Credit card carbon

According to the Daily Telegraph, UK Environment Secretary David Milliband has proposed carbon “smartcards” whereby people would have a set allowance of carbon which you would need to use (or buy more from others) to spend on energy, transport and well anything I guess. He doesn’t say anything, even though he should. After all, a tin of pineapples could well have used more energy in its production and transport than a drive to the shops.
.
As usual, the analysis is one sided. Carbon dioxide emissions are bad and must be stopped. It isn’t asked WHY the emissions happen. You’re emitting carbon dioxide now, should you pay for that?
.
Milliband says that people on low incomes would benefit because they could sell credits. Sell them to do what? They can’t have a car, or travel, or buy an appliance that uses energy. Marvellous – they might be able to buy a turnip. Then there are those buying them. What happens if it is your work that flies you overseas, does a company get credits or does work buy credits off of someone else, or use yours and if it can’t, can you not go inspect that project underway?
.
For starters, it isn’t carbon per se, it is carbon dioxide, and that is not the only “greenhouse gas”. Methane is another significant one, but let’s not have the science get in the way of a great way for government to control what you buy.
.
Secondly, who is going to value the “carbon content” of what you buy. What regulatory body will carbon rate shoes made in Indonesia (were they shipped or flown?), bread made in the local bakery (did they use gas or electric, do they get credits for selling products made using carbon like GST or is it double counted, so that the power generation carbon is paid by the power company, the bakery and the bread buyer?), Sky TV transmissions, or how about that bus when you’re the only passenger (do you pay marginal costs or total costs, will it vary per trip?).
.
Thirdly, what happens to migrants and the new born. Do children get an allowance too, is it the same? Does it encourage people to breed (yay we can use the new kids carbon allowance to pay for the new car) which is hardly environmentally friendly? When do they get control of it, does everything you buy for someone else have to use your carbon credits or theirs, if yours does that mean the end of gift buying (Happy Birthday Mum, I bought you some plants because it’s the only thing I could get credit to come visit you in my car).
.
Fourthly, what happens to exports and imports? Does it kill off exports because it would make them uncompetitive? Do imports get hit even though you may have no idea what carbon content there is for something made in Peru? Does it create a new class of smuggler?
.
Fifthly, do people or companies undertaking activities that remove carbon dioxide (e.g. planting trees) get credits? If so, do inspectors come round and assess the value of your tree? Does it mean major companies will buy up forests en masse? Does it mean the government owning national parks has credits it can dish out to its friends or spend on things it likes doing? What if the government hasn’t enough, does it tax you some credits as well?
.
Finally, do energy companies have to buy credits if they discover more hydrocarbons? If so, does it mean the hydrocarbon industry may as well give up now, what are the consequences for global wealth and income?
.
You see it is part of the Green religious faith that the main problems in the world are transport and energy, ignoring that these are also two of the most fundamental pieces of infrastructure for civilisation to function. Without energy, it’s cold (or hot) and dark with little way for people to control their environment, without transport you are stuck with what you can get within walking distance. The “twin evils” are in fact what makes the world go round – unless you are living as a subsistence farmer in Africa, in which case you would dream about having such things. It might be nice if they stopped interfering in the energy and transport markets in ways that promote the retention of inefficient technology and practices - that might make a bit of a difference.

Bush vetos stem cell research bill for the wrong reason

George W. Bush’s greatest failing is his faith applied to politics. It is no secret that one major reason Bush was re-elected in 2004 is because he fired up the significant minority of evangelical Christians in the USA to vote. For all of the Democrats who despise Bush, he fired up the hell and brimstone religious conservatives to keep him in power. He hasn’t forgotten them.
.
He has used his Presidential veto the first time in his Presidency to veto a Senate Bill for federal government funding to use human embryo stem cells in medical research.
.
I'm an atheist and I believe it was the right thing to do, but not for the reason Bush believes. The federal government should not be using taxpayers’ money – money taken by force – to fund research that many taxpayers would not choose to fund themselves. That is what the bill was about - it wasn't about allowing stem cell research. That is not prohibited, it was about the federal government funding it.
.
Unfortunately, Bush’s veto had nothing to do with freedom, but everything to do with his own personal view. He believes stem cell research is immoral. It isn’t. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the Bill, and many Republican Senators did too. As typically conservative Senator Orrin Hatch said “A critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living”.
.
Embryonic stem cell research could bring enormous medical benefits to cure diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons disease and spinal cord injuries. This should be wholeheartedly supported – but it should be supported from money given out of choice. I would certainly do so.
.
However, government does not exist to force people to pay for research that offends them. If the federal government was funding research into the “intelligent design theory” it would be widely derided, and rightly so. Similarly if it was funding research into alternative therapies, like reiki or iridology, or how about whaling for scientific purposes. How about government research into whether masturbation was good for you? .

.

How about research being funded by those who support it?

Why democracy is not THE answer

It is generally a truth that democracies don't wage war - this is one reason why the US and its allies have been promoting democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Open transparent democracies do provide A check on government's abusing their authority and attacking their citizens and neighbours. However, many democracies are not open and transparent (South Africa is slipping down that path, Egypt isn't much of a democracy and neither is Russia), and it is A check not THE check. You see, it is fine if the majority want peace and to live in harmony with each other and their neighbours - but what if a democracy votes to destroy a neighbouring democracy? This is what the Ayn Rand Institute rightly points out in its latest Op-ed - because the US promotion of democracy is entirely consistent with Hizbullah being part of the Lebanese government, and with Hamas running the Palestinian Authority.

.

"The essence of democracy is unlimited majority rule. It is the notion that the government should not be constrained, as long as its behavior is sanctioned by majority vote. It is the notion that the very function of government is to implement the "will of the people." It is the notion espoused whenever we tell the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians and the Afghanis that the legitimacy of a new government flows from its being democratically approved.
And it is the notion that was categorically repudiated by the founding of the United States."

.

Exactly. The US was founded on having a constitutionally limited democracy.

.

The op-ed continues:

.

"America's defining characteristic is freedom. Freedom exists when there are limitations on government, imposed by the principle of individual rights. America was established as a republic, under which the state is restricted to protecting our rights. This is not a system of "democracy." Thus, you are free to criticize your neighbors, your society, your government--no matter how many people wish to pass a law censoring you. You are free to own your property--no matter how large a mob wants to take it from you. The rights of the individual are inalienable. But if "popular will" were the standard, the individual would have no rights--only temporary privileges, granted or withdrawn according to the mass mood of the moment. The tyranny of the majority, as the Founders understood, is just as evil as the tyranny of an absolute monarch. Yes, we have the ability to vote, but that is not the yardstick by which freedom is measured. After all, even dictatorships hold official elections. It is only the existence of liberty that justifies, and gives meaning to, the ballot box. In a genuinely free country, voting pertains only to the means of safeguarding individual rights. There can be no moral "right" to vote to destroy rights."

.

Germans elected Hitler and his allies, and they then destroyed German democracy, freedom and went out to destroy millions of people.

.

Democracy is now being used against the US and the West, because it has handed to people on a plate, the tool to legitimise their murderous intent.

.

"But then, if a religious majority imposes its theology on Iraq, or if Palestinian suicide-bombers execute their popular mandate by blowing up Israeli schoolchildren, on what basis can we object, since democracy--"the will of the people"--is being faithfully served? As a spokesman for Hamas, following its electoral victory, correctly noted: "I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. . . . It's not possible for the U.S. . . . to turn its back on an elected democracy."

.

So is it any wonder that some in the Muslim world believe the US is hypocritical. It has been pushing the wrong barrow. It is harder to promote individualism is a world dominated by nationalist, religiously inspired tribalists dedicated to bullying their way around the lives of others.

.

The point about democracy has been made by PC several times and myself. Democracy is not THE answer, at best it is one small component. Government is like an engine on a car, democracy is a steering wheel, but without individual rights - there are no brakes on it.

Indonesia tsunami

On Monday afternoon, in less than an hour, Java gets hit by a Tsunami that has killed 500 and 50,000 are homeless. You see according to the BBC "It currently takes scientists up to 60 minutes to receive and analyse the data from 30 seismological stations and send out a warning. ".

.

Well that's helpful. Tsunamis should always be well over an hour from shore.

.

"We were told that there had been an earthquake and the tsunami might come in a couple of days... we never expected it." said one local.

.

So even when the information is disseminated it is wrong. Yes, it is difficult to get this right under short notice, but the excuses are appalling. Broadcasting messages across all radio stations is easy, sending police vehicles with loudspeakers around villages is easy.

