Bouquet for Greens on medicinal cannabis

Metiria Turei's Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Private Members’ Bill has been drawn from the ballot. It...

.

"would allow registered medical practitioners to prescribe cannabis to those with specific serious medical conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, glaucoma and those suffering from nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy. Those who are deemed suitable for medicinal cannabis would have to be registered and would be issued with an identity card. At present it is possible for the Health Minister to approve medicinal cannabis use for some patients, but the process is extremely onerous. This Bill will take that responsibility out of the hands of politicians and place it with those best qualified to make those decisions - doctors. "

.

You can keep the identity card, but then it is probably to stop the Police hassling someone using it unde prescription. You may as well keep a copy of your prescription to prove it.

.

I hope this Bill gets to Select Committee, and gets the support of at least ACT and the Maori Party (United Future and NZ First are too conservative to allow this). It would be nice to see Labour and National supporting it - it hardly damages the war on drugs, and would be an out for those who do use cannabis to relieve pain. After all, what the hell do any politicians have the right to tell you or your doctor what shouldn't be prescribed, when you and your doctor are happy that it works?

.

I'm not optimistic though. Labour is scared this will be seen as being weak on family values, and National is too gutless to be open minded on this - I hope I'm wrong.

Robson's xenophobic rant

Remember Matt Robson? Supporter of Cuba, Jim Anderton's former colleague who lost his seat in Parliament as part of the decline of Jim Anderton's Progressive Party. Well he's in Scoop claiming foreign owned media set the public agenda in New Zealand. What bollocks.

.

He goes back to the late 1980s claiming "At the time, Labour was under pressure from a resurgent National promising big tax cuts and a big spend-up to boot. The foreign-owned media, as always, gave National a free ride by providing no analysis into how National could possibly deliver both tax cuts for the rich and a big spend-up on everything from transport to defence, police to National Super."

.

Hold on Matt - the economy was stagnant, unemployment was high, and GST had been increased to cover Labour's second term big social spending to avoid the deficit going out of control. That had something to do with Labour losing. The foreign owned media did NOT include television, which was TVNZ and TV3, TV3 being 85% NZ owned at this point and with a tiny audience - the government owned TVNZ, and Radio NZ which was the dominant radio broadcaster, owning two national commercial radio networks, plus National Radio. So apparently, foreign owned newspapers sway the electorate more than electronic media hmmmm.

.

Funnily enough the didn't give analysis into how MMP wouldn't deliver the answers people want and didn't report on how MMP was a largely leftwing project driven by people aligned to the Alliance - although it would have been in the "foreign media''s" interests to do so by your theory.

.

He's saying that now "And just like then, we have foreign-owned media outlets day after day proclaiming in feature articles, editorials and front-page new stories that the "surplus" should be used for large tax cuts that would mainly benefit those on higher incomes without children." While state TV and radio do the opposite - get over it Matt, you might actually find around 40% of New Zealanders voted for tax cuts - because they WANT them. Unlike in Cuba where people can't vote.

.

Let's get it clear - the leftwing corporate media conspiracy is nonsense because:

.

- The most influential media of all - television- is dominated by state owned broadcaster TVNZ, followed by Canwest owned TV3/C4 (TV3 news is rarely less leftwing than TVNZ) and then Sky (which has virtually no local news programmes);

- Radio NZ is state owned, and has about 20% of the radio market, another 5% comes from Maori broadcasters and the rest on commercial music and talkback stations. These are owned by a mixture of foreign and local shareholders, and are driven by seeking audiences - rather hard to push an agenda the audience doesn't want to hear;

- Newspaper editors are driven by two things - circulation and advertising. Circulation requires newspapers to sell stories people want to read, and advertising flows on from getting an audience. Papers that don't reflect what people want don't succeed, and several newspapers have failed and started in history as a result;

- Anyone is free to establish a TV station, radio station, newspaper or website to counter views they don't like. It is called freedom, it allows competitiveness of ideas and libertarians find it a lot harder to get media attention than hardened leftists;

- Magazines and the internet are important alternative media outlets, and there is an enormous range of choice with both.

.

If the corporate media conspiracy existed, then ACT would have done very very well indeed - ACT would always have got good press, and the Don Brash Brethren connection would have been swept under the carpet. People on both sides of the political spectrum think the media is biased against them - I think the media is largely statist - because rarely do editors or reporters advocate a position of the government NOT intervening in something. Also, why does it have to be foreign? What's wrong with foreigners? Why is the left so damned xenophobic?

Green's racist towards America

No, not about Iraq, or global warming - it's Sue Kedgley on TVNZ.

.

Racist bitch!
.
In response to the announcement about the government backed consortia launching free to air digital television, moanin Minnie Sue “I hate those fucking Americans and their clothes, and hair styles and..” Kedgeley has come out with a xenophobic tirade on TVNZ saying:
.
"I'm worried that with 18 free-to-air channels we're just going to see more and more American crappy programmes on our television”
.
What if she said Maori, Jewish, Indian, French, Samoan or Arab? A bloody uproar - but Americans are fair game - shame if you ARE American and feel insulted by this bottle blonde bitch. Are there crappy American programmes? Of course. Are there crappy New Zealand programmes? Oh hell yes – Melody Rules is now the stereotype for it, and there are plenty more. There are crappy Australian, British, Swiss, South African and Maori programmes. Besides the gutter language she used, what’s wrong with the USA Kedgley? There are EXCELLENT programmes made in the USA as well - but I guess Sue doesn't look at the 75 channels available in most homes over there, Americans make crappy programmes clearly because they have crappy taste - nice language Sue! Yes of course there are trendy lefty chardonnay socialists who agree - let's bash America rah rah rah!
.
The Greens put out a press release with better language calling for more of your money to be spent compulsorily on subsidising the local TV production industry, actors and directors. Hopefully none have anything to do with “crappy America”. With huge capacity for new channels, the supply of channel space will be enormous, meaning the cost of new production should come down – and people who want to produce local content will have an outlet. Subsidising local TV content is about as dumb as subsidising local newspapers or books – people will watch local TV programmes if they like them – more often than not, they aren’t very good. When they are, people will pay for them.
.
Then Kedgley witters on “This is why TVNZ needs to take this opportunity to differentiate itself from all these new channels by having a genuinely ad-free public service channel” Why doesn’t she set one up, call for donations and see how she goes? There will be channel space – or is it too easy to force everyone else to pay for it?
.
She is concerned about the cost of set top boxes, and if people can’t afford them (hey Sue, 40% of households can afford Sky and they aren’t the top 40% by income that’s for sure) then “the Government should provide assistance to New Zealanders who cannot afford to buy the new equipment”. Why? The government doesn’t help people buy radios, or newspapers, why is TV so fucking sacred? (I’m furious now). Why can’t children play instead of watch TV, why can’t adults talk, play games and enjoy life instead of getting some taxvictim funded fucking TV box? Get your filthy racist hands out of people’s bank accounts Sue.
.
She finishes off with more xenophobic nonsense “I am pleased that New Zealand is retaining the option of New Zealand based terrestrial infrastructure and not relying exclusively on satellite transmission owned by an overseas company. We wouldn’t want to see our entire television network relying on an foreign-owned satellite”. Oh Optus - those Australians – so dodgy – they’ll just wake up one morning and switch off the satellite to say “fuck those Kiwis they'll have no telly because the All Black’s beat us last night, screw the millions in compo we'll have to pay for breach of contract”. Foreign owned – damned different looking bastards with horns growing out of their heads who don’t care about us or our kulcha or the kids.

.

The Greens and Winston Peters - so much in common at times.

