Obama's nuclear plan naive and premature

I can foresee a world without nuclear weapons. It will be a world with no terrorist organisations, and one where all countries operate as closely as those in Western Europe, when war is inconceivable. Considering recent history, it is worth remembering that Germany today is a very close ally of France, the UK and the USA - for those past a certain age, this is a difficult concept to grasp (it was for Margaret Thatcher for example).

However, Barack Obama's declaration that he will convene an international summit to look at the elimination of nuclear weapons is hopefully just posturing, because the global environment to abolish nuclear weapons is far from benign.

Start with Russia, which has a government that is anything but transparent, and which could not be trusted to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons any better than the old Soviet Union. As long as Russia remains an aggressive mini-power that seeks to exercise power outside its borders rather like the USSR did, then it would be wholly wrong to remove the nuclear deterrence. It would be a brave politician who predicts an economically beleagured Russia could not threaten its neighbours again.

Then there is China. You think it would abolish nuclear weapons? Not with Russia having them of course, nor India. China also is far from having a government that could be trusted to verify abolishing its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea's existing nuclear capability, and Iran's planned capability both do not bode well. It would also be madness to remove the nuclear deterrent from the Korean peninsula, nor to remove the ability to deter Iran. Finally, will India or Pakistan blink first? While Pakistan remains an unstable state, that risks falling to Islamism, you must wonder why India would remove its arsenal?

I need not state why Israel would never abolish its nuclear option either, given the existential threat it faces from Iran and others.

John Key and Phil Goff have parroted support for it. Sadly neither noted that nuclear weapons kept the peace in the Cold War between those countries that held them. New Zealand included of course.

As long as there remain state enemies of open transparent liberal capitalist societies, nuclear weapons should be held by the Western allies. The alternative are those who execute political opponents, censor opposition and wish to command control over the West having a monopoly on nuclear weapons. That is utterly unthinkable.

So what about supporting the child?

I am unsurprised that Maia is supporting the woman who gave birth on a plane, who clearly was so distressed she isn't fit to be a mother (you can't look after a child if you can't look after yourself), but more curious that she is supporting her in prison (as is her right)- but doing nothing about the completely helpless baby she gave birth to.

I don't doubt Karolaine Maika is a seriously disturbed woman - but mothers, unless they adopt, have responsibilities for their children. If they fail to take even basic steps to ensure that someone else can look after them, then they are beyond the pale.

For regardless of how disturbed she is, the baby is completely and utterly helpless.

Although Maia has previously said that when people are so poor, you can understand them torturing a three year old. "it's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old".

Need I say more?

The Pope's reckless stupidity

Following on from the Pope's pre-Christmas statement that humanity needs "saving" from homosexuals because "a blurring of the distinction between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race" (which apparently hasn't happened for countless other species where homosexual behaviour is observed). The "God given" variations in hormones and behaviour of human beings apparently should mean a whole segment of humanity should deny who they are because of a powerful celibate self sacrificing man.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the Pope is now saying HIV "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

The absence of logic is astonishing.

You may as well say that using condoms makes the likelihood of pregnancy higher.

The simple mathematical truth is that near universal condom use would dramatically contain the spread of HIV. It would NOT eliminate it, but by dramatically cutting the rate of transmission it will reduce it. After all, this is in part what happened among homosexual men in the Western world. Partly promiscuity reduced, but predominantly condom use became the norm - the rate of transmission reduced significantly.

To say it aggravate the problem is an utter lie, a reckless misnomer that will result in people having unprotected sex because they'll say "condoms make it worse".

He, no doubt thinks, that it is better people abstain from sex, with the threat of HIV being the incentive to abstain. He also probably thinks that the existence of condoms makes it more likely people will have sex, and more likely HIV will be transmitted.

So let's look at the scenarios behind his statement. Assume there are 100,000 in a country who are sexually mature and unmarried, let's assume 15% of those have HIV, so 15,000 are already infected (about the rate in South Africa). Of them, one third are undiagnosed. The scenarios below are rough mathematically, as I haven't exponentially included the chain effect of passing on the virus, but you should get the idea:

Scenario 1: Pope's ideal: All abstain from sex, except after marriage. Assume over 5 years half marry. So 50,000 marry. Of them 15% of the people in those marriages have HIV, of whom one third don't know. It takes 14 acts of intercourse for ALL those married to someone with HIV to be statistically certain of infection. The odds are that married couples will achieve this in 2-3 weeks and may produce children, also infected.

Scenario 2: Pope's policy, promiscuous lifestyle: All have sex with 5 partners over this period, on average 20 times with each person (sex once a fortnight). Those knowingly with HIV restrict this to 2. Odds are that over half of the population have sex with an infected person, and that there is a near certain chance of infection. Around 40,000 get infected. This is given that the rate of HIV infection for unprotected sex is 7%.