.

"US and Japanese agencies issued tsunami alerts for parts of Indonesia and Australia, but the Indonesian government says it was unable to relay the message to the coast. "

.

Funnily enough, while Indonesia is now relatively free and open, totalitarian societies very quickly round up dissenters and put down demonstrations because it is in their interests to do so. Presumably it wasn't sufficiently a priority for the Indonesian authorities to warn their people of the tsunami. Hopefully there wont be a third time.

Hotter still

35 degrees where I am, which is why the Daily Express (ugh) printed this photo. Predicting 37 degrees. Smart people are leaving dogs in closed cars or sheds without water - something which should be done back to them.

.

Nice to see British roads being torn up too, maintenance on many London roads is utter crap because it is decided by politicians who prefer to direct funding to largely empty buses.

.

The Daily Mirror reports that London public transport is experiencing temperatures illegal under EU regulations for transporting animals:

.

"One bus hit 126F(52C), while 117F (47C) was registered on the Central Line Tube. EU guidelines say animals should not be transported above 81F (27C)."

.

Of course the fun Nazis are out in force, including the school that banned pupils taking sunscreen to school in case it gives any of the other kids an allergic reaction. "We have over 200 children and some might have allergies to nut oils and other allergens. They'd go into each other's drawers, share it and might even eat it." said the HeadMistress, who to be fair was only following "health and safety rules". Well maybe the teacher could have it and apply it, nooo that might be sexual abuse rubbing sunscreen on a child's legs - what is a teacher to do?

.

Damn Britain is weather obsessed, I wont blog about this again!

What Lebanon is really about

Tony Blair has railed against Syria and Iran’s proxy war being waged with Hizbullah.
.
Blair is quoted by the Daily Telegraph this morning:

.
“At root, we need to recognise the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region, which has far-reaching consequences far beyond that region and even in countries like our own. All over the Middle East there are those who want to modernise their nations, who believe as we do in democracy and liberty and tolerance. But ranged against them are extremists who believe the opposite, who believe in fundamentalist states and are at war not against Israel's actions but against its existence."

.
He has been supported by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (not exactly a paean of freedom and democracy, but Egypt too has faced Islamist terror). Mubarak considered the actions of both Hamas and Hizbullah as " losing sight of the main Palestinian goal of obtaining an independent state." He is right. There wont be a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza as long as Israel is getting attacked directly by the terrorist wing of the Palestinian government.

.

Meanwhile, Syria and Iran have issued a joint statement calling on Israel to withdraw completely from the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Jerusalem (the last mentioned so that the Palestinian government led by people committed to wiping out Israel can have a capital there), get rid of its nuclear deterrence and let Iran do as it wishes with nuclear technology. None of it says that Israel will then be secure, none of it calls on Syria and Iran to recognise Israel's right to exist, none of it says that terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbullah would then be disarmed, none of it says that Syria's one-party state will be open to political plurality and freedom of speech. Interesting that an Islamic fundamentalist state (Iran) and a secularist one-party dictatorship (Syria) are such good friends.

.

The funniest part is this "The two sides expressed concern over continuation of foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the countries in the region drawing attention to the negative repercussions of such intervention on stability and security of the region." Funny that they are concerned about something both of them do regularly, but then this is how Syria treats those who might raise this issue in Damascus:

.

"A metal seat with movable parts to which the detainees feet and hands are tied. By bending the chair’s main frame to the rear so that immense pressure is exerted on the neck and joints. This creates great difficulty in breathing and may lead to unconsciousness. One version of these chairs is called the Syrian Chair, where the metal parts are fixed at the front chair legs, to which the detainee’s legs are tied. This leads to the bleeding of the ankles, and is accompanied with beating."

Hysterical Greens says Federated Farmers President

Stuff reports that Federated Farmer’s President Charlie Pedersen has been laying into ecologists saying:
.
“I say shame on the people who elevate environmentalism to a religious status, shame on you for your arrogance, shame on all of us for allowing the environmentalists' war against the human race to begin, and take hold,"
.
Quite right. It is a war against the human race. What human beings create and consume is bad, whereas what nature creates and destroys is good. Most environmentalists think they are at tune with humanity, but the “it’s compulsory or banned” ethos of many of the Greens reveals this attitude that the Green’s interest in democracy and peace draws the line when the majority choose to buy what the Greens don’t like (e.g. cars), or grow what they don’t like (in which case peace is the last thing on the mind of ecologists).
.
Unfortunately Charlie Pedersen hasn’t heard of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) otherwise he wouldn’t have said "I am yet to hear any environmentalist admit that rolling back agriculture's intensification would have to be matched by worldwide starvation or a matching reduction in population”. Because VHEMT believes that world population should reduce, not to 5 billion or 1 billion or even 1 million, but zero. These perverts think that which was created spontaneously by nature is beautiful, but the only creature on the planet that understands how it was made, how it works and can harness it to do things that defy nature (e.g. travel beyond the speed of sound, communicate vast distances showing images and sound) are bad. This is the natural endpoint to radical environmentalism - killing off humanity.
.
The key difference between many ecologists and the likes of Pedersen (and myself) is that we don’t believe that preserving nature is, by itself, of inherently greater value than any other activity. After all, New Zealand would be a third world nature park if much of its land hadn’t been cleared for agricultural use. This is not a “pave the world” argument, it is moving from the extremism that says that (to borrow from Monty Python):
.
every tree is sacred,
every bird is great,
if a dune is built on,
Greens get quite irate.
.
every bush is wanted,

every swamp is good,

every bug is needed,

in your neighbourhood.
.
To recognition that sometimes people value nature, millions like tramping, sightseeing, have their own gardens, visit parks in cities and national parks. Those are activities that (assuming those that value it pay for it) demonstrate that many people in the capitalist developed world value nature, enormously.
.
Pedersen continued “Many ordinary citizens had bought into the environmental teachings that the world was on the road to ruin, and with it, mankind. They were adopting these teachings without proper scrutiny because of the "green" movement's momentum.” This is all true, the Greens have an Armageddon mentality. It is one that the media loves to use, because it sells papers and gets attention on broadcasts - in addition, most reporters aren't very bright. They take what lobby groups tell them and don't do any investigations themselves - this is why the word nuclear is a synonym for hysteria in New Zealand, but not France or Japan.

.

The current fads for the "end of the planet" are peak oil and global warming, past ones being overpopulation, water “running out” and a new ice age. Now if human induced global warming is happening, it is NOT the end of the world, humanity wont die out – it doesn’t mean that roads will be empty because nobody will have a car, it doesn’t mean mass flooding and bad weather everywhere. It may be cheaper to do nothing about global warming that to undertake interventionist measures that reduce net welfare (e.g. focusing on expensive local production of goods rather than cheaper more efficient imports, which may exacerbate poverty in poorer countries). Technology already means that new cars today burn less fuel and burn it cleaner than ever before, and that power generation is equally more efficient and cleaner - in other words, economic efficiency can be parallel to environmental efficiency. However you can hardly plan it, like the Green obsession with trains.
.
A key problem is the shrill loud voice of the irrational emotive environmental lobby. One of those is Cath Wallace, who is reported as describing Mr Pedersen's comments as "hysterical" and said he had missed the point of debate about sustainable development. Cath Wallace would know about hysterical – she waged a hysterical campaign against National’s relatively minor proposed tinkering of the RMA in the late 90s. Check out this quote from an article written by her:

.
“We could aim to maintain and protect natural, cultural and social capital – and to be as vigilant about these as we are with public and private financial capital. This means that we would maintain the environment intact, with limits to protect natural processes, systems, places and ecosystems. Decision rules such as the precautionary principle that suggest that we avoid actions with significant irreversible adverse consequences or consequences which we cannot predict.”

.
So you see she knows the value of natural capital or even cultural and social capital. Meaningless concepts being thrown about. Her advocacy of the precautionary principle would have seen aviation banned from the start because planes could fall out of the air and set some bushes on fire, or the electric light (who knows what damage that could do to plants photosynthesising at night) or antiseptic in hospitals (the disposal of antiseptic could damage all sorts of precious ecosystems). Avoiding actions with consequences which we cannot predict would stop almost everyone doing almost anything interesting - don't set up a business, don't meet new people, don't invent something new, don't develop a new drug - just be a sticky beak taxpayer tit sucking econazi telling people what not to do because of the "intrinsic" value you place on anything not produced by human being. Absolutely absurd.