NZ to get 3rd digital TV platform

New Zealand has had digital TV for around seven and a half years, so the government’s announcement of what it is doing to bring digital TV to the public is somewhat laughable. It needn’t have done anything besides sell the radio spectrum necessary for digital terrestrial TV to be an option. However, Steve Maharey’s well publicised announcement shows that this isn’t about broadcasters doing something they think viewers are willing to pay for – it is something government thinks is good for you.
.
You see, Sky TV introduced digital TV at the end of 1998, and it has been a stunning success. In the past year, Telstra Clear converted its cable TV network in Wellington, Christchurch and Kapiti to digital. Combining them both, all in all, just over 40% of New Zealand households now have digital TV - the difference is, they pay for it.
.
Why do they pay for it? Because it is digital? Because of picture quality? Do they bollocks! The only reason most choose digital is because of the range of channels. When Sky launched its digital satellite service it was because it could increase the number of channels it broadcast from 5 on UHF analogue to over a hundred. Digital allows far more efficient use of radio spectrum. Telstra Clear has gone to digital partly for the same reason, it can fit far more channels using less capacity on the cable. Digital interactivity is nice and can generate some revenue with pay per view events, but it is really peripheral compared to choice. People, by and large, don’t give a damn about slightly better pictures or sound – look at the iPod revolution. That is about convenience and choice, not quality of sound, just like cassettes were.
.
So the terrestrial free to air broadcasters have caught up. A consortium of TVNZ, Canwest, Maori TV, Trackside and Radio New Zealand are launching it next year – but there is a catch. It’s not commercially driven – it is not because you want it and are willing to pay for it – it is because THEY want it and it is being directly, and indirectly subsidised. Directly because the government is putting $25 million into this new TV platform – whereas Sky TV actually made the government money by paying for the spectrum it uses. Indirectly, because TVNZ will pay less dividends and you can be sure Maori TV and Radio NZ are paying for their “broadcaster’s contribution” from taxpayer funding, since neither make a profit before subsidies. Trackside and Canwest do, but are no doubt thrilled to be riding on the back of the state in delivering a digital TV platform. Notably absent is Prime TV, which is likely to dedicate itself to Sky’s satellite platform over time. Note also that while Sky had to pay to use its spectrum, these broadcasters will get their spectrum for free – great that!

.

According to the government, a failure to move to free-to-air digital would put the future viability of public broadcasting television, and other free-to-air services, at risk. What nonsense - public broadcasting television isn't viable anyway - it is subsidised, and why should the government care if private broadcasters don't do what they need to be viable? As long as spectrum is available then Canwest and others can get together and figure out what to do.
A cost benefit study concluded that without a full transition to free-to-air digital TV (as a viable alternative to Pay TV digital), the net cost to the country could be as high as $156 million - I'll be looking at THAT in the next week.
Without a transition to digital, the free-to-air broadcasters’ audience share could also fall from 80 to 50 per cent, or even lower, if digital pay TV options grow at an accelerated rate. This would mean fewer options available on free-to-air. So free to air broadcasters could lose audience, so why not let THEM invest in digital to compete - why skew the field?
.
Now I agree that a shift to digital TV is inevitable. It is well apace in the UK, with a majority of households now watching digital TV of one kind or another (including a freeview platform similar to what is proposed in New Zealand). I also agree that it could generate savings for broadcasters and a major increase in choice – but this is something that should be driven from demand – like the internet, mobile phones and Sky TV – not by the government anticipating it.
.
It will mean that all TV sets currently on sale and in use in New Zealand will NOT be able to receive TV signals once analogue TV is switched off in 6-10 years – without either a freeview box, or a Sky or Telstra Clear box. So you’ll need to buy a set top box that will cost something between $60 and $220 depending on how sophisticated a unit you have (I bought a £70 one here in the UK which is good quality). So why would you want this?

.

In the UK it increased the mainstream channels I could watch from 5 to 12, plus 2 news channels, 2 music channels, 3 childrens' channels and a host of damned silly specialist shopping, quiz and other channels. Plus for $24 a month I could pay to subscribe to another 10 channels - it is a pay TV platform competing with Sky and cable. So in the UK, it is worthwhile - it is so successful that now more people have digital than analogue TV. The picture is of the set top box that I have - nothing flash.

.

Unless the NZ broadcasters can offer a compelling set of channels for viewers that they WANT to watch, freeview will be a bit of a flop in NZ – meanwhile by then, maybe 45% of New Zealand households wont care, since they already have digital TV – and not a dollar of taxpayers’ money went into it! 18 new channels are promised - they better be what people want (sport, gossip, music, comedy and some T&A late at night). Oh by the way, 10 main centres will be covered - 10! So Auckland, Waikato, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Manawatu, Southland, Hawke's Bay and Taranaki? OR Nelson, OR Rotorua? So that means a satellite dish for the rest of you.

Power cuts

Not PC has blogged extensively about this, but it is very simple.

.

Transpower lacks capital - the government wont provide it - so the private sector should.

.

49% of Transpower should be privatised - sold to a single buyer or consortium. This would inject new capital into the company, see a revitalised board (with privately chosen businesspeople not politically chosen ones) and wipe some more public debt (reducing interest payments and giving more room for tax cuts).

.

The remaining 51% should be distributed as shares to all citizens equally. This would mean Transpower would be predominantly publicly owned and controlled. The public would receive dividends, and would have a stake in the national grid - and could appoint directors by annual general meeting. Those members of the public so concerned about Transpower could then increase their shareholding and those who are not, could sell it. It would demonstrate whether the public WANT to own it and the private capital would create a company that truly wants to make a profit, provide good reliable service and grow.

World Cup 2006

No escaping the soccer world cup in London, with England in the running there are St. George’s Cross flags flapping on cars, and unfortunate songs, one using the Dad’s Army theme tune with different words. It is rather pathetic that Britain still throws the Nazi and Hitler stereotypes around Germany – there are probably as many racist lowlife here as in Germany, and most Germans alive today weren’t alive during the war and feel some “guilt” for the actions of their ancestors. Yes yes very funny to humiliate the Germans. Meanwhile, enthusiasm for England isn’t much shared by Scotland, Wales or Ireland – but then that bitter childishness will take a lot to erode.
.
Anyway, today it is Germany vs. Costa Rica and Poland vs. Ecuador. I reckon it will be the Europeans that will take both those, but would be nice for Costa Rica if it won against Germany. Tomorrow, England vs. Paraguay, which should be a cinch for England, Argentina vs. Cote D’Ivoire will be a cinch for Argentina, though I’d love Cote D’Ivoire to win, and Trinidad and Tobago are probably a closer match for Sweden.
.
Brazil is getting excited, because this is the one thing in the world it is good at – crime goes down while Brazil watches the World Cup. Meanwhile, many countries will simply stop working when a game is being playe.

Keith Locke is right

You wont see me say that often - but it is true. The man who was once a hardened communist, and still has a lot of Marxism in his veins, has put out a press release calling for review of the sedition laws. He believes more in freedom of speech than Don Brash, Helen Clark, Peter Dunne or Rodney Hide, or indeed Marian Hobbs, Tim Barnett, Phil Goff, Pita Sharples or around another 115 or so MPs.

.

I condemn it when it is far from intellectually robust on economics, or indeed science - but the Green Party is still the party in Parliament that most consistently defends fundamental civil liberties. The Keith Locke press release makes the point clear – as I have mentioned in my earlier post, now updated. The law not only needs review, it needs to be scrapped.

.

Keith said (as mentioned below) "New Zealand has an honourable tradition of civil disobedience against injustice, most notably during the Springbok tour of 1981. Thankfully the sedition laws weren’t used at that time, but the police now seemed prepared to prosecute anyone advocating such resistance. Next thing we might see farmers facing charges for encouraging others not to get their dogs micro-chipped. There is a big difference between inciting the immediate commission a specific criminal act, already covered by Sections 66 and 311 of the Crimes Act, and generalized calls for civil disobedience, which the sedition laws target."

.

Now I wouldn't have agreed with the Springbok tour protestors, though I was young when it was happening, but it is not the point. None of it is - whether you are left, right, libertarian, Christian fundamentalist, ecologist, economic liberal - this matters.

.

National and ACT supporters, particularly those who like to pour scorn all over the Libertarianz, may argue that this “isn’t important”, somehow that publishing a pamphlet calling for illegal action against government policies shouldn’t be allowed. Well then, should it have been a crime to encourage TV owners to evade or avoid paying the TV licence fee, to encourage people to not fill in a census form, to encourage people to walk across the Auckland Harbour Bridge illegally, to encourage a strike that isn’t legal, to call for the government to resign? If you are not going to condemn the law on sedition, then defend it. Don and Rodney, condemn or defend - don't sit on the fence!

As I have said before, David Farrar, as always, has the guts to put out his opinion on this, as a Nat.

.