Scenario 3: 100% condom use, promiscuous lifestyle: As scenario 2, but all encounters involve a condom. According to a report by the National Institutes of Health (USA) condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 87% (to 0.9%). As a result, while over half the population STILL has sex with an infected person, the odds of infection have dropped from virtually 100% (20 encounters with 7% chance each time), to 18%. Around 15,300 get infected.

Scenario 4: 100% condom use, half marry rest abstain: As scenario 1, but all who are married use condoms. 50,000 married, 15% married to people infected, but it takes them to have sex 111 times in that period before they statistically are all infected, a period of perhaps 6 months, during which HIV testing would have been available to them both easily.

My point is simple. Condoms reduce the incidence of HIV transmission. It works for people who are promiscuous and those who are not. Unless, the Pope wants everyone with HIV to remain unmarried.

It is sheer reckless stupidity, which barely shields the suffering Augustine ascetism of the Vatican. The Pope is either ignorant or would rather more Africans caught HIV as "punishment" for not following the church's teachings than they use simple proven technology to prevent disease transmission.

My problem is, it isn't clear which one it is, or whether it is actually both.

(As an aside, what I'd really like to know is why the church remains obsessed with sex (I can make some psychological assumptions) provisions in the Old Testament, but not those related to shellfish, hair and the like. My first guess is that if we all treated shellfish eating as a hedonistic pleasure, and sex as mundane and uninteresting as breathing, it may be different - it's about sacrifice, denial and suffering).

The Standard talks nonsense on rail and roads

Just when you thought Frogblog was the leading source of reality evasion on transport, I find I have new respect for Frogblog and that the Standard deserves the prefix "sub" that NotPC rightfully gave it last year. Frogblog recently posted on Kiwirail evidence that contradicts the Green view on things, it gave a flimsy rebuttal, but still all credit to actually looking at broader evidence.

The Standard on the other hands is the repositary of complete ignorance on the topic.

The latest post has Steve Pierson saying of Kiwirail (in a post about ACC, more on that later):

"even if it’s true in the sense that it won’t give any profit to government as a going concern, and will require the Government to put in more money, so what?"

So what? Yes Steve, taxpayers should bend over and let the government shaft them up their fundament right? An unprofitable business is no big deal to the Standard. Then again, the history of NZR in its various guises in my lifetime under state ownership was to be unprofitable from 1970 to 1982, when it was bailed out, profitable for 2 years (after contracted subsidised services), then unprofitable from 1985 to 1990, when it was bailed out again, and profitable for three years before being sold.

Then he says:

"If that were the criteria for whether owning an asset is worthwhile, we should get rid of the state highway system for a start - it costs the Government over a billion a year and there’s nearly nil revenue."

Nearly nil revenue? The government is forecast to receive $897 million from Road User Charges and nearly $1.9 billion from fuel tax (adding the $600 million currently diverted as Crown Revenue then recycled back to transport) from using all roads in the current year. 50% of vehicle kilometres travelled are on the state highway network. So around $1.4 billion a year of revenue is nearly nil?

Oh and the planned expenditure on the state highway network in the current year is $1.26 billion, of which 63% is on capital improvements.

The state highway system raises enough revenue to pay for its ongoing maintenance, with sufficient surplus that it can be used to improve the network, and there is over $100 million on top of that revenue used elsewhere (subsidising public transport).

Then we have mysticism dressed as economics:

"It’s the externalities that matter. Having a working rail system, liking a working road system, allows the economy to work much better than it otherwise could. That produces tremendous wealth, even though it doesn’t show up on Kiwirail’s balance sheet."

Externalities? Yet when the Surface Transport Cost and Charges study dug down into the marginal costs of road vs rail freight, the differences between modes varied considerably. In two out of three cases, road user charges revenue paid were in excess of all externalities, in the other case it fell short. So it is NOT cut and dry.

However, this nonsense about it producing "tremendous wealth" is pure mysticism.

Let's see the wealth creation from Labour and the railway system:
- $665 million to buy a company that couldn't pay its bills (track access charges), when its market valuation was around two-thirds of that;
- That same company needs hundreds of millions of dollars to just keep doing business over the medium term, and wont generate a profit from that.

The Standard has been a cheerleader for the rail religion for some time. It described renationalisation as such:

"The Government has acted in a way that makes economic and environmental sense. The only opposition has been from the ‘free market is always right’ lobby and National. Their childish comments about buying a train-set have fooled no-one."

Childish? Using analysis which the government itself commissioned from consultants?

Steve Pierson before that talked absolute drivel suggesting enormous demand for Kiwirail:

"Businesses are keen to take more freight off the road in the face of skyrocketing fuel prices and long-distance car travel is also getting out of reach for many; KiwiRail will provide an alternative."

Which businesses? Who is thinking of dumping their car for long distance passenger rail?

You see, the subStandard thinks it is about ideology not evidence:

"The only reason I can think of is that National/ACT doesn’t like KiwiRail and insulation because they were the Left’s iniatives. There is certainly no pragmatic reason to drop them. From both an environmental and economic stand-point investing in rail and warmer homes are the best options."