.
A more recent press release from her and one of her supporters commenting on the 2006 Budget says:

.
“In stark contrast there is no major increase in public transport funding, yet this is urgently required. This does double harm. We will have more greenhouse gases, more lethal air pollution, higher future health costs from vehicle pollution and from the spread of infectious diseases as our climate becomes more mosquito friendly to spread diseases like Ross River Virus, dengue fever and other nasties."

.

There is no evidence whatsoever that subsidising public transport reduces greenhouse gas emissions. None. There is evidence that building some road projects reduces greenhouse gas emissions, by easing congestion and eliminating bottlenecks. So because public transport isn't getting more subsidies, New Zealand might get dengue fever. A flyover on the Western Hutt Road gets built getting rid of two annoying sets of traffic lights on a 4-lane highway, and fuck me silly but the Tropic of Capricorn is now the Tropic of Milford and dengue fever is rife along the Manawatu River.

.

What’s more hysterical than that?

.

The education system has inculcated this guilt trip for a good generation now. This is why as Pedersen puts it:

.

"They often give support to relieve themselves of any guilt about their lifestyle. Kiwis must understand that ill thought out environmental controls based on emotion rather than science will inevitably lead to a reduced standard of living."

.

Indeed!

London 34 degrees celsius

Best place to be? Primrose Hill with a cool drink
Worst place to be? Bakerloo or Victoria tube lines

Why do tourists come here at this time? When it is this hot, there are plenty of nicer parts of England to go to, or rather nicer parts of Europe.

The recipe for reducing global poverty - Part One

Plenty of bloggers have talked about this (Not PC, Lindsay Mitchell, Writeups, Elliot Who) and they are right , Bob Geldof can just fuck off.

.

His contribution to reducing world poverty is nothing compared to the efforts of others who, despite their mixed record, have achieved far far more than he ever could. Take Deng Xiaoping, who took the world’s most populous country and turned its back on policies that saw it stagnate and 60 million of its citizens starve. Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, who, by ending the Cold War, ended the proxy wars and backing of most of the mad socialist states in Africa and Asia. Democratic accountable government has the best chance in Africa that it has EVER had, but sadly Zimbabwe and South Africa are going in the opposite direction
.
Poverty will never be history. There will always be people who through bad luck (disaster), or incompetence lose property and the means to make a living suddenly. There will also always be people who are the far left end of the bell curve – not through illness or disability, but through sheer stupidity. Those people often breed and produce children who, because the parents are incompetent and can’t teach them much, turn out stupid too. All that can be done is to ensure that those who have some competency are not prevented from using it, so that those with a lot of competency can hire them. Remember poverty is almost always relative. By any global measure, there is hardly poverty in New Zealand. Nobody starves to death, few are homeless and all get access to healthcare that everyone else pays for. It is remarkable how so many of the poor have reticulated water, electricity and telecommunications, and have appliances that would hardly ever be seen in an African village. One "answer" to global poverty would be a global welfare scheme - which almost everyone in New Zealand would be paying towards as almost everyone earns more per capita than the global average - of course that would bankrupt humanity.
.
So what could dramatically reduce poverty around the world?
.
No it is not being an undertalented rock “star” famous for one song (Sir Humphrey's has a marvellous reworking of that song's lyrics) and his (no doubt good intentioned) celebrity guilt mongering.
.
No it is not about giving away lots of money to developing countries, it is about getting out of the way of them creating wealth and teaching good governance.

.
The first step is freeing up global trade. If Bob wanted to make a difference he would shame the European Union, and France in particular, to making a bold move at the WTO negotiations. The US offered to end agricultural export subsidies, which would be a good step forward, but the EU refused because France says that the EU has “already reformed” its unsustainable and immoral Common Agricultural Policy. If the EU and the US together ended agricultural export subsidies and ended bans and quotas on agricultural imports this would pressure the likes of India and Brazil to open up their markets to more manufactured goods, and pressure Japan to liberalise its markets. This would all benefit developing countries which are more efficient producers of many goods, particularly agricultural commodities, than the EU and US. The most scandalous distortion at the moment is the EU, and while it is too much to hope for all EU agricultural protectionism to end, it is not too much to expect it to open its markets and stop subsidising exports to other markets.
.
Secondly, support good government. That is government that has as its cornerstones the development of a clean and independent judiciary and police force. This also means laws to protect private property and enforce contracts. One of Latin America’s biggest problems has been corruption in the core functions of the state. People do not believe they can get justice, so either don’t complain or take matters into their own hands. Good government at its very basics requires:
- Transparent clear laws on real crimes (attacks on people and their property);
- A well paid and adequately equipped Police force which focuses solely on the enforcement of those crimes;
- An effective Police monitoring agency, independent of the Police, to root out corruption, Police malpractice and acts as the public’s watchdog;
- A well paid, politically independent court system. This will include an appeals process. Judges who cannot be bought mean judges paid well and provided adequate protection for verdicts against those who may threaten them.
- A well paid and managed prisons/corrections system. This requires particular monitoring to avoid corruption and abuse, but is more than just managing prisons. This also means the collection of fines and debts for lawsuits. This operation also must be well paid, but is critical to managing the credibility of the judicial system – most commercial infractions are not going to be enforced through prisons.
- Well defined property rights. This may include a land register for identification of land/buildings, or even registers for vehicles. This ensures that title and boundaries in property have certainty.
- Adequate contract and tort law. Agreements between citizens have to be able to be enforced as contracts. Citizens also must be able to sue for actions by individuals, that are not intentional which cause harm.
.
Thirdly, support accountability in government. This accountability means not only liberal democracy, free speech and the rule of law, but having the powers of the state limiting itself. It means that governments can be taken to court and decisions overruled for being unconstitutional. It means that politicians are not above the law, and can be sued, charged and convicted when they act illegally.
.
Beyond that there are economic policies that will work, and people can give aid voluntarily to support infrastructure development (e.g. clean water supplies, vaccination) which clearly works. The details of all that are for another time, because without government that works, government that can protect the rights of individuals to live and interact with each other voluntarily, everything else will be a struggle. People must have the right to own what they produce, to be able to call upon the state when their body or property is violated, and to not be pushed around by politicians who want to "plan" their lives, and in the meantime harm their livelihood.

.

Economic independence requires the state to protect people from thieves, con-artists and the most artful example of those is politicians. There is little point giving a starving man food, if it can be stolen when you have gone. There is little point in helping fields be irrigated, if the state kicks the farmer off the field.

May Israel destroy Hizbullah

Israel's current campaign against Hizbullah has the most honourable and moral of objectives - to destroy a murderous organisation, which has as its goal the destruction of Israel.

.

Israel has my complete support.

.

Hizbullah launched its attack on Israel, abducting two soldiers and launching rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns. It has been attacking Israel for decades, it supports and sympathises with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and its suicide bombing attacks on Israel.

.

Here are the facts:

.

1. Hizbullah – a radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organisation has been using bases in Lebanon, including residential areas, to fire rockets into Israeli territory. ISRAELI territory, not the occupied West Bank or Gaza, but northern Israel.
2. Hizbullah abducted two Israeli soldiers in order to force Israel to surrender Hizbullah prisoners. Prisoners arrested because they are terrorists and planning attacks against Israel!
3. The government of Lebanon, through its own internal weakness, is completely incapable of controlling Hizbullah.
4. The Israeli government has a choice – either sit back and let its villages and houses of its citizens be bombed by terrorists lobbing rockets at them, or resist.
5. Hizbullah is backed by Iran and Syria, and has a stated goal of eradicating the state of Israel. Iran ships by air the weapons it supplies to Hizbullah. It aims indiscriminately at military and civilian targets, and shields behind civilians by locating its rocket firing operations in densely built up residential areas.
.
So who is responsible for Lebanon being bombed? Would Lebanon be getting bombed had the Lebanese government fought against Hizbullah’s gang using the country as a base for attacking Israel? Would Lebanon be bombed if Hizbullah ceased attacks?
.
There is your answer.
.
You can choose to apologise for terrorists who would kill you in an instant, who want a UN member state wiped out, who want an Iranian style Islamist regime in Lebanon and Palestine. You know, the type of regime that sends kids to wars, that applies the death penalty for homosexual acts and adultery, that stones men, women and children for unIslamic behaviour. The type that simply does not tolerate atheism, Christianity, Judaism, women wearing what they want, or people writing or reading what they like. Or you can support a country defending its territory from attacks. What side are you on?
.