There are a growing number of blog posts in reaction to this:

Libertarianz Deputy Leader Julian Pistorius

Gman the sort-of libertarian asks whether the charges were driven politically

Nat/ACT supporters:

Whaleoil

Sir Humphrey's and here again

Silent Running and here again

European Commission proposes cap on farm subsidies

According to the Daily Telegraph, the British government is opposing a move to cap subsidies for farms because Britain has a disproportionate number of big efficient farms, and this penalises them and discourages the amalgamation of farms. Well it’s true, but it is no reason to not cap subsidies.
.
The plan is to cap subsidies at a rate of around £207,000 a year, so the likes of the Queen and Prince Albert II of Monaco would be receiving less from subsidies than they do at present for their farms. The Queen gets around £399,000 in subsidies for Sandringham Estate.
.
The French support this, because most of their farms are small inefficient outfits run by annoying little parasitical socialists. 1880 farms will be hit by this throughout Europe, only 30 in France, 330 in Britain and 1430 in Germany.
.
It’s a start – the cap on subsidies should be £0.

Outrage of sedition - where are the other parties?

Now I don’t agree with Tim Selwyn, I am glad he was prosecuted for vandalism. However, his prosecution for sedition is an outrage. Not PC and No Right Turn have both covered this verdict in some detail, showing that some on the liberal end of the SOCIAL spectrum (if not economic) understand freedom. David Farrar to his credit has also opposed sedition laws, but… and a big but it is... there has simply been silence from the major political parties. Find other issues where those people will agree, and agree with Geoffrey Palmer.
.
The Labour Party, once the proud home of the socially liberal, is now the home of the petty bullies. The born to rule, “I’m a victim of my success as a popular and competent Prime Minister” arrogance. How many of YOU lot would also be convicted of sedition had the government of the day brought it upon you when you were in some protest march in the 60s, 70s or even 80s? Wankers.
.
The National Party – supposed believers in freedom, much prefer to keep quiet. ACT – the liberal party, also keeping quiet. No point defending an “uppity Maori who convicted vandalism” because of principle? After all, majority of the public probably think “good job”. Much as the majority in Alabama thought “good job” when a black woman was arrested for sitting in the whites only section of the bus, much as the majority of Germans sat back and let Hitler destroy democracy in Germany after he was elected. Sanctimonious fence sitters. I again searched the National website for the word sedition and got this.
.
The Green Party, often claims to be the defender of civil liberties, has said nothing either (until today). It would rather wank on excitedly about more subsidised buses in Hamilton. Frogblog also lacks anything on it. UPDATE - Green press release out, see below.

.

NZ First is a party of authoritarians so no surprises there, and United Future once claimed to be liberal, but is anything but that.
.
I’ve also seen nothing from the Maori Party, but then it has always had slow websites that are rarely up to date (last press release on there is 16 May).
.
There are times when politicians have a responsibility – a responsibility to stand up for freedoms for people that most of us would not agree with, to stare through the prejudice and the popularity polls and say – Tim Selwyn should be the last person ever to face a charge of sedition – the law should be scrapped. So will Rodney Hide take a break from dancing and do this? Or is ACT as useless in defending fundamental freedoms as some libertarians have always accused it of?

.

Prove me wrong - prove to me that ACT has just been slow, and isn't refusing to defend Tim Selwyn's right to circulate that leaflet because he'd be one of the last to vote for them, and because their voters would be the last to support his views. Fundamentally - neither matter.

.

UPDATE 1- Green's have produced a press release on this, calling for a review of the law. About time, Keith has woken up. He said "New Zealand has an honourable tradition of civil disobedience against injustice, most notably during the Springbok tour of 1981. Thankfully the sedition laws weren’t used at that time, but the police now seemed prepared to prosecute anyone advocating such resistance. “Next thing we might see farmers facing charges for encouraging others not to get their dogs micro-chipped. “There is a big difference between inciting the immediate commission a specific criminal act, already covered by Sections 66 and 311 of the Crimes Act, and generalized calls for civil disobedience, which the sedition laws target." Spot on Keith, good for you - you can hold your head high. Labour, National and ACT, you all still an utter disgrace as parties in a liberal democracy.

Help in using the tube

At summertime some special advice is needed to use the London underground. This handy tips are for regular and occasional users, and apply mostly to men.

.

Before you attempt to use the tube follow these steps:

.

1. Have a shower or bath in the morning. Use soap or a soap related product, and at least shampoo (if not condition). Spend at least 10 minutes under it, focusing on the face and underarms. The water shortage does not apply to showers or baths, and you'll find the majority of others already do this.

.
2. Apply deodorant to your underarms and anywhere else that sweats a lot. This product is available at convenience stores and supermarkets throughout Greater London and is cheap. It need not have any aroma, just apply it liberally. Here are several brands you might try:

Lynx

Rexona

Crystal

.

There are many others! You'll be amazed!

.
3. Brush your teeth, with toothpaste and mouthwash preferably. Gargle. Make sure you use a toothbrush you bought sometime in the last 2-3 months, and you expectorate (spit out).

.
4. Put on clean clothes (clothes you didn’t wear the previous day without having been laundered. Get someone to show you how to wash clothes or get them washed if you don’t understand this). (OPTIONAL - Wear good cologne/eau de toilette/aftershave. I mean GOOD. Not the same stuff you got where you got the deodorant. This will cost money and use it sparingly. Small amounts of good cologne cannot be replaced by drenching yourself in eau de £2 - that just covers your filthy disgusting sweaty BO with noxious disgusting radiator cleaner)

.
5. Ride tube.

.

Now riding the tube itself is not without its hazard. Here is some advice to avoid abuse:

.

1. Don't pick your nose, particularly not if it is a snack or a hobby. Wait till you get home.

2. Move out of the way for people getting off (and I mean disembarking, not masturbating - you shouldn't do that either).

3. Move down the carriage if it is busy. You'll be allowed off at your stop, don't worry.

4. Don't stop in the middle of busy areas in front of people who will then walk over you, make sure you figure out where you are going before you leave.

5. Don't ride between 7.30am and 9am, or between 5pm and 6.30pm weekdays - it will make my life a little bit more pleasant, and those are the busiest times. TfL is too stupid to increase the price for the evening peak to keep you off it, so do it for the rest of us.

.

Let me note that most offenders are men, and there is no racial profiling - there are equal proportions of vile men from different ethnic origins. Your man sweat may arouse your woman, man, dog, sheep - but to the rest of us don't like your bodily fluids.

.

A minority of you fail to take these steps, particularly the first and second before boarding. If it were up to me, I’d ban you from the tube for health and safety reasons – the health of other passengers (because you fucking stink you revolting filthy man), and your safety – because I’d want to slap you about for being a dirty filthy stinking sweaty testosterone dripping revolting Neanderthal.

Today in history - Israel acted admirably

UN Security Council Resolution 487 called on Israel to put its nuclear programme under IAEA safeguards. Israel is not a signatory to the IAEA, nor has it any incentive to be - it is surrounded by enemies to this day. Today in 1981, Israel acted where the world ignored it. France and Italy were supplying Iraq with equipment for it to develop a nuclear reactor - which would have been capable of producing plutonium. Now, Iraq has about as much need for a nuclear reactor for power as Iran does, given its oil reserves.
.
The Israeli statement condemned the French and Italian sale of equipment to Iraq saying:
.
"We again call upon them to desist from this horrifying, inhuman deed. Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people."
.
So Israel bombed Iraq, and destroyed Iraq's nuclear programme in Operation Opera. A wholly moral act of pre-emptive self defence.
.
Indeed, if only it were as simple against Iran. The BBC carries the video of then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin explaining why the attack was carried out. The BBC reports that the news about the bombing was released by Israel, Saddam Hussein having been too embarrassed that Israeli fighter jets could penetrate deep into Iraqi territory, destroy a target and return.
.
Jacques Chirac led the condemnation of this attack – grande merde! What an enormous great parasitical worm.
.
Iran of course is the next threat - but I am sure that if Israel is ever attacked by an Iranian nuclear weapons - that the George Galloways and the Annette Sykes say it was Israel's fault, and give little regard to the victims. How dare they exist.