None Steve? When nobody has done a study on the economic or environmental benefits of subsidising rail? When a government pays well over the odds to buy an unprofitable business?

Dare I suggest the Standard has superseded Frogblog in abandoning evidence and preaching the religious mantra "rail must be good" - a faith based initiative if ever there was one.

Maiden speech: Catherine Delahunty: Addict of compulsory collectivism

Before I catch up with the ones from late last year, there is Catherine Delahunty, who presented her maiden speech yesterday.

I previously called Delahunty our newest enemy of reason. She hates democracy, believes Maori crime is due to racism, and thinks of everyone as members of groups. Collectivist par excellence.

Her maiden speech said it all. Countless mysticism, references to tribalism, and even anthropormophising inanimate objects. She has demonstrated exactly what I foretold, an enemy of reason and individualism.

For starters, she thinks that those New Zealanders not born of Maori descent are enjoying “colonial privilege”. What does this mean? That it could be taken away from us?

“We are citizens of the nation of Aotearoa New Zealand and we are Pakeha. I’ve been told one meaning of Pakeha is "of a different breath". We enjoy ongoing colonial privilege, but we have an opportunity to take responsibility for this and work for a justice-based peace. This justice is desperately needed from Ruatoki to Gaza.”

Justice based peace? What does she want taken from you? What about Gaza Catherine? Palestinians control it, but their government used it to attack Israel. Was that ok Catherine?

However I didn’t need to know when she lost her virginity “I embrace this new chapter with all the illusions of a maiden. Last time I was a maiden was 40 years ago. It’s refreshing to revisit that time of passionate conviction, when it was our unique duty to resist the system while wearing a lot of black clothing.” What? Duty imposed by whom? Ah the sacred collective you want us to live under perhaps?

She antropormorphises a mountain and a river, which explains why she is with the Greens who sometimes prefers inanimate objects to human beings:

“When I left this cold city, at 17, I went to live with a mountain” Lunatic!
“In the 1990s, thanks to Gordon and Greenpeace I met a river.” No that's called drowning, it interferes with oxygen to the brain.

She goes on about beneficiary rights. Talks of Pakeha as racist wine drinkers,.She thinks of prisons as places where victims of capitalism go – not people who steal, assault, rape and murder. Maori are the victims, Pakeha are the wealthy thieving colonialists. A simple world for a simple woman.

However, it’s near the end that her real hatred for individual achievement and judging people on what they do, not who they are, comes out.

She says “For Leo and every tiny person starting out in life, you deserve something so much more precious than individualism.” What is MORE than that? What is more than realizing your full potential, enjoying life and being yourself? Well if you’re Catherine, you pigeonhole as a matter of course. Individuals make life too complicated if you spend your life stereotyping men and women. You need to belong to a collective approved by her to fight science, pollution, production, technology, culture or whatever else is part of her list. She fought nuclear weapons as a child allegedly.

Then she says:

“In a healthy group the individual can thrive, it is not a war between nanny state and the free market, the real struggle is between earth-based collective well-being versus a polluted globalised greed”

No it isn’t Catherine. It is between respecting individual rights and extending private property rights over the world, which provides a way to address pollution. It is about adults interacting voluntarily versus the statist collectivist anti-reason violence promoters like the Green Party.

It ends on the most bizarre linkage "The international financial crisis is inextricably linked to climate change and if we can’t work the linkage out then Papatuanuku will spell it out for us."

Yep, you stick with that Catherine, go back to living with your mountain and meeting rivers - another MP who cares so much about the planet, but who seems to spend so little time on it - except that she prefers the planet to meeting individuals.

Be grateful the Greens are in Opposition now.

"Green" council policies saw death and destruction

A report in The Age in Melbourne claims that local authorities contributed to the seriousness of bushfires, by refusing permission for residents to cut down trees on their properties.

“Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said. “We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."

Yes, so private property rights are ignored, so trees survive – to burn and destroy homes and kill people.

“Another resident said she had asked the council four times to tend to out-of-control growth on public land near her home, but her pleas had been ignored.”

After all, council’s know how to look after public land don’t they?

So the envirovangelists, after claiming it was the fault of CO2 emitters, actually exacerbated the situation by their tree worshipping. Don’t expect them to admit they were wrong though. Don't expect the so called friends of social justice to encourage the remaining residents to sue the council for negligence - except perhaps for not protecting the trees at all costs.

Green policy means keeping kids indoors

It's so stupid it is worth highlighting again:

The Green Party electromagnetic policy includes "Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children and pregnant women."

Electromagnetic radiation includes visible light.

So the Greens presumably want kids keep indoors during the day, and at night, keep the lights out.

Oh and if that isn't good enough for you, it would include wifi internet, it would include all computer monitors, TV screens, and even radios - they all emit electromagnetic radiation.

Do you still trust the Greens on anything scientific?

GM tomatoes with higher antioxidants

The Sunday Times reports scientists at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK have developed genetically modified tomatoes, including snapdragon genes, to produce anthocyanins, which are antioxidants that offer some protection against cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This complements the lycopene in tomatoes.

