man smashed the windscreen with a machete and attempted to set fire to their vehicle with methylated spirits...all while the couple was inside.

If money is mentioned at all in the debate about freedom camping, it is usually to suggest that freedom campers are parasites who aren't spending enough of it. However, at the very least, international freedom campers pay for their flight to NZ (perhaps on Air New Zealand), their vehicles, their petrol, and their food. GST applies to all of those purchases. In 2010, New Zealand collected about $1.3 billion in GST from international tourists.

Visitors pay this tax, but they don't get to vote, they don't get public health care, public education, or public pension. Is it too much to ask for some of this GST to be directed towards public toilets and rubbish bins?

Apparently so for people like Jeremy Parkinson. He claims that any international visitor who can afford to come to NZ can afford to pay for a campground. Even if that were true, it could come at the expense of restaurants, souvenir shops, tour operators, etc. No one has unlimited finances. Lots of people have a budget for annual vacations. New Zealand is not a cheap or convenient destination. The choice may be a luxury trip to Costa Rica versus a freedom camping trip to New Zealand.

However, arguing about the affordability of campgrounds misses the point. Freedom camping isn't about the cost. It's about the freedom. New Zealand weather is volatile to say the least. Having the ability to change plans, without worrying about making or canceling reservations has been hugely important to our New Zealand experience.

Furthermore, paying campgrounds for the privilege of parking side by side with other vehicles, while paying for ammenities we don't want, simply makes no sense. In fact, you couldn't pay us to stay in most campgrounds. For us, it is simply not enjoyable, and if we can't enjoy ourselves, what are we doing here? There are a lot of other countries in the world. Almost all of them are easier to get to, and surely most of them are more welcoming.

Note: I don't mean to single out Jeremy Parkinson. He just happened to be broadcasting in the aftermath of the attempted murder of the freedom campers in Golden Bay. It is clear from comments from his callers and other radio hosts that there are plenty of people in NZ who are more than willing to ban things they don't like or understand.

We Are The Greatest!

From a book I just finished:

I do not believe you know what it is like here. There is this group of people who own everything. This room we are dining in, they own it. This apartment building, they own it. They own the buses and the trains and the boats. And the rivers. Everything is privately owned in this country. We own nothing. Everyone owns nothing.

These same people, they own the factories and the churches and the schools. Every school. And all the books the children read. They wrote the books the children read. They own the art and the music. The radio stations and the TV stations and every newspaper and every magazine.

And, they own the language. In every newspaper and in every school and in every factory they speak with this language and they say the same thing. What are they saying? We are the greatest country in the world. Every other country in the world is poor and dangerous and ugly and we are the greatest.

The quote is not from some professor at Berkeley. It's not from some union boss at the UAW. It's not from some Massachusetts liberal. The book is Off The Map by Mark Jenkins. The book is not about politics. It's about bicycling across Siberia in 1989. And the quote is from Sasha Alexander Tarasov, describing Soviet Russsia.

Are You Christian Enough for Christmas?

Thank God Matthew Yglesias reads Ross Douthat so I don't have to. Douthat whines that those that celebrate Xmas without being sufficiently religious are ruining it for the real Christians. He laments that real Christians have to share Christams Eve pews with those once-a-year Xmas bandwagon Christians. Wow. I know that Yglesias rarely does outright mockery, but I at least expected a condescending pseudo-intellectual smack down. Instead, Yglesias sympathizes with Douthat to the extent that he even suggests that the ideal solution would be a separate, secular holiday preceding Xmas. Jesus Christ.

Remember that study from a couple months back that showed that atheists in America know more about Christianity than professed Christians? Case in point. Here's a little history. Long before God spewed his immaculate ejaculate, people were celebrating the winter solstice in mid-late December. In an attempt to steal the stage, and maybe convert some heathens, Christians decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th. That's right, they decided his birth date. There is no evidence, not even in the all-mighty Bible, that Jesus was born on December 25th. If either of my readers can prove otherwise, please share. I'm looking for real proof, like a birth certificate. A legitimate birth certificate, not one issued by some shady shire of Bethlehem, but by a loyal red American state, perhaps Texas. Otherwise, how do we know who Jesus really is? How can we accept him as The One?

Seriously, Christians complaining that secular Xmas celebrations are distracting from the true meaning of Xmas is like the host of a Super Bowl party complaining that the football game is distracting from the true party. If Douthat and his family want to spend Xmas day bleeding over their homemade nativity scene while wearing their biannual crown of thorns, it won't distract me one bit from my customary celebration of slamming eggnog while watching the Lions lose to the Cowboys. What's the problem here?

The fact that real Christians are distracted by the celebrations of the sunny-day Christians suggests to me that perhaps their faith isn't so real afterall. Given how God likes to work in mysterious ways and such, maybe these distractions are an intentional test of their true faith. If so, they're failing miserably.

If the real Christians can muster this much outrage about their religion being hijacked by nonbelievers as an excuse to get together and exchange gifts, could they get just a little bit upset about their religion being hijacked as a marketing tool for launching wars and implementing policies that reward the rich at the expense of the poor? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Oh well. Merry Christmas to all my readers regardless of your score on Douthat's Christometer. I wish you both health and happiness in the new year.

Laugh, and the world laughs at Kentucky

I first heard about Kentucky's proposed Noah's Ark theme park on the radio in New Zealand. Of course, it's typical for Americans to make fun of Kentucky. Hell, I do it myself. However, I was surprised to hear people on the other side of the world making fun of Kentucky. Fortunately for me, I have a Kentucky contact that sent me the full scoop.

Go ahead and click the link. There is nothing I can write that will be nearly as entertaining. Seriously, you'd think the article was from The Onion. I don't know what's funnier--the alleged 10,000-page market research paper with a 200-page executive summary, which neither the Kentucky government or the media is allowed to see, or this quote from the researcher:

"You have to realize the Ark cuts across almost all faiths, whether you're Christian or Jewish"

Wow, that's quite the religious spectrum--all the way from Christianity to Judaism! I wonder if he's including Mormons?

This is winning?

I was thrilled that the Senate was finally able to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. At last, a long overdue victory for liberals. At least, that was my first impression. My second impression is that it's pretty sad that this is what counts as a liberal victory these days. After all, despite Democratic control of The White House and both Chambers of Congress, and the facts that the repeal was supported by 70%+ of Americans, the Republican Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it still took two years and overcoming multiple filibusters to get it repealed. That does not bode well for gay marriage. I thought for sure that I'd see gay marriage legalized in America during my lifetime. Now, I'm not so sure. I think I'm going to be very old.

I support Wikileaks

And so should the New York Times. And so should all the other for-profit newspapers that are benefiting from the work of this non-profit organization. Since our government has intimidated Paypal, Mastercard, and Visa into shutting down their avenues of donating to Wikileaks, the only way to donate is to wire money to Wikileaks' Icelandic bank account. Not convenient or cheap.

Neither Wikileaks or it's founder, Julian Assange, have been charged with, let alone convicted of, violating any laws. But, given our government's demonization of both, it's not surprising that people would be afraid to donate. Therefore, the New York Times should step up and create a fund to enable anonymous donations. Since they don't seem interested in doing any real journalism on their own, it really is the least they could do.

Update 12/24/2010:

Just days after I posted this, The New York times broke a story on American plans to begin military operations in Pakistan. I'm always happy to admit when I'm wrong, and I'm especially happy to be wrong here. Maybe Wikileaks is reminding the old media how journalism is done. More please.