Time for Jim, Peter and Peters to retire

Three of the eight parties in Parliament exist because of three men – Winston Peters, Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton. They are all of a similar generation, and all of them should retire in 2008. The parties they lead are, by and large, built around those personalities. Most would struggle to name more than 1 other MP from NZ First, United Future and, well, Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party is just that. All had political careers because they were MPs with either National or Labour and split off to form their own parties (Jim Anderton has been in three, Peter Dunne in three or four, Winston has always had his own personality cult) – and it is about time Parliament was cleaned out and these half-baked parties of individuals were gone.
.
Winston is losing the plot, he is propping up a lameduck Labour government that is barely hanging onto power, he lost his electorate seat, and only manages to get elected because the greedy grey grizzlers, the deluded Maori groupies and the conspiracy slobbering talkback idiots like him, until he gets into power. The greedy grey grizzlers are slowly dying off, and by 2008 should mean NZ First gets less than 5%. Meanwhile, Winston can enjoy his baubles. He left National for principled reasons - it broke election promises - but he ran a party that is solely about tapping into the redneck conservative anti-intellectual talkback mob, Rob Muldoon's lot. The people of Tauranga have tired of their former hero, he wont be the first Maori Prime Minister of New Zealand - and he ought to go off and have fun in retirement.

Peter Dunne leads a motley bunch of conservative liberal Christian urban power lusting middle of the road nobodies. His party has been Labour’s most faithful coalition/confidence and supply partner now since 2002, and besides voting against any socially liberal legislation (but keeping Labour in power), worshipping the Transmission Gully cargo cult and cozying up to the Christian right, it is a party that is meaningless. It is a testament to Labour that it can even look at this bigoted bunch of narrow-minded busybodies to stay in power, and a testament to United Future that it hooks up with Labour – regularly. Peter Dunne’s Ohariu-Belmont electorate love him, for some unfathomable reason (he hangs around there a lot). When he retires this will become a swing seat, going National/Labour according to the national mood. Peter Dunne left Labour because "Labour left him", which is true. The Maoist coup conducted by Helen Clark, Maryanne Street and Heather Simpson against Mike Moore, and the leftward swing of Labour alienated Dunne, and he tried to woo the Labour right to form a centrist coalition partner for National and Labour. That failed miserably, and so he wooed the Christian right, and alienated the centre. The Christian right went National last time - Peter Dunne ought to cut his losses and move up to Kapiti, where he can sit waiting for Transmission Gully for at least the next ten years.

.
Jim Anderton is a died in the wool socialist and central planner, who has enjoyed dishing out millions of your money to businesses and mad schemes like a strategy to bolster the forestry sector in Gisborne/Wairoa. Jim thought thousands of jobs would be created by pouring millions into roads and training in those districts – and nothing much has come of it. He has become more sensible over the years, Cabinet has helped to moderate his mad views on economics, and he basically is an appendage of Labour, while having old fashioned conservative leftwing views on social issues like drugs and alcohol. Once he retires, his Wigram seat will go back to Labour. His party will fade away even more than the Alliance, which still stands for something (which doesn’t even exist in eastern Europe anymore). New Labour and the Alliance are history, as Labour has marched sufficiently to the left to make enough voters happy, without being the card carrying socialists of the Norman Kirk variety that old Labour supporters wanted. Time magazine was wrong - Jim Anderton wont be Prime Minister. Jim Anderton and his family have paid a high personal price for his busy career, and he doesn't need the income of a Cabinet Minister to survive - time for
.

So I want all three to go, and their parties from Parliament. It would clear out some history and some parties that don't really stand for much at all. NZ First stands for populist nationalism, but sways and swings according to how Winston thinks the grass the growing. United Future stands for nothing at all, as long as it is about families and commonsense, and has undercurrents of stopping all those queers from running things, and Jim Anderton is a virtual member of the Labour Party.

.
Oh and will the end of those parties make it harder for Labour or National to govern, losing these three potential coalition partners? Of course it does – it means Labour is forced to resort to the Greens and Maori party, and National resorts to ACT. National might worry, but then it never really understood MMP as well as Labour has. Its strategy of decimating ACT demonstrates that. Then the minor parties in Parliament will be ones that actually subscribe to different political ideologies - ecological socialism, ethno-nationalism and neo-liberalism.

Tiananmen Square remembered

One piece of history I have neglected to comment on is Tiananmen Square. Not PC has a great review of commemorations worldwide and commentary. Of course I do remember is, it’s hard to forget – it happened on my birthday. I remember seeing the coverage on television, I was a student at the time. I have always wondered if I had been a Chinese student in Beijing whether I would have been there, whether I would have survived and how I’d feel now about it.
.
The USSR and eastern Europe were in the throes of optimism due to glasnost and perestroika. Freedom of speech and the ability to criticise government was becoming the norm in the “second world” (communist bloc), and Mikhail Gorbachev had come to visit China. This was part of a successful effort to normalise relations between China and the USSR, after over 30 years of Cold War enmity after Khrushchev criticised Stalin, and Mao became the leader of the completely mad murderous Marxist-Leninists of the world (the USSR wasn’t mad, just murderous to a lesser degree after Stalin).
.
The death of reformist former Secretary General of the Communist Party, Hu Yaobang prompted the demonstrations. He died on Kim Il Sung’s birthday 15 April 1989, and had called for rapid reform, condemning the excesses of the Maoist era. The protests initially were motivated by mourning for Hu Yaobang, who had been stripped of his title two years previously for not cracking down on other student protests. The protestors called for political reform, the addressing of corruption and more openness and transparency in government. A split in the Communist Party leadership saw General Secretary Zhao Ziyang support a soft approach, and Premier Li Peng a hardline. Eventually martial law was declared on 20 May and in the early hours of 4 June, the 27th and 38th armies of the People’s Liberation Army (commanded by President Yang Shangkun, unlike earlier units which were locally based and not inspired to attack those who could include family) turned on the people. Between 2,000 and 3,000 were killed, and the state media in China called it an “anti-government riot”.
.
China’s state media is widely considered to have been a mouthpiece for the communist party, but at least one outlet had reason to be proud, before the individuals concerned were themselves arrested. Radio Beijing’s English language service (China’s international shortwave radio station) broadcast the following message:
.
"Please remember June the Third, 1989. The most tragic event happened in
the Chinese Capital, Beijing. Thousands of people, most of them innocent
civilians, were killed by fully-armed soldiers when they forced their way
into city. Among the killed are our colleagues at Radio Beijing. The
soldiers were riding on armored vehicles and used machine guns against
thousands of local residents and students who tried to block their way.
When the army conveys made the breakthrough, soldiers continued to spray
their bullets indiscriminately at crowds in the street. Eyewitnesses say
some armored vehicles even crushed foot soldiers who hesitated in front of
the resisting civilians. [The] Radio Beijing English Department deeply
mourns those who died in the tragic incident and appeals to all its
listeners to join our protest for the gross violation of human rights and
the most barbarous suppression of the people.”
.
Radio Beijing’s name changed a few years later to China Radio International. Unfortunately, China Radio International is today a disgrace – it whitewashes the murder carried out against its own staff. It broadcasts a lot of news and interesting cultural programmes, has cooking shows and other programmes that are quite good - but is also a propaganda engine par excellence. What is telling is what it doesn’t discuss, it rarely broadcasts the sort of blatant ideological invectives that characterised it during the Maoist era. However, try it out yourself.

.

You can still listen to it in English around the world on shortwave and the internet. It’s website is here, and it broadcasts to New Zealand with strong signals in English on shortwave between 9-11pm and then again after 1am, but you can also hear it online. This is the worldwide shortwave broadcast schedule (turn off your computer before listening, and put the radio near a window with the aerial fully extended) and the website audio feed.

.

The Tiananmen Square massacre will always be remembered, the current Communist Party leadership can't destroy the photos, videos, audio, transcripts and other reports of what happened. All they do is persuade Google to censor the images for them, which you can get here. More recently a documentary on BBC4 has sought to find the man who stood in front of the tank in the famous footage clip seen above. The conclusion was, nobody can confirm what has happened to him or what his name was, despite the claims on wikipedia.