Rape and little boys

Maia’s post about a friend’s little boy and this conversation between her and the friend has created a lot of reactions. Insolent Prick has provided an excellent response to the strange fear that your baby might become a rapist. However, first let’s get a flavour of the kind of thinking in this different “world view”:
.
“we didn't know whether it was worse to raise a girl and be afraid that when she grew up she'd be raped, or a boy and be afriad that when he grew up he might rape someone.”
.
Now we know that it is more likely that a girl will be raped than a boy, and more likely that a man will be convicted of a violent crime than a woman. This is a world where boys are not victims and girls are never violent, but let’s just pause for a moment to figure out where they are coming from.
.
Imagine being that little boy or indeed a little girl around such adults, and taking in the message that “I am innately capable of hurting people” or “I am innately capable of being a victim”. Now both are true. Feminists who haven’t lost the plot completely acknowledge that all initiation of violence against people of any sex or age is wrong. Funnily enough, that’s what libertarians and objectivists think too. However, what thinking causes one to “fear” the victimhood of your daughter or the “latent violence” of your son?
.
Psychosis. Transferring your own issues onto the child.
.
Your children will become whoever they are due to many reasons. Your parenting will be the dominant influence, their genes will play an important part too. Their peers and other family members will influence them for better and for worse, and the older they get, the more responsible they are for their own behaviour. Adults are fully responsible, and the world doesn’t make them do things – assuming their brains are physically fully functional, adults decide whether they rape, beat up their kids or abandon them.

Take this “Right now he's amazing and beautiful.” The baby boy is amazing and beautiful because he is totally dependent, totally helpless and barely an individual. Imagine telling him in 13 years time that he “once was amazing and beautiful”, now he has an erection and thinks about girls all the time – better watch out, he might rape. Maybe, just maybe, if he is brought up respecting other people, their bodies and their property, he wont even think about using force to get his own way.
.
After all, if you thought this, wouldn’t you simply not breed and turn yourself in for therapy about how scary the world is:
.
“I'm so scared of what this world will turn him into. That's one of the things that the US soldeirs who have raped Iraqi women makes me think about. How our world in general, and the army more than anything, makes men into monsters. At the moment we can protect him from all that. I can sing him songs of hopes and struggle and there ain't nothing can harm him. But that only works so long.”
.
Time for a reality check. The “world” doesn’t make anyone into anything. People become victims and people choose how they react to that. Who made Rachealle Namana or Tania Witika the evil abusive women they are? Well feminists might say they were abused too - much like how many male sexual abusers were also abused. How can that possibly excuse it?

.

However, remember in a philosophical environment where you surround yourself with female victims and talk about the vile men who abused you, you can find the world a bit skewed. You probably don’t associate with female offenders and male victims. You may not even associate with women who have not been abused or men who don't abuse - after all you probably can't trust any man who says he has never raped, because so many get away with it (which is true, some men rape and get away with it, but many don't rape).
.
It is a little as if someone was badly assaulted by a young Maori male, and suddenly fears all young Maori males (which is a natural instinctual, albeit irrational reaction).
.
Now I don’t think Maia is a man hater “all men are rapists” feminist, and it is too easy to dismiss someone for such views. I read her posts to test my mind, and find she blames capitalism for all that is bad in the world, but has no alternative. It is like blaming planet earth for having tectonic plates that cause earthquakes and volcanoes, but not suggesting somewhere better to live.

.
I don’t minimise rape, anymore than I minimise any form of severe violence. It is unconscionably evil, no matter who perpetrates it. It is revolting that in the not so distant past the Police wouldn’t believe the victims, and today the Police, depending where you are can either be helpful or make things worse. However, there are many many men who abhor rape, and abhor violence against women, children and men. You don’t need to have a vagina to feel that way. Men are as likely to be attacked in the street as women, because idiotic drunk louts are more likely to get aggro towards other men than women, for no reason at all. Most men have encountered them, but they are often so drunk they can be ignored or knocked over easily enough if they attack.
.
The solution to rape, sexcrimes and violence is a culture that values being human, and what is great about being human. It respects people’s bodies and their property, and enjoys the joy that is life. It abhors the use of force as the tool of the barbarian, and instills the use of the mind as the driver of the heart and hands as being what is great about being human. It is not a culture of fear, but one of confidence and believe in oneself. It is not a culture of victimhood, but of strength – strength in mind and body. It is a culture that is benevolent towards those you love and towards your fellow human being. It is the kindness of strangers, not the guilt of unchosen obligation. It is a culture of honesty, friendship, good will and acknowledgment of excellence, effort and being creative.
.
You wont find that culture in Islam or Christianity either.

Small local government will take some hard work

PC has blogged about the Nomorerates.com campaign, and I agree with him. It isn’t a campaign I can wholeheartedly support.
.
The only good side is that it promotes restraint in council spending. Something that was going to get worse with councils getting the “power of general competence”, a major change in local government legislation that came about with the Local Government Act 2001 – a Labour/Alliance/Greens concoction. You see before then, all local authorities could only do what legislation empowered them to do, specifically. Regional councils were essentially restricted to emissions under the RMA, public transport contracting and water catchment/pest control – now they can do what they want, subject to “consultation”. Consultation means that they ask you regularly, but you don’t have the time to tell them to “fuck off”. Instead the little lefty lobby groups who claim to represent “the community” agree to any expansion of activities as long as it never involves user pays – because they want to use it for nothing.
.
There were warnings at the time. The Business Roundtable through the Local Government Forum said:
.
“The proposals contained in the Bill place unwarranted faith in the efficacy of democratic processes at the local level. The activities that councils may engage in should be tightly circumscribed and enumerated in the new act. The deliberate specification of limited powers is a vital constraint on local government. A power of general competence is inconsistent with New Zealand's longstanding constitutional arrangements and the common law, and is a threat to personal and economic freedom.”
.
Libertarianz also opposed the Bill. Many of you voted Labour, Alliance or Green, and voted most of them back in again in 2002 and 2005. Many of you voted for councillors and Mayors who are growing their councils. So what are you complaining about?
.
The nomorerates.com campaign is supporting Rodney Hide's Rating Cap Bill which is a useful first step, but there needs to be more. Even that Bill wont be supported by the government, which has its local government footsoldiers happily pillaging your pockets for more money every year. Local government is where petty fascists go when they can't get elected to central government.
.

However, I am wary of the campaign. For starters this press release seems to claim that user pays for water and sewerage is unfair, because it isn't eligible for a low income rebate.

.

Why should you pay for water or sewerage or rubbish collection through tax, instead of the services you use? Why aren’t environmentalists, like the Greens, supporting user pays for waste disposal, such as rubbish and sewerage, and user pays for using reticulated water? Why should you be forced to pay for libraries or swimming pools you don’t use?
.
The problem of local government profligacy requires two approaches.
.
First, confront local authorities. Prepare submissions opposing their big spending plans and support candidates at the next local body elections who want council to do less. Good luck finding candidates, although Libertarianz did stand a handful of candidates last time. Remember, the left gets enthusiastic (ick) about local government, and the conservative right is often not much better - so it is time to ask candidates what they will CUT from council spending. They will look at you bewildered - since most moaning minnies who go to local government meetings have their hands out for more money, not wanting their own money back.
.
Second, change the Local Government Act 2002. I don’t mean tinker with it, I mean constrain local government. This means voting for parties that will cut the size of local authorities, get them out of business and out of social welfare, get them out of providing services that nobody is willing to pay for, and make them start charging user pays for those that people want - then sell them.

.

Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton announced a first step along that path last year with the party's local government policy:

.

"A Libertarianz government would permanently cap all Council rates; require Councils to implement user pays where possible; and divest all activities that can either be provided or maintained by private organisations and individuals. Libertarianz would also scrap the RMA and regional councils"

.

That would cut everyone's rates bill by a long margin. Yes, you might have to pay for what you use instead, but do you use everything council provides? And, if you do, why should everyone else pay for you?

The Free Radical - bigger, better, revamped

PC, Julian Pistorius and Trevor Loudon have all said this, but it is worth repeating.
.
The Free Radical - New Zealand's only consistently pro small government, libertarian and objectivist publication has been revamped, expanded and improved. The latest edition is now out, so subscribe to a hard copy or pay only US$6 for a downloadable PDF version. A subscription is less than what you pay every year to NaZis on Air to feed you statist nationalist nonsense on TVNZ, Radio NZ and Maori TV and radio.
.
All those who are sick of Nanny State and big government, give it a go, you wont regret it.

Noise about poverty - do you do anything about it?

