Using Koran as target practice

This widely reported story raises some simple points:
.
1. It's a book, those who get upset about it happily ban and burn books themselves.
2. Notwithstanding that, it was not a clever thing to do in a predominantly Muslim country.
3. However, it's telling how upset so many Muslims get about this, but don't get agitated about honour killings, rape victims being executed, sentencing teenagers to death for having consensual sex, or death for adultery. Yes, the priorities of far too many Muslims are - book first, lives second (sorry I mean female lives third).
.
Oh and if anyone wonders how i'd feel if a copy of The Fountainhead was used as target practice? Well if it was by a US soldier, I'd say he was an idiot, but it's his right to free speech. If it was the Bible I wouldn't care less, but I suspect many in the US would be calling for his head.
.
You see as much as I know how it isn't clever to deliberately insult others for the hell of it, it is more important to realise that nobody has a right to not be offended. I find all the points I listed in "3" above to be infinitely more important than any single book - I'd like to hear from Muslims who agree.

Scoring ACT's 20 point plan

Act's come up with its own version of Labour's pledge card and seems to be showing a bit more backbone than it ever has before. Of course perhaps it was a political miscalculation to have 20 points, as nobody will remember most of them. Far easier to have 3 or 5 at the most as the key messages, but we'll see if this fires up enough of the public to give ACT a go. Rodney Hide's speech on Sunday where he announces the 20 point plan has some juicy tidbits that are hard to disagree with:

"Who would you trust to manage New Zealand's $175 billion economy in a crisis?

Michael Cullen - who's squandered the best global conditions of a generation to make us poorer than Greece?

Bill English - who did nothing much the last time he was Minister of Finance, and is proudly promising to do nothing much again?

Or Sir Roger Douglas - the Finance Minister who transformed New Zealand from the East Germany of the South Pacific into one of the freest and most respected economies in the world?"

Quite.

So what are these 20 points? Are they substantial, or are they waffle and would they make a positive difference? Here's my verdict one by one (this will take some time). I'm judging ACT on clarity of policy and contribution to economic or personal liberty. To make it slightly more interesting I'm giving up to 5 points for being bold:

1. Government waste. Cut state spending to Australian levels: I presume this means as a proportion of GDP, but isn't entirely clear. This is clearly positive, modestly ambitious, but only worthy of 2 points, after all Australia is far from free from government waste.
.
2. Cut and flatten tax rates: Well yes, but what does this mean? This could be anything from getting rid of the 39% top tax rate to promoting a single flat tax rate. Last election ACT promoted a two tier rate of income tax, in 1999 and 1996 it advocated flat taxes. Make your mind up. Lack of clarity shows lack of commitment to what this means. National may cut tax rates and you flattening is a point further, so only 2 points here. If ACT comes out with a single low income tax rate then it would deserve 4 points.
.
3. Limit local government to core activities: Again, lack of clarity. What does this mean? Does it include owning water, rubbish collection services and running roads? Does it include subsidised housing? In principle, it is good, but again lacking clarity means what am I to judge? I'm giving ACT 1 point for this, it could be 3 if it was specific to what are often referred to as "public goods".
.
4. Reform the public service: This is described as cutting Parliament to 100 (fine but symbolic really), close departments "we don't need" (like?) and limit Cabinet to 12 members (again symbolic). The first and last proposals do little, and closing departments without naming them is rather odd. I'll give ACT 2 points for this if only because it has promise, but little more.

5. Red tape: Back into the vagueness brigade. Saying things like "Get rid of all nutty regulations" without one example is fuel to fire Labour. The Regulatory Responsibility Bill would be a small step forward, but there already are Regulatory Impact Statements prepared, albeit often ignored and with poor analysis. Only 1 point with this, as it sounds like little more than rhetoric.