Sedition law an attack on free speech

The case of Tim Selwyn's prosecution for sedition shows Labour's complete utter contempt for individual freedom, and demonstrates the truth of one of Helen Clark's early statements "the state is sovereign" to justify her view that the government can do what the hell it likes once it is elected. I'd disagree vehemently with many of Tim Selwyn's views (he has commented on Not PC's blog), but no matter my agreement or otherwise, he deserves the protection of free speech.

.

It's not often that I will agree with former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, but Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton's quotes him in the party press release as below:

.

"Selwyn's act of vandalism has already been dealt with under a separate charge, to which he's pleaded guilty. The sedition charge is simply an attempt to punish criticism of the government..
The law against sedition is a medieval hangover that should be removed from our law books immediately. Sedition law is an assault on free speech - it only criminalises political expression. Speech that really incites violence can be dealt with under existing laws against public disorder, as pointed out by Sir Geoffrey Palmer during a review of Crimes Act Reform: 'Sedition should not be a crime in a democratic society committed to free speech. Libelling the government must be permitted in a free society.'

.

Indeed! Every party in Parliament should oppose this, ACT should be crying this at the top of its lungs, but silent. I think it's quaint for Rodney Hide to be dancing on TV, but where is ACT - the liberal party on something so simple as this? The same place as National sadly - silent. Imagine what a reaction those parties would get from the left for supporting abolition of sedition laws - isolating Labour.

.

David Farrar and No Right Turn (who has written extensively and well on this) agree with me on this. Abolish sedition as a crime. Follow this case at Tim Selwyn's blog Tumeke and his website.

Metiria Turei - and a childlike view of water

Metiria Turei is claiming that a study from DOC that indicates economic benefit of $136 million from water derived from its own land (Te Papanui Conservation Park estate) means that water should be free everywhere (opposing tradeable water rights). What delusional nonsense.
.
For starters, the study said this benefit was equivalent to the actual cost of getting the water from another source. If the water isn’t there, then someone has to pay for it. Secondly, the park costs money to maintain and ensure that the water supply from the catchment area remains clean. That isn’t free – it gets paid for by taxpayers. Far wiser, and a far better use of water resources would come from charging for the use of water from the conservation park. At somewhat less than $11 million p.a. (the cost of alternative supplies to those benefiting from the water), this could ensure the Conservation Park is maintained and makes a healthy profit. A profit from selling water!
.
On top of that, pricing water means users value it more. It is less likely to be wasted, and more likely to be conserved, which I thought the Greens would be thoroughly in favour of.
.
Metiria lacks much understanding of what is going on. Of course there is economic benefit in clean drinking water, people demand it and are willing to pay for it. To claim “commoditisation” of water is a dirty word, is sheer nonsense – otherwise people would take what they could, without any concern about where it came from or how much they used, and then wonder why not much is left.
.
Take this statement of economic vapidity of the likes a 12 year old would be able to see through:
.

“There are those who think the economic value of water overwhelmingly rests on its potential for exploitation for hydro or irrigation purposes. This evidence suggests otherwise. The study estimates that the park's contribution to Dunedin's water supply is about $93 million, which dwarfs the $31 million supplied from this same source for hydro-electricity purposes, as well as the $12 million that the park provides for irrigation of Taieri farmland.”
.
Well that does, it everywhere there is water it is best used for a city water supply, even if there is no city, even if there are torrents of water going down a river beside arid farmland. How bloody stupid can she be? In THIS case, the conservation estate is convenient to Dunedin city, there is only one hydro dam and little prospect for another (have a guess who would oppose it), and there is little farmland that needs irrigation. Elsewhere water may be better used to produce clean renewable hydro electricity for the electric trains and trolley buses the Greens love (funny how hydro power is good if it exists but bad if you want more of it unless it is for electric trains, then you should conserve, but the price should be cheap!!). In other cases, it has enormous value for irrigation.

.

The solution is simple. Water has value for all the purposes listed above, and others, for fisheries, for recreation and for industrial purposes. Its value in particular cases can only be determined by a market, and who is willing to buy or sell it. The greatest move to improve water conservation would be to require councils to operate water as commercial concerns then privatise them - but you wont hear the Greens agreeing to that. It means that the government couldn't control it, and they are, after all, statists through and through.

.

(and I haven't even raised whether or not a study commissioned by DOC that would suit its interests has been independently peer reviewed. Imagine the Greens accepting a report commissioned by Telecom on New Zealand's broadband environment, or DPF for that matter!)

Russel Norman's links Easter Island and the WTO and comes up with ?

Yesterday I described how Russel Norman’s speech of 4 June on becoming Co-Leader was intellectually vapid on matters like “resources running out” and the evil of roads.
.

Today I’m going to attack his view on the World Trade Organisation (WTO). To his credit he describes largely accurately what the WTO commitments mean, something Sue Kedgeley never seemed to get her head around. I described this in a previous post, and it means quite gloriously that local content quotas on TV and radio are against government treaty commitments that are not easy to get out of. Officials told Labour this when it got elected, and the National Government that signed up to those commitments knew it at the time - the problem is that leftwing Labour didn't want to listen, but eventually had to accept it.
.
Russel said:
.
“The commitments that these parties have made under the World Trade Organisation are drawing a tighter and tighter net around the capacity of national governments to act in the interests of their citizens. And they are limiting the ability of governments to act in a sustainable manner.”
.
In other words, he is complaining that WTO commitments restrict governments on interfering with the voluntary transactions of citizens engaging in trade and investment across borders. The “interests of their citizens” is actually the interests of those who produce inefficiently, wasting labour, capital, energy and land to produce something that consumers are not willing to buy, without prohibitions or taxes on the competing products. This means putting up the price of goods and services, or even prohibiting the trade in goods and services that sellers and buyers are willing to trade in. There is no sustainability in protecting industries where, basically, not enough people are willing to buy enough of their products to keep them going, without state intervention. The WTO binds countries to open, transparent trade and to reducing the barriers to free trade – this is ENTIRELY in the interests of their citizens, because they are able to produce, sell and buy freely, without Russel sticking his beak in the way. He can buy "fair trade" goods, or good certified to be environmentally friendly if he likes - all of those schemes are voluntary, and fine for those wishing to sell and buy them, at a premium. No force involved.
.
Russell then said “In the 1990s the National Party Government made commitments to the WTO under the audiovisual services section of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Now this rather obscure commitment means that the New Zealand government can no longer introduce compulsory New Zealand content quotas on radio and television without being in breach of its WTO commitments. And these WTO commitments are effectively irreversible within the WTO rules because any country which tries to withdraw trade liberalisation commitments must compensate every other country in the world that thinks it may suffer somehow as a result.”
.
He’s absolutely correct. Not only that, but New Zealand has similar commitments under CER with Australia. Unlike Russel, I think this is good. It protects New Zealand television and radio stations from state enforced control of what they broadcast.
.
He continues "So when the Labour-led Government came into power in 1999 they sought to implement mandatory minimum New Zealand content quotas on radio and television. They had promised to do this in the election campaign and such local content quotas are very common around the world as countries seek to defend their cultural identity. But the new government was told by their officials that they could not without breaching their WTO commitments. They were forced to back down.