A great step forward which potentially could enhance the health and wellbeing of millions.

So of course Pete Riley of the anti-science group "GM Freeze" says that even the idea of "GM superfoods is fundamentally flawed". There being "no need" for foods to ward off cancer. Furthermore it is unlikely to "benefit the world's poor". How utterly evil. Almost every single major advance in medical science has not benefited many of the world's poor, because they are hardly in a position to access it or afford it. Pete Riley would presumably prefer that research on disease stop till the "world's poor" (him not being one) have access to all other treatments, something he no doubt is doing little to achieve himself.

My own family, and a friend of mine both have propensities to cancer, without smoking, without any of the other lifestyle factors, it is genetic. Anything which can help ward off cancer is welcome, but the ecologist zealots, worshipping their "nature is better than science" dogma would stop that.

This is one area where it is clear what the Green Party (in any country no doubt) would think. It would say no. Ask yourself on what basis. Is it evidence of ill effects of genetically modified food? No. It is purely a belief that there are no positive effects and people "don't want it". People not wanting something is a good reason to ban it, apparently. That's what the Green Party is about.

Richard Dawkins going off beam

Yes, I can see my conservative friends smiling.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Professor Richard Dawkins, author of the compelling book "The God Delusion" has declared that he is to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales."

Oh dear oh dear. His concern is that fairy tales might have an insidious effect on rationality! This being because there is no scientific evidence to back them up.

"Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards". "I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know".

Professor Dawkins, I am an atheist. I enjoyed fairy tales and other such stories from a very young age, with talk of magic and the like. I always knew they were stories and made up. It is called fun. Do your research of course, but do you not see parallels between your own desire to combat all that is fiction and magical with that of evangelicals who think Harry Potter is satanic?

That's the irony. I will happily take up serious reasoned arguments against organisations and individuals who wish to use their supernatural beliefs as a basis for government or to initiate force or fraud agaist others.

Go on Professor Dawkins, write your children's book on how to think about the world, even have a go at children's fiction. You are an intelligent thoughtful man with much to add to secular society, and to increase the understanding of science. Waging war against fairy tales will alienate many with a sense of life and fun, and they are hardly the enemy when the world remains infected with the likes of this and this. Teaching children martyrdom is a little more disconcerting than magic.

Life's unfair

Green Party

Life's unfair - it's because heterosexual white men in suits are greedy and want everything for themselves, and "their system" means they can only get ahead by oppressing and exploiting others. If they had their own way they'd sell children, enslave women and treat all other races as slave labour too - Life can be made fair, if only you give us all the power we ask for, in the hands of the state, and we'll make it fair, we'll make sure it's fair.

Libertarianz

Life's unfair - it's reality, get over it - Life can't be made fair. Those who say it can be are trying to con you, and the only way they can try is by having more power over your life.

and all those in between?

Labour

Life's unfair - that's because periodically you elect the National Party, and they are greedy, want everything for their rich, foreign mates, and are only too happy to watch poor working class people, like us, work hard physical jobs for pitiful amounts of money while our kids go to school without shoes and breakfast. Life can be made MORE fair, by trusting in the Labour Party. Keeping us in government forever.

National

Life's unfair - that's because periodically you elect the Labour Party, and they are greedy, and want everything so that bureaucrats, unionists and others who don't know how lucky they are under National, can spend money willy nilly on doing everything wrong. They don't know the kiwi way, they weren't born to rule, we were. - Life can be made MORE fair, by trusting in the National Party. We'll see you right.

Maori Party

Life's unfair - that's because of British colonialism, which still exists and still applies, and denies the Tangata Whenua the wonders of the paradise civilisation of Aotearoa that existed before the imperialist genocide merchants arrived. The Labour Party have taken us for granted as well - Life can be made MORE fair, by giving us the chance to inflict impose use power trusted in us by the people.

NZ First

Life's unfair - It's all the bloody foreigners stealing our jobs, unreasonably paying market prices for our land, setting up businesses, contributing meaningfully to society and showing up half of us for the semi-literate knuckle draggers that we are. They trample on the elderly, run them over and steal their pensions, after all remember how those slanty eyed people were during the war - you can't trust them! - Life can be made MORE fair, give Winston a chance, again, for the third time. He's the reincarnation of Rob Muldoon, and he was fair.

United Future

Life's unfair - I left the Labour Party because it went leftwing under Helen Clark, I joined up with 6 other ex Labour and National MPs to be a real centrist party called United, and only I got elected in 1996. Again in 1999. Then I joined with some Christians and went in with Labour in 2002, then some left and I was down to three, now I think it will just be me. It's so unfair. I am the centrist party, the party that every coalition should live or die on - Life can be made more fair, vote for United Future!

Catholic school apparently bans cervical cancer vaccine

A Roman Catholic high school in Bury, Greater Manchester, has decided to not permit its students to be vaccinated against the papilloma virus on its premises. Now the report (from the Manchester Evening News) is purely about a letter, not yet sent to parents, about the decision, and nobody from the school has commented directly on the report, so it is only preliminary.