6. Reform the Resource Management Act: Again nothing in terms of substance. If I'm optimistic it might mean including private property rights, but Rodney says nothing else useful about it. I'll give him 1 point for reform, but it's woefully inadequate to not say more. He gets four if he RMA makes private property rights paramount (three if dominant).

7. Create a competitive market in education: At last something more substantial, education vouchers. Now this would make a positive difference. The need to tackle education is critical, and this will break the centralised bureaucracy and the unions, I'm giving it 3 points for being a worthwhile step forward.

8. Same in healthcare: Well I'm not sure ACT means health vouchers or being able to buy health insurance with a tax rebate, for that it loses a point for being unclear. However, having competitive delivery and choice in healthcare would be be worthy. 2 points for that assuming it does really mean choice.

9. We'd reintroduce competition to accident compensation: This isn't that vague, although remember competition was only for employer accounts, not motor vehicle cover or personal cover. If it is just employer accounts then it is only 1 point, the Nats are already going to do that. Add motor vehicle and it gets another, and personal accounts adds another two. So more clarity needed there.

10. Welfare. We'd create competitive markets for sickness, invalid and unemployment insurance: Now this appears bold. Presumably this insurance would be compulsory (which knocks a point off), and doesn't mention the DPB (which is rather critical too). However, having people buy insurance rather than pay taxes for welfare is a bold step forward indeed. ACT gets 4 points for this, as it has the potential to be a quantum leap forward in how the public treats welfare and insuring against misfortune, I'll assume not mentioning the DPB is an oversight, as not including that would knock a point off, because it is too important to ignore.

11. Immigration: Uh oh vagueness returns with talk of "welcoming more high quality migrants". There is literally nothing to hang an opinion on here, so I give it 1 point to be kind assuming something positive might be done.

12. Labour reform: Rodney says this means "Allow freedom of contract to make it easier to trial new workers and replace poor performers". Nothing to argue with there, assuming this is further than the former Employment Contract Act then it deserves 4 points.

13. Privatisation: Rodney says "Sell state businesses where private firms can serve customers better". Now limiting it to businesses (not hospitals, schools and roads) easily knocks a couple of points off, but also limiting it to selling AND the condition that "private firms can serve customers better" seems a little odd. It gets 2 points for being less bold than it should be, and because the next policy wouldn't be necessary if it was more bold.

14. Infrastructure: Rodney says "We need to build better networks, like roads, water and electricity", well you could sell electricity and water with little effort, and roads with a bit more. He then says "replace user charges with tolls that reward off-peak use". This means roads of course. Electricity and water can do this easily, now. Roads you could allow this by following the commercialisation/privatisation model you talked about before. It gets 1 point for noting the economic point, but no more for failing to note how this best can be done.

15. Cut the remaining tariffs on imports: Excellent, clear policy, cut appears to mean abolish. 5 points for this, all of New Zealand being a free trade zone is clearly bold.

16. Free up more land for housing: I'd like to know what this means. It could mean getting rid of urban growth limits, it could mean the government selling land. It could mean changing property rights. I don't know, how can I give it a single point, unless it is a combination of all of the above, and four points if private property rights were paramount (I can hope).

17. Strengthen law and order policies: A perennial favourite. This time it means private prisons (a point for that), private sector helping the Police (a point there too, as long as civil liberties are respected), then speed up the courts (Night Court time apparently) and zero tolerance of minor offences all seem rather positive. Of course no talk of reviewing victimless crimes or the war on drugs. I'll give ACT 2 points for this because although it is positive, the truth is it isn't that particularly bold. A bit more commitment to zero tolerance might squeeze a third point out of this policy.

18. Climate change: Now this is very unclear. It appears ACT supports a carbon tax by Rodney saying "A low carbon tax would be a lot more affordable than carbon trading". Then he talks about the US, Australia and British Columbia doing this better, though they all have different policies. There is definitely a minus three from this one. This policy wont add anything positive to the status quo.