Had they proceeded they could have faced action taken against New Zealand in the WTO by countries that sold television programs into New Zealand, like the US, claiming that their television production companies were being discriminated against by this New Zealand content quota, in beach of New Zealand's WTO commitments, commitments remember that were made by the previous National Party government”
.
Actually Russel, they are not “very common around the world”, you see them in Australia, Canada and France. The UK does not have them, nor does the USA and most other countries are confident enough of their local culture (and often language) that the government see little need. Otherwise he is correct.
.
“The National Party government made WTO commitments that effectively bind all future governments and parliaments and prevent them from introducing minimum New Zealand content quotas on radio and television. A new government was elected on a platform of introducing local content quotas but were told they could not because of the commitments of a previous government. And if they had proceeded anyway, then trade lawyers meeting in secret in Geneva would have told us to change our law or face trade sanctions. This is not conspiracy theory this is actually how trade law and the WTO actually works.”
.
It’s called a treaty Russel. Labour enters into treaty commitments too, and New Zealand has commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that stop it acquiring nuclear weapons (one Russel probably supports). Now, I’m not advocating that this should change – but this is binding, and New Zealand would have to formally withdraw from the NPT (like North Korea did) to develop nuclear weapons. New Zealand could do two things to introduce quotas, either liberalise other areas of trade to compensate (e.g. eliminate all tariffs immediately), or formally withdraw from the WTO. I suspect Russel would support the latter, and not give a damn that other countries could block our products in “their citizens’ interests”. The Green movement in the UK for example sells the nonsense that it is better to buy local produce instead of food or wine from New Zealand, because of the distance they travel – ignoring how unsustainable much European agriculture is through subsidies.
.
Russel then follows on with a non-sequitur that:
.
"Now if we are to avoid the fate of the Easter Islanders then we need international environmental treaties that empower governments to discriminate on the basis of how products are made - that is whether they were made in an environmentally harmful way or not. But currently if governments do this then the WTO will rule against them in the same way that they would rule against New Zealand if we tried to introduce mandatory minimum New Zealand content quotas."
.
Now hang on. The fate of the Easter Islanders? Oh yes, he described the old Rapa Nui society that worshipped statue building, fell all of the trees and then embarked on civil war because they consumed more than they produced. Pretty much true too. That story in itself says a lot about a society with no property rights (according to some Green supporters, property rights are just a social contract which some libertarians worship), so no wonder that happened. The tragedy of the commons was all too evident, as a native people besotted with worshipping that which is not real (cult of the statue), did not trade and exchange value and manage scarce resources (the management of scarce resources is called economics – something the Greens are sceptical about because they know so little about it). So no wonder trees went to the first comer, nobody maintained land for wood, fruit or hunting and a culture of pillage was the order of the day. This has nothing to do with free trade or the WTO, and everything to do with primitive people with no concept of trade, contract and property rights. Remember, the Greens are rarely advocates for property rights, and usually opponents.
.
So besides his example of Easter Island being completely wrong, he then advocates treaties that prohibit products or services if they were made “in an environmentally harmful way or not” or which are made in sweatshops. Well for starters, the example of the WTO commitments on free trade on audio-visual services can’t by any rational stretch of the imagination have anything to do with the environment or sweatshops. The entertainment industry (TV, radio, music) is hardly a sweatshop industry, in fact it is the opposite. It is full of people well paid living a dream career – to protect New Zealanders doing this from people overseas is sheer nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but offensive. By what right does any government dictate what a privately owned broadcaster must play or not play in terms of music or TV programmes? Privately owned broadcasters are NOT owned by the state – and must be free to broadcast whatever programmes they wish, as long as they are not defamatory or involve anyone coerced to participate. The Greens, however, think New Zealand music is special, and that despite New Zealanders NOT wanting to listen to more of it (the ratings of Kiwi FM are a testament to that), the Greens want to force radio stations to play something to people who don’t want to listen.
.
Bullies.
.
New Zealand’s audiovisual sector commitments secure a level of free trade in music, movies and television programmes that is admirable. New Zealanders are not forced to watch or listen to anything, and broadcasters are not forced to programme what the state thinks it appropriate. Local content quotas are about protecting people who are some of the most fortunate in society, working and earning a living through the entertainment industry. If they can’t generate an audience on their own behalf, then a quota is merely protecting mediocrity over talent – another form of welfare.
.
Beyond that, there is another argument about whether free trade should be limited by government restrictions on importing goods or services from countries with poor environmental or labour records (define those please) – that’s another issue. I will come to that another day.
.
However, just as he failed to understand that oil wont run out, cars wont disappear and roads are not going to be empty, Russel tenuously linked a primitive culture that failed due to lack of property rights (Easter Island), New Zealand’s WTO commitments on audiovisual services and foreign producers with poor environmental records. Not a good start.

.
Russel Norman's speech
Radio quota bluff
Kiwi Fm you didn't listen to it, so now you pay for it
WTO website search engine to find specific commitments

Greens prefer tax cuts over roads

Yes!! Believe it or not, the Green hatred for asphalt and concrete, and presumably cars (and trucks) is greater than a hatred for people getting their own money back.

.

Jeanette said "But if the battle is between tax cuts and a massive spending splurge on new roads in the middle of a long term oil crisis, we might even go for the tax cuts. " (though the context is that more money on social spending would be better).

.

As Labour embarks on the biggest road building programme in New Zealand since the 1960s, aided and abetted by the Land Transport Management Act, supported by the Greens, you wonder where they got it all wrong? You see it is what happens when you politicise road funding and water down the need for efficiency in spending decisions. It is also what the public wants.

Gillian McKeith - so vile

Today I'm going let out my invective about a fraud -Gillian McKeith, host of the popular show "You are What you Eat". She used to be referred to as "Doctor". Doctor my arse.

.

Irish Comedian Dara O'Briain said "if you are what you eat then she must have eaten a shrew" he also said "she is the kind of person that as a catholic we were warned - this is what protestants look like". There are few people on television who are so self-satisfied sanctimonious and judgmental, and banal to boot. She finds overweight people who eat vast amounts of unhealthy food, and pretends to be a qualified nutritionist teaching them to (shock!) eat less, eat more vegetables and fruit, and eat less sugar and fat. Brilliant! Who would have thought...

.

Her "Ph.D" was through a distance learning programme from the (New Zealanders older than 35 will understand) Claytons College of Natural Health. The accreditation of this "college" is not recognised by the US Department of Education. She once claimed to have received it from the American College of Nutrition, but doesn't anymore. What a liar.

.

She is a member of the American Association of Nutritionist Consultants, an accreditation that has so much value that several people have managed to get their pets membership.

.

On top of all that is the drivel she spouts about nutrition. Drivel that is at best harmless, but for a woman who has made a fortune selling herself as some kind of expert, deserve to be derided. Take this:

.

"[Because] chlorophyll is high in oxygen [eating dark green leaves will] really oxygenate the blood." Huh? We get oxygen from breathing not eating Gillian.

.

"Skid mark stools [...are...] a sign of dampness inside the body - a very common condition in Britain." Um yes, we are 70% water. The skid mark stool is inside her head.

.

"All molecules have an electrical charge and a vibrational energy. Therefore, all foods, which are made up of molecules, contain these vibrational charges. The colours of foods represent vibrational energies [...] foods which are orange in colour [...] have similar vibrational energies and even similar nutrient makeup." What the hell is "vibrational energy"? Similar coloured food has similar nutrient makeup?? So butter and lemons? Salt and sugar? .

.

Why the hell does anyone give this woman the credibility of anything other than a spaced out hippy charlatan? She is thoroughly fisked in this article which is quite comprehensive about what an unscientific phony she is. The Guardian has also done a great job on her.

.

On top of that, I just loathe her superiority complex which she deserves to have none. She touts a combination of common sense and quackery, and criticises people like children for not doing what she says. There is a place for a show where stupid people are taught to eat well, especially in the UK - but not her nonsense.

.

It just encourages me to have a plate of chips and tell her to bugger off, and don't you dare look at my poo.