Several have blogged (DPF, about the Ministry of Social Development New Zealand Living Standards report, either saying that it is the fault of government for not taking more money from richer people and giving it to the poor, or because it takes too much from people already and many of the poor are irresponsible (or make "poor life choices" in PC speak).
.
Well, for all the harping on about it, go through the following questions:
.
1. Do you care about poor people in New Zealand? If no, then move on. If yes, then answer the next question.
2. What do you do, personally, to help people less well off than yourselves? Examples could be:
- Supporting family members who are needy;
- Supporting friends who are needy;
- Supporting neighbours who are needy;
- Participating in charities that actively help the needy;
- Giving to charities that actively help the needy;
- Donating money to the government to spend on welfare.
.
In other words, shut the fuck up if your only answer is to whine and moan saying “it’s the government’s fault”.
.
Whether or not the government takes more money from some people and hands it out to others, or lets people keep more of their own money, chances are you are not going to change that for around two or so years.
.
So go do something now. Given that those on the left want more spent on welfare, why don’t they spend their spare change on giving the government more money to do just that? Maybe they think it is better to spend it on charities? Why would that be? Maybe they would rather spent it on themselves if they can’t make others care too? Maybe there is something in not helping those who wont help themselves?

.

Oh and if it angers or upsets you that some people don't care, then convince them why they should. Put a case, on whatever moral basis, that others should do something. By the way, you might find that people who have already started businesses from scratch and employed people in the process have done far more than any welfare benefit could have.

.

by the way, those on the left who think that the rest are exploiting the poor, might take a look at this post and the excellent letter to the editor attached to it. Some people, after all, hold off having children because they can't afford to have them - what a remarkable concept - personal responsibility, so capitalist and exploitative.

A question

If ACT's Vice President Trevor Loudon can publicly support Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton's court case against Labour, why can't Rodney Hide?

90 years of Hard Labour

Not PC and DPF have said much which I would want to say.

.

However, I have two simple things to say about the Labour Party.

.

On the one hand, if it never happened we would be better off. NZ's Parliament would have had liberals vs. conservatives, and the "tell you off" culture of modern statism might well have been less. Labour is not liberal. Question the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation and you're branded "racist" to shut down debate, instantly. Question the welfare state and you are branded as "hating the poor". Labour today is not interested in this - it is dominated by three lobbies all on the left: unions, gay/lesbian and Maori. Confront any of those at your peril. Stan Rodger, Richard Prebble and Dr Michael Bassett know this only too well.

.

On the other hand, it has more of a sense about what it believes in than National. Labour can write a Manifesto about what it wants, and what it will and wont do. Some of it will be socially liberal, tiny bits economically liberal (e.g. trade), and some of it statist and interventionist, and proudly so. National still struggles, and when Don Brash tried last time, he was being battled by those who want to betray its principles.

20 years of sexual freedom

DPF and this story on Gaynz.com (hat tip No Right Turn). This doesn’t concern the Bible bashing Taliban of our day, but is horrendous, and shows how readily the Police were willing to clamp down on ANYONE the state deemed as “perverted”. If you wonder how fascism can come to pass, then look – because it existed, for gay people until 1986.
.
I give a damn because no other Bill in recent times represents the most fundamental personal liberty that any adults should have. The right to consensual sexual interaction in peace. You see, the same people who still oppose homosexual law reform (one is doing time for molesting young girls and stood for Parliament several times), basically believe you do NOT own your body. They believe your body should be regulated by the state, by their churches and that it is moral to imprison people for doing what they want in their own bedrooms. What gives them ANY right to tell any other adult what to do? Nothing does. Interestingly, the law at the time had no prohibition against adult women engaging in sexual behaviour with each other, as the traditional view had been that having such a law would encourage women to experiment!!
.
Homosexual law reform was the last great bastion of sexual liberation, and it required enormous courage. It isn’t just about sex (of all kinds) between men, it also legalised sodomy generally (between men and women as well).
.
A number of individuals stand out at the time. Fran Wilde for having the courage to introduce the Bill in the first place. That is, in my opinion, her greatest political achievement, and no small one. George Gair, as the National MP with the casting vote. He had hesitation in supporting the Bill because it set the gay age of consent at 16, he preferred 18. However, he decided to vote yes on the final reading at 16 – that was something for a former National Cabinet Minister, one of the most liberal ones in a very old fashioned male dominated caucus.
.
There were those who campaigned actively against the Bill. Graeme Lee National MP, who later went to the Christian Democrats, which is now part of United Future (Peter Dunne voted for the Bill). Geoff Braybrooke, Labour MP for Napier, campaigned loudly against it, as did fellow Labour MP Allan Wallbank, Norm Jones the Invercargill National MP. John Banks may choose to forget it now, but he was a loud campaigner against it as well. Those old dinosaurs are long gone from Parliament, but their bigotry was the centre of the battle between liberals and conservatives. Bigotry where the word sodomy would be thrown around like old southern baptist preachers harping on about "fornication".

.
The Bill was passed broadly on Labour/National lines, with most Labour MPs supporting it and most National MPs opposing it. Labour’s Maori MPs opposed it, no doubt because the Ratana Church was conservative. Many National MPs who would have been thought of as being liberal, voted against it, such as Lockwood Smith, Doug Graham and Simon Upton - the courage of mice. Jim Bolger and Rob Muldoon voted against it. National MPs Katherine O'Regan and Ian Maclean voted for it.

.
More notable was the campaigning by the Salvation Army, which collected signatures and petitions against the Bill. This burnt much goodwill that many gay and lesbian people had towards the Sallies, as they revealed themselves to not be the objectively kind people they always had been thought of as being. A Salvation Army that happily would see you imprisoned for sex with another man was hardly kind. (Hat Tip Maia for pointing out that the Sallies have apologised). The Catholic Church opposed it too. It is not true that this is because it retained an age of consent.
.
Other notable New Zealanders including Sir Keith Hay and Sir Peter Tait, both opposed the Bill. Old fashioned fascists who forgot separation of church and state.
.
So it is 20 years on. NZ is not full of boys bumming each other, catching HIV and the population is not in inexorable decline. The alleged communist plot (odd given how homosexuals faced enormous bigotry in the former Soviet bloc) behind the Bill failed, with the collapse of the communist bloc 3 years later. The “Coalition of Concerned Citizens” who outlined in incredibly graphic detail what homosexuals did (including fellatio!! Incredible!) moved onto Graham Capill and Brian Tamaki - and together got less than 1% of the vote in the last election. The National Party of today is predominantly liberal, and Labour is in coalition with a party that includes the remnants of the Christian Democrats, led by a former Labour MP who supported the Bill. How much times have changed.

.

FreedomNZ on this

Maia here and here

Uroskin here

How Green is the market

Well high fuel prices have done something that the Greens can't achieve with their interventionist nanny statism - it has seen a shift to public transport.

.

The Dominion Post reports that Intercity Coachlines has ordered four new double decker coaches to provide more capacity on its Wellington-Auckland coach service. The coaches will carry between 65 and 76 passengers, 30% more than standard coaches, while using 15% less fuel. It seems that demand for long distance coach services is rising because it is becoming more expensive to drive. So the more fuel efficient coaches are now cheap enough, compared to driving, to be more competitive for more people.

.

This is great, and a gamble. After all, coaches have an efficient life of no more than 15 years, so it is a reasonable capital commitment by a private company to buy new larger coaches. On top of that, the coach bodies will be built by a Tauranga company - and there is no protectionism making it more expensive to import bus bodies.

.

Don't forget Intercity was once government owned. It was the long distance part of the former Railways Road Services that the fourth Labour government privatised as part of its deal with SOE New Zealand Rail Ltd to wipe its $1 billion of restructuring debt which it had built up over the seven years since it had previously had its debt wiped. Railways Road Services used to have over $1 million in subsidies (in 1990 dollars) a year, now Intercity runs it as a commercial operation and business is growing.

.

Now the Greens might complain that the trains aren't getting the same investment - well maybe people aren't catching trains in sufficient numbers to make it worthwhile?