Now I would defend, vehemently, the right of the school to make this decision. It is the school's property, and parents have the choice whether or not to send their daughters to the school. Furthermore, as the vaccine is taxpayer funded, there should be other options to obtain the vaccination if parents so choose. I do not object to the right to withhold it. This is a libertarian stance - asserting private property rights.

However, as an objectivist, I find the stance itself based on irrational and immoral grounds. It has been reported that the letter announcing the reasons for withholding permission
"points out that the vaccine protects against only 70 per cent of cervical cancers, and gives details of possible side-effects to the jab".

Only 70%!! As opposed to all those vaccinations derived from the Vatican, which has done wonders in fighting cancer over the years. Now the side effects are logical to advise about, but that should then be a question of rational trade off.

The real problem the school has is with sex. "Morally it seems to be a sticking plaster response. Parents must consider the knock-on effect of encouraging sexual promiscuity. Instead of taking it for granted that teenagers will engage in sexual activity, we can offer a vision of a full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage".

So dramatically reducing the risk of a cancer that at best could mean a lengthy period of medical treatment, at worse death, is "encouraging sexual promiscuity". Well then by extension there should be NO vaccinations, indeed there shouldn't even be any drugs or treatment for people with STDs or HIV should there? The threat of cancer discourages sexual promiscuity.

So presumably the school and the church regards those girls who get cervical cancer as sinful, and deserving of their fate - because after all, they should have not sinned because, somehow, that protects you completely from the papilloma virus and cervical cancer. As usual, the wisdom of celibate men on these matters

Is anyone delivering the message that "get this vaccine and you can shag without protection happily"? Of course not. The message is more a case of, here is a vaccine that could possibly save your life. Nobody is saying that the risk of pregnancy has gone or the risk of HIV or other STDs. Who thinks that girls go "hold it, I might get the papilloma virus, I will wait till I'm married". Most who do wait do so for a host of reasons which are emotional and rational, none of which celibate men are really in a place to understand well. Much as they understand a "full life keeping yourself for a lifelong partnership in marriage" - an ideal I think is rather lovely, if it is sustained genuinely rather than by altruistic sacrifice.

However it is more serious than that. Women can get cervical cancer from the papilloma virus without having been sexually promiscuous. Indeed people can get HIV without having been sexually promiscious as well. Yet the school, and by implication the Roman Catholic Church cares not about that. Death apparently isn't so important that the achievements of medical science should be as widely available as possible to delay it.

Moral? Hardly. It is one thing to frighten young girls into fearing an eternity of agony and damnation if they dare wander off a certain path, it is another to deliberately deny them a means to prevent the onset of a fatal disease, so that the threat of that disease can be hanging over them if they wander off that path. So not only do they risk being punished in this life, but having that life shortened as well.

The school has every right to do this, but that does not make it immune from criticism for its apparent motives.

Black Power's treaty claim

Yes, seriously according to Stuff. You see it claims that gangs exist because of colonisation. Remember when the UK invaded NZ during the lifetime of those gang members, and they had to club together to fight the oppression of the imperialist invaders who took their property, denied them education and stopped them expressing their culture?

"It's the story of our lives really and the way we're treated. From our perspective there have been multiple Treaty breaches, every article has been broken. The way we've dealt with the different breaches is to get together with other like-minded people" says spokesman Eugene Ryder.

Yes, poor you, hasn't "society" dished you a raw deal? Shouldn't everyone be forced to bail you out of your lives? Hardly surprising that Marxist Maori nationalist lawyer Moana Jackson is talking favourably about the claim.

This is the consequence of a culture, and government that supports a culture that individuals are not responsible for their lives and not responsible for improving their own lot. A culture that doesn't blame individuals, whether themselves or their families, but blames "structural" issues, blames the whole collective of society - so it can then claim that everyone be forced to pay to make their lives better.

A simple answer is to disband the Waitangi Tribunal, and redirect the sort of claims that have gone to it before to being a matter of property rights claims when the state has historically stolen from citizens (Maori and others). So which political party will advocate that then? It doesn't begin with the letter "N".

The world of the Green Party - an investment

You have to love the evasion of the Greens. ETS creates a "billion dollar fund" like some magical money tree that you've planted, and you don't even have to think about what those who earned the money might have spent it on - you can spend it in whatever way you wish. Good that.

This fund is to subsidise the installation of insulation in all of the homes of people who OWN their properties (hardly the poor) who couldn't be bothered paying for it themselves.

So it is a tax on everyone, to transfer to those who are moderate to high incomes, to reward them for their own unwillingness to spend money on their properties.

Great!! You can see the Green Party incentives at work there, force other people to pay for something we think everyone should have, rewarding those who are least interested in getting what we want, and who are also undoubtedly able to do it if they so choose to do so.