Russel Norman, ecologically, economically vapid

So Russel (he had to have one “l” makes him a bit more alternative) Norman is the Green’s new co-leader. Shame. His speech says a lot about what he thinks about individual freedom and the world around it, and it doesn’t say a lot about his ability to go beyond Green rhetoric and actually think.
.
His speech is full of the childlike analysis that so permeates much of the ecological left thinking. The notion that growth in GDP is necessarily at the cost of the environment. Statements like “Every year we must consume more of resources available from the planet in order to expand our material consumption” are not only untrue, but go completely contrary to the spin that renewable and sustainable development is possible. Consuming paper and wood from renewable pinus radiate forests is hardly a non-renewable resource. Water, which is constantly recycled through the atmosphere, is hardly non-renewable either. Capitalism means a constant striving for more efficient production and consumption as people maximise their own welfare – and that efficiency is only enhanced if people pay the market price for resources, which, by the way, “we” do not own. They are owned by those who discover or create them.
.
“And our society is building its great memorials to the folly of short-sighted resource use and these memorials have four lanes and are made of tarmac and the great priests of the cult of GDP growth will cover the land with their roads as a memorial to their folly.” This brings up the complete utter banality of the Green argument on oil and transport. Besides the nonsense about oil running out “Our geologists tell us that the oil is close to half used up already, and yet still we are consuming it as if it were infinite”. Actually no “we’re” not, commercial vehicle owners and operators, airlines, shipping companies are all investing in more fuel efficient vehicles, all the time. The Boeing 747 of today consumes 40% less fuel than the first one, and that isn’t because of any government decree, or even environmental concern, it is because airlines don’t want to waste fuel. People ARE driving less with high petrol prices, government petrol tax revenue is tracking downwards as a result. At such high prices, oil companies are scrambling to find more oilfields to exploit, so it wont run out, and alternatives are thriving – it’s called the market, don’t worry your empty little head Russel, it will be ok. The same thing happened once before with firewood and coal.
.
So once you get over oil running out, the notion that roads wont be needed anymore is truly antediluvian. The land is hardly getting “covered with roads”, and roads will always be needed for buses, trucks and cars!! Yes cars!! Personal transport is NOT going anywhere. Cars started becoming seriously popular in the 1930s, when the cost of owning and running a car was many times higher as a proportion of one’s income than it is today. Traffic is not going to subside to pre 1930s levels – ever!! The Greens wont admit it, but most of the lower income people they claim to care about LOVE cars, they own them and use them. Maybe in the longer term, they will be hybrids, or powered by other fuels if oil does become too expensive to use (it wont "run out"), but there will always be private transport because it is the most convenient, most comfortable and most flexible, as well as ensuring you travel with who you want - not the random roulette wheel of whether you sit next to someone nose picking, with BO or who takes up two seats.

.

Every country in the world has cities with plenty of traffic, except North Korea – I suspect Russel and many of the Greens envy that aspect of North Korea at least. They are crazy if they think roads are going to empty in the next decade or so, I suspect it is more wishful thinking that alarmist warning of what they truly believe.
.
On top of that, the Green’s preference for interfering with market signals is shown with this little statement:

.
“I don't think that a government that just announced a massive increase in road spending while projecting a long term decline in public transport funding really understands the everyday experience of people caught between rising fuel prices and an inadequate under funded public transport system. So I'm going to write a letter to Michael Cullen to invite him over for dinner one night but there is one condition.

He has to join me on the bus home first - the number two at around 5pm on a weeknight. He can see how overcrowded the buses are.

"

.
Well for starters Russel, you live in Mt. Cook, which means it is easily walking distance from Parliament (around 2km), even if you only want to walk part of the way there are countless near empty buses running between Parliament and Courtenay Place. Clearly the fare is too low, because it isn’t incentivising you to be as Green as you should be or raising enough money to fund replacement trolley buses. Russel should save money, walk or bike, and leave room for others on the bus. Public transport isn’t sacred, it uses fuel too, and car users have been subsidising it for years. Public transport subsidies have increased 250% under Labour, but patronage has increased by about 20% - how efficient or environmentally friendly is that? Have a look at Hamilton, where subsidies have more than doubled, patronage hasn’t even increased by 50%.

.
Oh dear… (more on Russell’s simple simon approach to the world later)

.

(Besides, Michael Cullen uses public transport twice a week - it's just a lot faster and generally more comfortable on an Air New Zealand ATR72 than on a bus).

Morrissey incites terrorism?

According to the Sunday Times (UK) (page 27, not on website. This interview says nothing of these views) singer Morrissey (he writes beautiful love songs and also maniacally depressing songs) said at a concert in Oxford "Make no mistake, for anyone working in the labs, we are going to get you". In other words he is supporting terrorism against people working on experiments on animals.

.

Charming... but will he be arrested for "hate speech" like Muslim fundamentalist preachers are? Doubt it. Not that he should be, I disagree with hate speech - but funny how an 80s music icon is immune, when not only has he preached meat is murder (which is not advocating terrorism, but simply expressing a point of view), but that it is ok to intimidate and attack laboratory workers and their families.

.

Think about that next time you consider buying one of his CDs.

.

By contrast Tony Blair has unequivocably supported those who conduct medical experiments on animals, and condemned those who engaged in terrorism against them. This follows prison sentences for animal rights activists who engaged in an ongoing campaigning, including exhuming the remains of the grandmother of one scientist. Nice people those. 70% of people in a recent poll indicated they supported medical experiments on animals as being sometimes essential. 81% said they opposed protests involving shouting abuse at scientists, 88% oppose posting on the internet names and address of scientists involved, 95% oppose vandalism as part of protesting and 97% oppose death threats.

.

On other words, most people have commonsense and morality - Morrissey doesn't.

Cullen lost the plot, has Labour?

I actually have time for Michael Cullen - he's one of the brighter Cabinet Ministers, and frankly injects a great deal of sense at the Cabinet table. He has some understanding of economics and business, and has managed to avoid too much ridiculous spending by Ministers (seriously, if you think it's bad now, it doesn't bear thinking about). Cullen challenged Clark for the Labour leadership almost 10 years ago, and since then has been the rightwing business oriented Deputy Leader to the leftwing social activist Clark. He has made major screwups, failing to agree to Air New Zealand's request for Singapore Airlines to buy 49% of it is one, but he also has been the one person in Cabinet who has said no to more government more often than yes. One reason government spending on roads has gone up so much is because Cullen believes roads are a better investment than spending on the bottomless pit of health. Now, please recognise my compliments are in the context of the Labour Government, which I hardly endorse. He's the best of a bunch that I almost always disagree with.

.

However, I think the wheels are seriously coming off of the well oiled machine that Clark and Heather Simpson, and Cullen have managed well for the last seven to eight years. Michael Cullen's attack on the Press Gallery by claiming that calls for tax cuts come from journalists on the Press Gallery who will benefit from it is utter nonsense. Guyon Espiner is no neo-liberal Austrian economist, and with the exception of one L.Perigo, New Zealand parliamentary correspondents are hardly great friends of capitalism and less government. The latest One News Colmar Brunton Poll puts National on 47% and Labour on 38% - the public wants tax cuts, and the Bludging for Families package doesn't wash, people don't want welfare, they want their own money back.

.

While I could ask Michael to say no more to his colleagues and cut taxes, the reality is that a social-democratic centre-left Labour government will increase spending rather than cut taxes. That is what it is all about, that is a Clark led Labour government is about increasing what the state does, not shrinking it.

.

The difference is that the New Zealand public is increasingly rejecting that, they believe the state takes too much. Matt Robson might buy the argument that foreign owned media are controlling the debate, but last time I looked, TVNZ shares are held by the Minister of Finance. The Labour government is unwinding, and National just has to be a coherent and believable alternative. Is it?

.

Footnote: In March, Libertarianz had 0.2% support in the Colmar Brunton poll, more than Jim Anderton's Progressive Party... admittedly that means 2 people said Libertarianz!

Nandor willing to consider Green support for National

Nandor Tanczos has been, from time to time, one of the more thoughtful Green MPs. I was at the Health Select Committee presenting a submission on the inquiry into the legal status on cannabis, and he was the most polite member of the committee. David Benson-Pope was an absolute prick, questioning why people who are libertarians would organise into a political party, instead of addressing the issues. Dr Paul Hutchinson also took the piss and questioned why we bothered.... and National wonders why it gets hated. No, Nandor listened to our presentation, asked questions and was genuinely interested in arguments in favour of legalising drugs. One libertarian once claimed Nandor said if Libertarianz were elected to Parliament he would consider joining, but he'd have to start warming to capitalism.

.

Anyway, it is refreshing that the NZ Herald reports that Nandor, a candidate for Greens co-leader, says he believes that the party should take a more independent position, and that means considering supporting the National Party in government. Now he is not friendly towards Brash's agenda, but it shows that Nandor has a more open mind, rather than being a patsy to Labour. After all, the Greens have supported Labour since their inception, by and large, and Labour has twice snubbed them for a coalition agreement.

.

Frankly, unlike Kedgley the food fascist, Nandor is warmer towards individual freedom, in a party of statist control freaks, he is one of the more liberal ones.

The bitch wants to be CEO of Telecom

Not satisfied with her part in destroying the value of the property (a concept she doesn't understand very well) of Telecom shareholders, she now wants to be CEO. This will be rejected, as a Chief Executive is meant to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, not the shareholders of its competitors - if that is what you think she is. A competitor competes on price and service, not by getting the government to tilt the rules in your favour.

.