Bad Girls

So teenage girls are going on websites and showing off and meeting people for sex. Yes it has been going on since the internet has been around, and it shouldn’t be a surprise. It isn’t to me. I used to moderate an adult website chatroom, that chatroom would have, from time to time, teenagers under 18 accessing it. Sometimes adults would roleplay being younger, which is fine, as long as it is clear. Sometimes, there were boys and girls from puberty up gaining access. The messageboard associated with the website purged anyone who gave a birthday on registration that meant they were under 18 – so they just lied. You couldn’t tell until you caught them, and when there are thousands of people registering online and lying, you can’t do much about it other than be as vigilant as you can be. Search yahoo profiles and you're find them there too, pretending to be 18 or over.
.
In other words – teenagers are interested in sex online, they look at it, chat about it and meet others for it. Most of those they meet are in their peer group, but no doubt some meet those much older than them. The question that needs asking is not how to block them from doing it, because if you can't control your net access then it is almost futile - but to ask why they do it in the first place.
.
Check out this report:

The parents arrived home one night to find a boy in their house with their daughter.
"Then we started finding condoms lying around. We questioned her a bit further and it came out," the father said. He forced his daughter to show him the website, and he was horrified at what he found. She was acting like "something off Manchester Street". "The whole school is in on it, hooking up left, right and centre. They post messages like 'Fancy hooking up?' and they come around to the house when Mum and Dad are out to make whoopy," he said.
.
Let’s get some reality here. So a girl has met a boy off a website (not a man) and they had sex, and his daughter can dress sexy. So this didn’t happen before the internet? Seriously, there is a whole flavour of Victorian prudishness here. It is one thing to protect your kids from predatory behaviour and rightfully so, another to be concerned that teenagers – horror of horrors- are attracted to each other.
.
The internet is not dangerous. There is nothing sinister in itself about a communication network that allows people to access information, images and media from around the world about any topic. The worst the internet can do to you, if you do nothing, is to offend you or something can steal your image and defame and humiliate you. Assuming nobody takes advantage of you, the choice then is how you interact with it. With that come some simple rules that parents can apply to teenagers, like not giving out home addresses or phone numbers. Meeting people online accompanied in a public place. People meet others online daily, thousands, and thousands are no more at risk than meeting people in a bar, at a café, or at a mall. It is no MORE dangerous than anything else. The danger comes from meeting people, and that danger is universal, and part of life no less.
.
Yes there are teenage chatrooms which some adults go to for preying on teenagers. Reputable ones monitor them, which is why some men get arrested for trying to meet underage girls online. You should find those that are monitored and encourage their use. The reputable ones monitor because it is in their interests to do so. However, there is little you can do if you darling daughter (few seem concerned about sons, but boys do it too) shows off her body online with a digital camera. If she owns one and posts images of herself, she is taking a risk – and should be warned. Often sites prohibit anyone under 18 posting adult images, but then there are plenty who lie about their age.
.
The report also said:
.
His daughter "was actually making the first moves".
"They are all talking about sex, who they had sex with or were going to have sex with," he said.
Police, schools and the Government needed to take steps to crack down on the sites before something "blew up".
"I don't think police have picked up on it, but it's obvious to me the websites are dangerous," the father said.

.
Sorry “dad” to burst your bubble. Your image of your daughter as this white virginal pure possession of yours that doesn’t think about sex is as archaic as your attitude. Girls make the first moves nowadays as well. The websites are not dangerous – do you seriously think your young woman (not little girl anymore) is going to stop meeting others she may have sex with because the websites aren’t there? She seeks attention and approval, and your attempt to present her as a child corrupted by the big bad world is nonsense. You want to protect her - yes - but instead you've made the world forbidden fruit, which is only the more delicious because she wants to taste it.
.
You see this is the great unspoken truth about the internet scaremongering. Some teenagers actively search out pornography and adult contact. In fact, most teenagers have probably seen internet pornography, much like earlier generations saw playboy etc. If your daughter or son is posting explicit or seductive pictures of her or his self it is because they are seeking attention – but it may be the least of your worries. Do you know what they are doing late on Friday night? Do you know about the parties they go to? Do you remember what you did at that age? Do you talk to your kids in an open, non-judgmental way about sexuality? Do you know what your daughter wears? Why is this a bigger concern than swarms of 13 and 14yos hanging around major inner city streets at midnight on Fridays? Why is sitting at home online a bigger risk than that?
.
Answer those questions.
.
There is another side as well. The internet allows teenagers who feel different to connect with others. Imagine being gay, lesbian or bisexual and wanting to find others in your town who are – not so easy, but many of the outraged probably think that it would be an illness to feel that way. Imagine also being shy or feeling uncomfortable with the opposite sex, the net provides a fairly secure way of communicating without confronting them head on. So it can be a good thing, a very good thing if otherwise suicidal lonely perhaps gay teenagers don’t feel alone. And sex? Well if they don’t get pregnant, don’t catch diseases and aren’t forced or made to feel guilty for it, then feel relieved. However, think more than that - your teens are responding to some basic instincts, that you respond to as well, and almost certainly did at that age. Find out the facts before exploding, and you might find you get honesty and respect, and you might also find out that things aren't half as bad as you think.

.
Oh and the blogosphere has plenty of people whose websites might corrupt your teens. If you are not at work try:
http://naughtyopath.blogspot.com/

Pathetic

How much of a hero can you feel winning the World Cup through penalty shootouts? Honestly. Whether France or Italy had won, it was still ridiculous. Italy won out of luck, and because of a lousy refereeing decision against Australia several games ago.

Nice for it to remind me of why I don't bother with football. It is a game thoroughly infused by and large with melodramatic nobodies. Half of the game is focused on faking injuries sustained by the opposition. Unfortunately the ones with skills lose the plot when provoked.

So, England played mediocre, Brazil was arrogance without substance, France, Germany, Czech Republic were teams with skills that never quite made it, Australia was perhaps one of the best teams. Played pretty well, enjoyed themselves and did their best.

Fear

That is what terrorism is about. The murder is simply the means to that end. Today exactly one year after I have posted this, 3 bombs went off within 50 seconds of each other here in London. One each on two Circle line trains, going off between Liverpool Street and Aldgate, and another at Edgware Road. A third bomb went off on the Piccadilly line between Kings Cross and Russell Square. A fourth went off an hour later on a bus in Tavistock Square. 52 people were murdered, hundreds more injured, around 20 seriously. I catch Piccadilly regularly, as my alternate route to work. The location where the bus bomb went off is also the location of the bus route I sometimes catch as well, if the tube is closed. This morning I took the usual convenient tube route that was not bombed, but I still thought about it. It is one thing to live in New Zealand and watch the news, another to remember that every single day, London faces a terror threat. A real one. The million people who catch the tube every day, the other million who catch the buses (some the same people), those who work near major political, economic or social landmarks, like I do (right next door to one), think about that bag that lies there, the people who get on the tube and look nervous and Arab/South Asian. It is inevitable. It is about your life after all.
.
I wasn’t here when the bombings happened, but I was here when the second lot of attempts happened. I work very close to a well known building that could maybe be a target, but damn them to hell. London has gone through worse.
.
The blitz was perhaps the scariest time for this city, and 43,000 people were killed in Britain during it. During the first phase of the blitz, every night for three months, 200 German bombers bombed London. There are plenty of people alive who can remember that, and they didn’t run – they didn’t try to “understand the German point of view”, and didn’t apologise.

.

They didn’t blame the victims, they fought back. Nazi Germany was defeated, unconditionally. Germany today bears little resemblance to the totalitarian war machine that it once was, it is now the fourth largest economy in the world (China recently nudged it out of third) and a force for peace and stability.
.
London also suffered under IRA bombings through the 70s and 80s, although the casualties were low in number. Fear was the main driver. Fear removed rubbish bins from the tube, saw CCTV cameras installed and fear saw thousands avoid the tube one year ago after the bombs.
.
Today London is defiant. The evil of the terrorists, who happily see the blood of hundreds of innocent people, of all political beliefs, faiths or no faith and nationality, is not winning in London. The city thrives, it thrives with one of the most diverse populations of any major city in the world. There are probably about 7,000 people in this city right now who supported the bombings and would commit more – that represents the proportion of adult Muslims who in the most conservative polls endorse the terror attacks. I simply wish they would leave, they are not welcome.
.
However, perhaps the best statement I have seen comes from no other than Mayor Ken Livingstone. Livingstone was in Singapore at the time, at the International Olympic Committee meeting, following London’s successful bid for the 2012 Olympics:

.
“Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life. I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail. In the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential. They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

.
For one of Britain’s most renowned/notorious leftwing politicians, Livingstone has set an example. He was right, they will fail and they have. May they go hide in their pathetic little warrens of hate, or go where hatred is glorified and live in the dry dusty dirty heat of it all. Go live in your caves, form a little society of reason hating, anti-individualist primitives, enjoy the life of pre-civilisation – you add nothing to the modern world.