Furthermore it's an "investment". Yes. You, in your insulated house, being forced to pay for someone else to get his house insulated returns $5 in benefits for every dollar spent. This evades who is paying and who gets the benefits. The person paying gets none of the benefits, the person receiving the benefits is getting a high ratio of benefits to cost because everyone else has been forced to pay for them.

It's like "investing in public transport", which is really about making people who never use it and wont benefit from it (except at the margins) to pay for something that others (who don't even pay half the costs of using it) will benefit from.

So the Greens are selling snake oil. Pay $1 and give someone else $5 worth of benefits.

The worst possible reaction to housing prices

Centre-left governments are funny with their contradictions. When property prices are rising beyond inflation, and people's family homes (and investment properties) are enjoying comfortable capital gains, governments are happy for people to enjoy the fruits of this. Indeed in New Zealand with property rates funding most local government activities, local government enjoys not only the fruits of property revaluations to increase rates, but they increase rates ANYWAY, so that local government revenues grow significantly faster than inflation.

Of course whilst property prices appreciate, there is concern about those unable to afford to buy a home. This is a public policy concern sufficiently that governments intervene in different ways including:
- Providing special schemes taking taxpayers' money to subsidise deposits for first home buyers;
- Using taxpayers' money to subsidise large scale new housing developments and new "eco towns";
- Using taxpayers' money to further inflate the cost of new housing, by building new subsidised rental housing (state/council housing).

Now there is an understandable concern about people being able to have housing, but by taking taxes off of everyone, subsidising people to enter the property market further inflates that market, producing a rather vicious cycle.

So what has the UK government done more recently. Property prices on average across the UK have fallen by around 10% in the last year. This creates problems for those who have 100% mortgages in areas of low forecast growth, so many thousands now have "negative equity" where their mortgages are worth more than their properties. These are part of the credit problem, whereby financial institutions lent money to those who were barely able to sustain buying property, and are now unable to shoulder the capital loss in the short to medium term.

This is painted as a disaster, which it is for those with negative equity, and isn't positive for those relying on property capital gains as an investment. However there is another side to this story.

Those not currently in the market can see an opportunity. With significant price drops, the catchment of people able to buy homes increases - though this is partly relative to the availability of mortgage finance. However, in effect the situation is self correcting. It SHOULD lead to less government involvement in the housing market as it has become affordable.

No. The UK Labour government couldn't let that one go, so what has it done? It is now letting local authorities buy up properties under mortgagee sales, it is also allowing councils to underwrite bad mortgages - in effect is propping up the market using taxpayers' money. The same taxpayers of whom some are suffering from decreasing property values and others who are seeking to buy - they are indirectly subsidising the market. A market where only part of the population benefits from this and many others lose.

It is a massive taxpayer subsidy to property owners, and it is vile and counterproductive for the UK as a whole.

Ross Clark in the Times damns the Brown government's moves saying "why should you want your taxes used to bail out feckless homeowners who borrowed too much during the boom and, worse still, the greedy banks that lent it to them?".

He points out that mortgage lending in the UK has dropped by two-thirds in one year, from £17.2 billion in July 2007 to £4.3 billion in July 2008. So while the market corrects itself, Gordon Brown wants to prop up those with an interest in part of the equation, because he figures the swing voters are in that category. The poor feckless lower income people vote Labour anyway, so screw them.

As Clark concludes:

"To force taxpayers to rebuild a stock of council homes now in a falling market is not just perverse; it would also rank alongside Gordon Brown's sale of gold reserves at the bottom of the gold market in 1999 as one of the most crass cases of public investment ever.

There are few problems so bad that a government cannot make them ten times worse by intervening. The housing market is no exception. Much as it will cause pain to those who bought too late into the dream of home ownership, the only sensible policy is to stand back and let the market find its own level."

The Times editorial today also sums it up:

the most fundamental objection to the housing package is that government has no legitimate function in targeting asset prices. The most direct way to assist first-time buyers is to allow an overvalued market to find its own equilibrium. There is no reason for the Government to seek political salvation by populist appeals to the economic interest of existing homeowners.

Indeed, and in the meantime some may be looking to snap up some good buys!

The tribalism at the heart of Georgia vs Russia

The Guardian reports the dark local level side of this conflict - Georgians abducted and held hostage by South Ossetian militia, amid reports of it being in response to Georgians holding Ossetians.

A simple reminder that on the ground, far too much of the basis for these conflicts are knuckle dragging tribal fears - and the brutality that such brainless collectivism leads people into.

Kedgley's latest hysterical scaremongering

Yes, it's that old bogey the cellphone tower. Why does she hate them so, even though she uses cellphones? Well it's simple:

1. It's new technology. Yes, new, not old, traditional, nostalgic like trains, it's new, so we should be wary, cautious, don't move too fast. Remember talking in person was always good until letters were proven safe, then after that twisted wire copper phone lines. However cellphones? No. The towers haven't been proved safe have they? (neither have many foods, but nevermind - evade).