She has a letter to Rod Deane applying for it on her website. She wants only $40,000 for the job - what an angel - so you think shareholders would trust her, a shareholder in a competing firm to keep confidential information about their company? Like fucking hell! Getting paid so little would mean she owes Telecom little.

.

She's a stupid leftwing bitch - look at some of the things she says in her letter:

.

"The business must develop a social conscience. It must be socially aware of the impact of its actions on the people of New Zealand and New Zealand business. Without this you will always be at the mercy of government intervention and it will be impossible to meet a long term value goal"

.

Telecom provides services that YOU don't provide to customers. If it didn't exist, the economy would be far poorer - and Annette, that is businesses that produce things, not selling other people's property, like you. It doesn't need a social conscience, providing services to customers produces far more benefit for the country that having some Dick Hubbard like guilt trip about business. Telecom is good for New Zealand, if you disagree then how would it be if it rolled up all its property and sold it for scrap? Your business would be fucked then wouldn't it? The threat of government intervention is because of people like you - people who when you don't get what you want from a private company run to the government demanding it steal the property rights for the benefit of you and others. It's called force, a concept you like, it's actually wrong. "Long term value goal"? What the hell does that mean? So you say that unless Telecom surrenders shareholder value, the government will bully it by force and destroy it? You threatening shrew you!

.

"The level of regulatory intervention must be reduced. History has shown that in the long term, a high level of regulatory intervention is bad for business and does not provide long term benefits to end users"

.

Huh? So you expect to get this job by changing your spots? You spend years lobbying for regulatory intervention, but you know that it is bad in the long term??

.

Ahh there you have it, she wants to split Telecom into two businesses, separately listed on the stock exchange. That's it - what she wants the government to do by force, she wants to convince Telecom shareholders to agree to voluntarily. Give her points for wanting to convince Telecom it is a good idea, but her nonsense on social conscience does not bode well, plus her conflict of interest as an owner of a competitor.

.

However wait "On appointment as CEO, my first job will be to engage with the Government and obtain their (sic) buy in to this concept and undertaking to complete it by the end of 2006".

.

So she can't take her greasy little hands off using the state to endorse it. Annette should not get the job, it is clear she only wants to do it to benefit her own business - Slingshot. Why wouldn't she? She doesn't want to compete building her own network or negotiating with Telecom on a voluntary basis, but by bullying it. Now she wants to get in the tent to help restructure Telecom to suit her business and other competitors.

.

Given she contributed to the massive loss of value for Telecom shares, she deserves to be told by Rod Deane to kindly - get fucked. If you want to ask Annette why she thinks its ok for competitors of Telecom to demand the government force Telecom to make its property available for her to make money on, then do so.. ask her why this isn't theft or at least conversion? This is a list of her speaking engagements.

.

I'd like to her debate Peter Cresswell instead of suing him - but I suspect she likes the glamour of public attention, not the rigour of public debate.

Air NZ big international expansion

Air NZ Chair Rob Fyfe has announced that by 2010 the airline will open up a host of new long haul routes:

.

- Auckland to London via Shanghai (opening up via Hong Kong in October);

- Auckland to Santiago (competing with LAN);

- Auckland to Sao Paulo (linking up with Star Alliance partner Varig, which is nearly bankrupt);

- Auckland to Vancouver (no doubt codesharing with Air Canada, which has already announced it is starting Sydney-Vancouver via LA shortly);

- Auckland to Beijing;

- Auckland to Mumbai.

.

These are ambitious plans, with the first direct flights to Brazil, Canada and India, linking growing markets for tourism and trade. This year Auckland-Shanghai is expected to commence, as is the 2nd daily flight to London, but through the much better hub of Hong Kong rather than LA. This suggests the airline will need more than 4 new Boeing 787s, as it needs that many to replace its remaining 767s alone (which fly to Perth, Papeete and LA via Pacific Islands).

.

So isn't it about time that at least some of the airline was privatised to give it the capital to buy more planes?

.

By the way, while 2 of its 8 747s are still to be refurbished (1 is in the workshop at the moment) with the new seats (business class pictured) and video on demand entertainment system (all London and San Francisco, and most direct LA flights now use refurbished 747s), the 767s are being tarted up (pictured) and look now like the Airbus A320s on the inside. The fifth 777 arrived in the past week and is destined for the Auckland-Hong Kong route, replacing a 767. At the moment 777s operate on Auckland-San Francisco, Auckland-Singapore, Auckland-Tokyo Narita and selected services from Auckland to Australia. Once the sixth 777 arrives in late July, Auckland-Osaka Kansai will go from a 767 to a 777, meaning all of Air NZ's flights to and from Asia will have the new product - about time!

The Independent recommends liberalising drug laws

British leftwing paper The Independent had a headline today "Heroin. The solution?"

.

It reports on an article in the Lancet published yesterday claims that Britain’s tough on drugs programme is failing and the UK has the highest rate of drug related deaths in Europe (2500 a year). It recommends “medicalising” the taking of heroin which it says has resulted in an 82% reduction in new users of heroin in Zurich.
.
In Zurich the policy provides:
- Needle exchange;
- Oral Methadone on prescription;
- Heroin on prescription;
- Safe houses for those wanting to inject.
.
The result is that the glamour of heroin dissipates, as it is seen as something people do out of medical addiction rather than desire. It is hardly sexy and rebellious to shoot up with addicts in a safe house, and demand for high price illegally supplied heroin has dried up. Those who need it no longer resort to crime to feed their addiction, and the drug industry is no longer criminal. The needle exchange reduces disease transmission, methadone provides a safer fix and prescribing heroin means it is safer drug (as it is not “ bulked up” with agents that are toxic).
.
Zurich also reclassified cannabis as a drug so that policing resources were moved away from policing users to suppliers.
.
A 4% per annum reduction in drug users over 11 years is reported.

.
The Tories have said they will look into it. It's not libertarian, but it is a step in the right direction. If the point of drug policy is to improve outcomes, then it is clear that prohibition isn't working.

.

However, don't expect Helen Clark or Don Brash to warm to this - they each will have the braying banality of Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne peddling the same failed ideas - the ones that have worked nowhere.

Smart childcare

How fucking dumb... The NZ Herald reports two really stupid childcare teachers walking toddlers through the Terrace motorway tunnel because they thought it would a "good idea". Apparently the silly bitches entered the tunnel at the southern end, where the Inner City Bypass construction work is underway to walk to a grassed area adjacent to the tunnel on the other side. The Police caught them partway through the tunnel and escorted them out. Thankfully they both face $250 fines for putting small children in danger - but the Police are considering charging them with endangering public safety under the Crimes Act. One can be an idiot, but the two together don't even share half a brain. What would happen if one of the children slipped off that concrete walkway and fell in front of a truck? "Sorry" wouldn't have been enough.

.

So:

1. They didn't know the road code that walking on motorways is illegal;

2. They didn't see or read the signs that prohibit pedestrians from walking on the motorway;

3. They are too stupid to think that walking toddlers through a tunnel with a tiny concrete walkway adjacent to traffic travelling at 100km/h is a safe and healthy thing to do with children;

4. They are too stupid to figure out how the hell they would reach the "grassed area on the other side" when after the tunnel, the motorway becomes a viaduct over Shell Gully carpark, would they have climbed down the viaduct, or dashed across the onramp from Clifton Terrace?

.

One "didn't see there was a problem" and was "uncooperative" said the Police according to Stuff.

.

I wonder how they figure out which end they eat from and which end...

Kedgley the food bully is rather dumb

Oh Sue, the banaholic frothing at the mouth that the Government hasn't made compulsory schools only selling milk, fruit juice and water in vending machines. This is because "Diet drinks rot children's teeth just as much as sugary ones". What bollocks - especially when she advocates juices. Fruit juice contains sugar, not refined natural cane sugar as in Coca-Cola (oohhhh the big evil American company... boooo), but unrefined natural fructose. It has the same calorie and tooth rotting qualities as cane sugar. I remember my dentist many years ago telling me not to drink orange juice on its own, without food or something else to wash it down, because the acid eats away at tooth enamel.

.

Well done, another pseudo scientific load of banality from the Greens. I can't wonder if Sue wouldn't like state enforced diets for everyone, which allocated you rations every day.