.
I am slightly nervous I must admit, but I am not changing my habits to suit Al Qaeda, which released a video to Al Jazeera yesterday of one of the suicide bombers for the 7/7 attacks. Al Qaeda should be defeated, as Nazi Germany was – and nobody who believes in freedom or civilisation, across the political spectrum, should rest until the last member of Al Qaeda surrenders or is killed. The people of London, let alone New York, Madrid, Baghdad and elsewhere, deserve nothing less.

.

They certainly don't deserve the excuses seen in the Guardian this morning.

.

Faces and obituaries of the victims. BBC

Events of 7 July BBC

Grief, Fear, Hope The Times

He's just ronery

.

“Hey Bush, look over here, I wanna play! Damnit Bush, obsessed with Ahmi… Ahme…. the Iranian guy yeah and Saddam. Hey Brair, BRAIR, ohhh broody Brair, he aint looking so good now. Hey Koizumi, damnit Koizumi he’s retiring, what’s with the guy, he looks so cool too, what’s with these people not wanting to be Readers anymore. Hey Putin, rook at me, its Kim Jong Il, remember I came on the train and came see Russia? We did party dude and I brought my radies with me and whoa you got some hot bronde radies in Moscow woooo hooo. Yeah. Putin PUTIN! Why you not come visit as you say you would? Grrr hey Hu, Wen, yeah I want some of your investment, I wanna cool city with tall buildings and electronics and stuff you know? I want some. Hey stop ignoring me you guys. Why is everyone ignoring me? Hey Iranian guy you wanna party? Stop worrying about Israel, they just friends of United States – heyyyyyy stop giving me the Isram evils Iranian guy, I been the Dear Reader ronger than you man and I got me my nucrear weapons. Grrr Chirac? *sigh* he don’t notice me neither.
.
Damned CNN, BBC, NHK, I watch them all the time and I not been on them for agesssssss. What's wrong? Aren't I still the scary guy who runs a country the way half of you wish you COULD? Right... I gotta do something.
.
Damn you rot, NOTICE me, I’m Kim Jong Il, the Dear Reader, the peerressry great man. I might not be Arab, or Musrim but I’m GREAT. I want presents, I want visits, I want bronde radies from Sweden.
.
That’s it. You’ll pay attention now. I got missiles. Yeah you know it baby. I got missiles, they are BIG missiles, better than that stupid Saddam, he don’t know how to run a dictatorship, the wuss. You don’t go round attacking countries, you just threaten to and make sure your missiles work buddy.
.
OK here we go………. *fizzzzzzzzzzzzz* fire ONE. Woooooooooo this one is for the sea near Japan… there you go wooooo. Party dudes, hey lets do another *fizzzzzzzzzzzzzz* fire TWO. That show you Koizumi, you shoulda come over with your best chef and we have a sushi party night in Pyongyang. Right me on a roll now, *fizzzzzzzzzzzz* fire THREE…. Yeah I can show Japan, show Putin too, show the South Korean puppets that I can KICK some ass yeah… gimme another Cognac right another? *fizzzzzzzzzzzzzzztzttttt* fire FOUR. See I can make GOOOD missiles, come on Ahme baby you wanna gimme some oil for my missiles? Hey Assad baby, your dad and my dad were buddies baby, you wanna gimme some oil for my missiles too? Come on, you see they work. OK Bush – this is for not giving me the Xbox I wanted and the Vegas porn babes, get out the big one. OK I’m gonna show you I reach Araska baby. Right *fizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz tzfr tzt tzt* *kick* *Fzzzzzzz* see it go near America. Ohhhhhhh *fzz* *fzzzt* *fzzzzzt ppupp* ooops .. that virrage not important anyways, it full of imperiarist rackeys of the Americans. Hey army dude what happened? *shot fired* he wont be embarrassing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea again. OK last one.. *fzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* yeah Japan, so there woooooooo. Yeah ok radies, I go for a rie down now.

.

Hey someone get me the internet, I bet I’m on the CNN front page now I wanna pray with my radies while watching me on the news and all the dumb western journarists who think I’m a scary guy. It’s so funny, hey I bet they all wanna talk with me now, and they all gonna threaten me but do nothing – and then give us some money to buy more cognac, cars and Louis Vuitton. Dumb asses hehehe. Love that movie about me too, it's so true! I'm RONERY, someone important visit me damnit!

Another domestic airline?

An old joke about how you create a millionaire - find a billionaire to invest in an airline.
.
Well, some entrepreneurs are going to pour money down a blackhole in the hope they can make a buck out of flying from Auckland to Wellington and Queenstown at least. Fares to be as low as $12 Auckland-Queenstown, $2 Auckland-Wellington, with a start up sale of 10,000 seats at 2c each. (Of course you’ll have security levies etc to pay on top of that).
.
The website is here, it is called FirstJet.com and it intends to fly before the end of the year using a Boeing 737. It says it can do it cheap by using planes as billboards (though most of the time these billboards are out of sight) inside and out. I think it will try to be a Ryanair, without the volumes of traffic.
.
Hmmmm, interesting. A trial website, without even using the domain name, sounds like bollocks to me. On the one hand, routes like Auckland-Wellington make Air NZ a bucket, so there may be room for a third player, but on the other hand the money is mostly made from business travellers, filling up planes, many paying fully refundable fares with corporate discounts. Those travellers want:
- Frequent flights;
- Connections to other destinations;
- Koru Club.
Tourists get the leftover seats, particularly at off peak times, but without that core business traffic, the airline business is dead unless you can maintain consistent high volumes of traffic.
.
Remember, Qantas doesn’t make money on NZ domestic routes, Origin Pacific is barely breaking even. However, good on them for having a go, without taxpayer money – if it succeeds, thousands will be better off, if not, then the market was not there to make it pay. Nevertheless, I doubt that this will be off the ground - it looks like the professionalism of teenagers.

EU is the bad guy in world trade

Latest OECD data on agricultural subsidies shows that by far the greatest culprit is Europe. In 2005, the European Union spent nearly US$134 billion on propping up its agricultural sector. These subsidies generated around one-third of the average farm’s income. Don’t forget most of these are sucked up by large farms, including ones owned by the British Royal Family and others who can hardly start to argue they deserve to money taken from others.
.
The United States, typically pointed out to be the bad boy spends LESS THAN ONE-THIRD what the European Union spends, at just short of US$43 billion. This is 44% of the EU’s budget. Although the US is the third biggest agricultural subsidiser, after Japan which spends US$47.4 billion on securing votes for the Liberal Democratic Party by propping up inefficient rice farmers. Fourth is South Korea, spending US$23.3 million on pretty much the same as Japan. Interestingly the only OECD country to significantly increase subsidies since 1988 has been Turkey, which has seen the proportion of farmer’s income supported by subsidies increase from 15% to 25%
.
So why doesn’t Oxfam storm Brussels? It does call for reform, but it is muted compared to its call for aid. Why isn’t Bob Geldof and Bono damning France, the primary culprit in this? The Bush Administration is very keen on cutting subsidies as long as it is done multilaterally, and France in the EU says it has “done enough”. No it hasn’t, not by a very long shot.

.

It is time for all those give a damn about reducing poverty in developing countries to tell the EU and France in particular to move – to abolish export subsidies, cut subsidies for the “old” EU states by 70%, to the same level now offered the new EU accession countries (Hungary, Poland etc) immediately and abolish non-tariff barriers to agricultural imports. Do that, it would challenge the US to do the same and it would almost certainly wake up the developing world to open up its markets in manufactured goods.

.

and yes, New Zealand does have the moral highground on this, as subsidies in New Zealand are comparatively non-existent.

London at 32 degrees celsius

I have the following observations:

1. British media are weather obsessed;
2. Transport is designed for winter, the tube is hot and stinky, Victoria and Bakerloo lines are by far the worst as they are the deep level lines with the worst ventilation and oldest rolling stock. The best thing is, a lot of people know this and are using it less.
3. Women go to work wearing essentially weekend clothes (tanktops dresses and jandals), men wear suits not lava lavas. No shorts, socks and sandals.

4. Combine 2 and 3 and some women get on the tube wearing little – like the 8 inch high shorts, that means from top of the waist to the leg, NOT leg length. Why does this never happen in New Zealand?

5. Homeless people sleep in parks out in the open.

6. The sun comes up between 4 and 4.30 and down at 9pm - bliss!

Blog searches and the World Cup

Weirdest google/blogger search terms finding this blog:

masturbating using toothpaste (someone in India)
French samoan race pictures
Sexy blow yobs
Dirt on rob fyfe
Penis size images (someone in Sioux falls, South Dakota is interested)

OK so now with Germany knocked out, go France...