2. It's technology used a lot by businesspeople. Yes those selfish child eating, worker crushing lowlife who would sell all the poor people into Chinese sweat shops and steal crusts from begging children, boot pensioners out of their homes so they could build parties to drink expensive French champagne and drive their big SUVs to pollute the world. Cellphones aren't used much by... oops that argument doesn't wash anymore does it?

3. Private enterprise builds cellphone towers. PRIVATE! Not like the loving caring community centred Kiwirail building railways in Auckland. Private companies make profits!! Yes they spend money to make MORE money. How evil is that? Yes and when you make a profit you don't care how you do it, even if it involves taking blood from poor people, and making the elderly run on treadmills to generate power. You can't trust private enterprise!!

4. Cellphone towers involve electromagnetic radiation. What? Radiation? Ohhh like Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Mururoa. We know that kills you. Non Ionising? Oh stop with your Western non-feminist scientific rational mumbo-jumbo, PROVE it's safe? Yeah go on - it's radiation! It MUST be bad.

Kedgley's deranged attack on cellphone towers can be outed for the sheer stupidity that it is by pointing out a few little facts about electro-magnetic radiation:

1. The average person gets far more exposure from a computer screen/ TV screen (CRT or not) that they would if they lived adjacent to a cellphone tower. People with home WIFI networks also are exposing themselves to a greater level of exposure.

2. People have been living in close proximity to major radio transmitters for up to three generations with no reported ill effects. For example, Wellingtonians in Khandallah, Johnsonville and Ngaio live under the bathing radiation of the Kaukau transmitter site which transmits 10 TV channels and more FM radio stations at levels many times that of a cellphone tower. Those in Titahi Bay live adjacent to AM transmitters that target a range as distant as Hawera to the north and Blenheim to the south. A friend working in this field in Australia pointed out to some people in a community concerned about cellphone towers that they faced much greater exposure from TV transmitters 24 hours a day - to which the community responded "don't take away TV"!

3. Far more important is personal use of cellphones and laptops with WIFI. There is some anecdotal evidence indicating that sustained close exposure to these devices causes some localised heating which may pose some sort of risk. It is far from proven, but worth taking care about. Kedgley surprisingly hasn't ordered laws protecting people from talking too long on cellphones.

She funnily enough says "It is bizarre that while people need a resource consent to alter their homes, even in a minor way, telecommunications companies can erect 12 to 22 metre cell towers around New Zealand without needing any resource consent, or even to consult with the local community."

It is bizarre Sue - bizarre that people should ever need a resource consent to alter THEIR homes. THEIR P.R.O.P.E.R.T.Y. I know you don't understand the concept. However well done evading the point that if a new cellsite is created it DOES need a resource consent - the lack of consent is only needed for existing sites that are able to be used for this purpose.

Oh and Sue, there are cellphone transmitters on buildings all over cities, you can't even tell they are there, keep an eye open next time you drive through town.

Georgia: a simple lesson

After the collapse of the brutal Tsarist empire, Georgia proclaimed independence, with a more moderate leftwing government led by the Mensheviks, until the murderous Red Army invaded and absorbed Georgia into the USSR in 1921.

The USSR ceded some of Georgia to Turkey, with nearly a third of the entire territory of Georgia moved into Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republics. From then it was under the tyranny of Moscow, until 1991.

On independence, Georgia went through a coup deposing Zviad Gamsakhurdia as President, replacing him in due course with former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who was President for eight years. While he ruled a corrupt state, he allowed freedom and civil society to flourish, leading the way for the Rose revolution in 2003

After independence, in 1991, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia became flashpoints for nationalist movements based on Russians seeking to join the Russian Federation. In both provinces, Georgia lost control and many tens of thousands of Georgians forced to flee in the bigoted tribalism that ensued.

Ossetians and Abkhazians have terrorised and murdered Georgians, and vice versa. Nationalists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have spread the same sort of vile bigoted tribalism as is still seen in the Balkans, claiming Georgia will inflict genocide on them - which is nonsense. Georgians in those territories equally claim the locals will do the same to them.

Georgia has now poured gallons of petrol on the embers of those who say "genocide", by attacking South Ossetia. Now Russia is claiming "genocide" and helping the knuckle dragging nationalists terrorise Georgians.

Georgia is not in the right - it is willing to force people within its "territory" to submit to its rule, and as a result it has inspired Russia to be the bullying bear we all knew it to be. Russia could now invade and conquer Georgia, although it is too clever to be that blunt. However it will effectively annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia and know the world will do nothing. Don't be surprised if you hear stories of Georgians fleeing both regions, and massacres - don't be surprised if these too are exaggerated, but essentially true in substance if not scale.

It vindicates NATO not admitting Georgia, but it also raises the spectre of what happens when NATO does not expand. I believe it was a mistake to reject Georgia and Ukraine, rather than to specify preconditions for membership. It was a mistake bent on not frightening Russia - a country that only one as distant from reality as Adolf Hitler, would dare attempt to conquer.

Now Russia has flexed its muscles it may look elsewhere - the second Cold War has not begun, but the winds from the east look mightily chilly to those closest to the bear.