Celebrate the United States

For me, the 4th of July is a chance to celebrate the founding of the United States. Why? Because it was, in modern history, the most profoundly radical leap forward in human civilisation.
.
For today I will ignore the naysayers and those who will point out, many with good reason, the failings of the USA in terms of liberty, the mistakes of the past and those who tarnished the American dream. Today, because this is a chance to celebrate what is great about the United States, and to note why Americans, far more than the British, New Zealanders or Australians, feel pride in the USA. That pride is not a form of tribal knuckle dragging nationalism, of the kind that has left the Balkans dripping with blood, but a pride in a migrant nation of people who fled tyranny, judgment of religion and inherited privilege - to forge something new. 300 years ago many would have laughed at the idea that the migrant colonies in the New World would eventually come to be the greatest military and economic power on the planet. The Cold War saw the USA and its allies demonstrate, profoundly, the difference in both material wealth and personal happiness between capitalism (albeit tarnished) and cold, heartless, authoritarian bullying of the state.

.

The US Declaration of Independence was the beginning of this - the unshackling of people from monarchy and feudalism, and changing the nature of government - from something done to people by those who knew better than the people, to something to serve people, to protect their rights from the infringement by each other, and by outsiders. It would form the basis for the US Constitution, and the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Life being the foundation of all that is humanity, liberty being the oxygen by which humanity lives, grows, learns, invents, discovers and builds and the pursuit of happiness - the purpose of life. This compares to the naysayers, who saw life as being owned by the King, or God, or the tribe - with rulers deciding that men should sacrifice and be sacrificed for some good "greater than they".

.

No. America is built on the pursuit of happiness - what could be more glorious than that?

.

So today, have a drink and toast "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - and for a moment think of the thousands who have died for this, and the millions who can not even speak of it.

Transmission Gully not a sure thing by a long shot

Like I said a few days ago, Peter Dunne is full of it on how Transmission Gully is a top priority. Not only is it listed third for unapproved major projects on Transit's State Highway Forecast (after the Dowse to Petone upgrade and Basin Reserve Interchange), but no provision has been made for construction to begin in the next decade.

.

Transit's Regional Manager has made this clear in the latest Dominion Post report, where the insane idea of closing the old Paremata Bridge when Transmission Gully is built, is being mooted:

.

"Mr Taylor said it had yet to be decided whether Transmission Gully would be built at all. Transit recently won funding for $80 million of preliminary work, which included doing geotechnical surveys of the proposed route, completing road designs and applying for resource consents. Only then would the true cost of Transmission Gully be known and a decision made about whether or not it would go ahead.Mr Taylor said it had yet to be decided whether Transmission Gully would be built at all. "

Quite right too. Only a fool would say built it at any cost or regardless of priorities anywhere else. $1.5 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion? The decision to proceed with a very very expensive investigation and design of Transmission Gully has been done because of a loud campaign by those wanting their property values enhanced by a highly subsidised uneconomic road - backed by National and ACT MPs (and Labour and United Future) who only care for popularity, not economics. Transmission Gully may continue to prove to be not worth it.

Latest Green fascism - compulsory recycling

GMTV has reported that Barnet Council - North London - has made it illegal to put glass bottles, tins, jars, paper and magazines in the rubbish instead of recycling, with £1000 fines. Harrow and Bromley are about to do the same.

.

Quite how this works is beyond me. Contaminated paper isn't worth recycling, because once you get rid of the fat or other fluids the fibre has degraded too much. I wonder if some decent investigative reporting would discover how much recycled material is dumped.

.

People feel good about recycling, because what you don't want is going to be used again and that is rational. Indeed it is, recycling isn't new. The car industry has been recycling the metal from car bodies for decades, so has the aviation industry for planes.

.

However, this approach by councils is simply fascist. Who gives a damn what you do with your rubbish as long as you aren't dumping it on someone else's land without their permission. The answer to concerns about waste involves two steps (New Zealand is part way along this path already):

.

1. Charge for rubbish collection. In NZ this is done with council rubbish bags that cost enough to pay for the collection. Rubbish collection could then be operately privately, and revenue generated by the number of bags collected. The incentive to produce less rubbish comes from paying for the cost of collection (if it is free, as it is in the UK, it doesn't matter), the privately run rubbish collectors are incentivised to keep the cost down and collect frequently - making the local environment more pleasant. If landfill space is scarce, then let the private sector find more and charge for using it.

.

2. Run recycling commercially. Recycling is not good per se - it depends on whether it is more economic to recycle than to source materials as new. Remember paper is a renewable resource, and glass comes from sand - hardly that scarce! For both it is whether it is cheaper to pick it up, transport it and refine it from paper and glass to fresh materials, than to source it directly. Metals are the same, it may or may not be cheaper to recycle aluminium, tin and steel, depending on the price. If it costs more to pick up, store and reuse, then it doesn't matter if it is rubbish. You could reuse all your clothes again and again too.

.

and don't give me arguments about externalities. The externality is that land is used for rubbish dumping - as long as it is privately owned and there is no resulting trespass of pollutants from that land onto neighbouring properties, it is not a problem. The world is not running out of resources.

To hate America is to hate mankind

Hat tip to Julian Pistorius for pointing out this Daily Telegraph article, also pointed out by Samizdata.

.

"To dislike a country as diverse as America is misanthropic: America, more than any other state, contains the full range of humanity between its coasts. What binds its people together is an ideal encoded in America's DNA. Conceived in a popular uprising against autocratic government, the United States has a natural sympathy with self-rule, personal freedom and representative government. To this day, it is guided by the Jeffersonian ideal that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affect."

.

Yes the US is inconsistent with this, but it still is light years ahead of the brutal brainless autocracies of North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cuba and China. Stereotyping the USA is like stereotyping humanity - it is as diverse - but the difference between the USA and so many other countries is that somewhere in the USA, that diversity is embraced. Remember it is Europe that has been the source of the two greatest totalitarian tyrannies of the 20th century - Marxism-Leninism and Nazism.

England mad over World cup loss

Well the English World Cup dream is well and truly over. England played pretty much like it has for the whole World Cup, in which it has always just sneaked through due to the incompetence of the other side in most cases. This time, Mickey Rooney lost his temper and got red carded, then it was extra time and finally penalty shootout. However, in the first half I went to the supermarket – it was wonderful, virtually empty. The only other people there were a tiny handful of well dressed Europeans (note British is not European, for good and bad reasons – they are different, very different). It was the right thing to do, when I got back home it was nil all still and so I did some housework while it was on. The penalty shootout was good to watch without volume on though. When England got one, I could hear cheers from several directions. When it missed, there were “ohhhhhhhhh”s , when Portugal got one there were “nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo”s and when Portugal finally won it was a painful extended series of moans.
.
At that point, it is reported that the M2 motorway was seen to be strewn with discarded England flags from cars, when drivers heard on the radio that it was over.
.
The Sunday newspapers reported it as national tragedy – the Express headline being “End of the World”. The madness continued with the England team flying back home yesterday (you’d think men who were dedicated to the game would want to hang around to watch the semi finals and finals, but no they go home to sulk like babies) and both BBC News 24, Sky News and Sky Sports News channels interrupting regular broadcasts for continuous coverage of their BA plane sitting at the airport waiting for them – then they arrive – plane takes off. Then after an hour or so, plane lands at Stansted, plane sits on tarmac for ages, some of them get out, into cars and drive off. I switched channels and came back later to see news, and the plane was in Manchester!
.
How fucking boring!! Seriously! Does anyone really give a flying fuck if you watch their plane – you know a BA Airbus A320 they chartered, like dozens that fly every day – and watch them get on and off it, into cars with their WAGS (wives and girlfriends). On 3 channels? With running commentary about what is going on and what is going to happen, repeated again and again.
.
The real World Cup news was Brazil being defeated by France, and it was beautiful. The football superpower and several times champion, showed that it couldn’t hack it – it has played Croatia, Australia, Japan and Ghana, and only against Ghana and Japan did it really show what it had. So England will get over it, Brazil will be crying for the rest of the year. This is because Brazil has nothing else that it has pride for internationally. It is known for crime and environmental degradation, football is symbolically the only known path of social mobility for young men. Maybe Brazil will figure out that it needs a better totem to worship?

.

Meanwhile, roll on the semi-finals, and may Germany defeat Italy.