If it's good enough for Fiji

Both Idiot Savant and David Farrar have blogged about the proposed charter for Fiji, which essentially forms the basis for a new constitution. One of the key elements is replacing racially divided seats with a one person, one vote system.

So you might ask why Idiot Savant defends the Maori seats, and David Farrar will be voting for a party that will also retain them? After all, they both consider this to be a step forward for Fiji.

Why is Fiji special?

The dire social underclass

I forget to read Dr Michael Bassett's incisive columns as often as I should. Around a month ago he wrote about the underclass in New Zealand and what sustains it.

He tells some stark truths that are far too uncomfortable for policy makers:

"The criminals share several things in common. They are almost all from families where there is one parent on welfare, too many kids from several fathers in the household, inadequate supervision, easy prey from relatives or de factos, and access to alcohol and drugs. Far too many are Maori. The kids exist because they carry an entitlement to a benefit stamped on their brows, and the parent doesn’t care about their welfare for which the taxpayers give them money."

and

"Domestic violence rises on the days of the week when there is enough money to purchase drugs and alcohol, while for the rest of the week hard luck stories emerge about people resorting to food parcels and there being no lunches at school. The Child Poverty Action Group gives us a sermon about poverty and argues for more money for the parents, which sensible people have long-since worked out would go on more alcohol and drugs."

Contrast him to Dr Cindy Kiro who DOES play the "give them more of other people's money" card. The whole article is worth a read. He leaves one of his most damning lines for the media:

"Before going home to their trendy pads in Ponsonby and Herne Bay, the media treat this social crisis like soft porn – titillating details of one tragedy after another. There’s no proper analysis of the cause of the problems. No brains engaged."

How can anyone on the left seriously believe that throwing money at the problem is the solution? How can they ignore the absolute poverty of responsibility, role models, attention, love and aspiration endemic in far too many parts of the country? They have nothing to do with money - as much of the world is poor, but has stable family units, responsible and dedicated parents and esteem to grow onwards and upwards - this was seen in the Great Depression.

It is about ethics, culture and philosophy - and the philosophy of "it's everyone else's fault", "capitalism makes everything unfair so I'm angry and torture my kids", "everyone else owes me a fair life", is bankrupt.

It's about time those who peddle this are confronted, exposed and policy change radically - they've had their chance, and it has failed, miserably.

Vile "ancient virtues"

The Briefing Room is the blog of Investigate Magazine, the magazine that would prefer digging up dirt about Helen Clark's sexuality than investigating the real truth behind the Urewera 17, or the scaremongering nonsense politics of Jeanette Fitzsimons, or the promoters of violence within the Maori Party is - no. It has a Christian bent, and my attention was brought to this post - digging up the old vacuous claim that atheism isn't enough, and the reason why reason evading dictators kill millions.

.

It has a point. It is why I am an objectivist. Nobody can credibly claim atheism is a comprehensive philosophy, it simply is the denial of the supernatural. The post is full of absolute nonsense, implying that atheists are devoid of morality, and that somehow Nietzsche and hedonism are the alternative to ghost worshipping. The truth is that there are umpteen ideologies that have nothing to do with ghost worshipping, much like there are umpteen that include ghost worshipping. It is tired and ludicrous to claim atheists share one set of views, anymore than damning all religions for all the trouble in the world.

.

However, the post continues saying "The ancient virtues of poverty, chastity, and obedience are universally despised".

.

I'm so disgusted beyond words. Poverty is a virtue. The same repulsive ideology propagated by Mother Theresa of Calcutta, who received succour from the murderous Duvalier's in Haiti and the Hoxha atheist communist dictatorship in Albania. The suffering of the poor is glorious, the sick sadistic life-destroying face of Christianity. Sacrificing people to poverty as a virtue. Of course nobody who actually IS in true poverty believes that.

.

Chastity is the least offensive. At least it is a choice if you wish to deny sexuality from your life. However a virtue? A virtue to deny from your life the pleasure of touching and enjoying touch from someone you feel intimately close with? The implication that it is filthy and disgusting, like your body, like the "original sin" that conceives children. The ideology that sex is tolerated only to breed within marriage, but the most virtuous are priests and nuns - and we all know the universally virtuous record they all have.

.

Obedience is a virtue? Yes just blindly follow what others tell you do. "I was only following orders" says the concentration camp commandante, says the Khmer Rouge cadre, says the Red Guard, says the inquisitor in the Middle Ages, says the slave owner, says the husband whose wife swore to "love honour and obey", says the Police who hounded Alan Turing to suicide by enforcing the hideous criminal laws on homosexuality.

.

This post continues thinking Christianity is "the great Faith that set Europe free from the superstitious fear of pagan deities, that converted Rome and Byzantium, that today brings hope and joy to millions in Asia and Africa". What were the Dark Ages but a time of superstitious fear? In fact what is most of Western history before the Enlightenment and the rebirth of reason? It was superstition, fear, murder and destruction.