19. Strengthen our constitutional framework: This means a Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (a point of that), return to the Privy Council (maybe a point for that at best), and a referendum on MMP (no points for that Rodney, it's neutral). Nothing on private property rights, nothing on getting rid of the Maori seats, nothing about treating the Treaty of Waitangi as historically important but no more. 1 point for the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. I wont double count the Regulatory Responsibility Bill.

20. Appoint mentors to families at risk: Hmmm one point for this. How about denying convicted criminals welfare? How about withdrawing custody from those convicted of violent or sexual offences? How about dealing to the DPB?

OK, so what does ACT get. It could get 100 for being radically bold and innovative towards pushing freedom and personal responsibility. If it gets 50 I'll say it will have taken the chance to be a major difference from National and staked a claim for reform ala the 80s, early 90s. So now I'll count. 33 points at worst, and if the vagueness I identified came out as positive as is likely it would be 47. Of course to get 47 would mean advocating a single low flat tax, reforming the RMA meaning private property rights were paramount and local government reform made a serious difference.

So I give ACT a D, but showing promise. If it dumps talking about a carbon tax as being positive, advocates flat tax, advocates private property rights, spells out what local government should do explicitly and is bolder on privatisation (such as giving away shares and going beyond the SOEs) it could get a pass. Its brightest points appear to be on welfare and trade, shifting welfare to an insurance model and abolishing tariffs are two rather bold innovative steps. I hope the vagueness is clarified, and a bit more boldness can be squeezed out.
.
Of course the Nats should hold their heads in shame. Five of these policies were once Nat policies, now they are not.
.
On the other side, Libertarianz have nothing to be concerned about. There is plenty of room for practicable pro freedom policies on all of these areas, and I'll be blogging on what these could be tomorrow. Frankly if it was 1987 or 1991, I'd expect almost all of the ACT policies to be mainstream with either Labour or National - oh how times have changed.
.
UPDATE: Lindsay Mitchell describes it as "what real commitment looks like", even though it doesn't explicitly even mention the DPB, which is a passion of hers (and rightfully so).
.
Clint Heine provides a handy link to the pledge card (PDF) and is enthusiastic as well saying "The pledgecard is a briliant piece of work, and something EVERYBODY of any political persuasion should look at and debate. I personally think this IS the agenda the right in NZ should be following and I challenge National/United and any other centre right party to come up with anything that will be as successful as this is." Yes , centre right is the term. I could see most of this being National policy on a good day, but I can do better, and it isn't even going as far as Libertarianz.

Time to purge Immigration service

The NZ Immigration Service is damnably corrupt, Idiot Savant calls a government department "Rotten to the core" and he's right. The escapades of the Immigration Department and its lying ex. CEO Mary Anne Thompson have been news for some weeks now, and it is absolutely scandalous that the Minister isn't calling for the whole place to be purged and restructured.
.
Clearly the Pacific Division has been dominated by a nepotistic culture that sounds remarkably like the kind of public service culture all too apparent in Pacific Island nations where "who you know" is terribly important. 19 cases of theft, bribery and fraud over three years. It has clearly operated like a third world bureaucracy.
.
For once I agree with Idiot Savant "Led by a self-serving fraud, agreeing to lie in unison to prevent proper public oversight, and now taking bribes and kickbacks for favours. And they want even more power to abuse? Screw that - they can't possibly be trusted. The whole department needs a full, independent review to cut out the rot - and once that is done, it needs to be watched like a hawk to make sure it never reappears."

Of course it could help if a qualified open door policy was allowed on immigration, which means allowing anyone in on condition that they are not eligible for taxpayer funded education, housing, healthcare and welfare, not convicted of a criminal (violent, property, fraud) offence, not linked to a terrorist group and have the means to look after themselves for three months (and the means to leave). That would mean confronting the xenophobia of both NZ First and the Maori Party, and the socialist beliefs of those who support the welfare state, but it would help avoid bribes to be allowed in, and only let in those who wont be a claim on the state, or risk committing crimes against the rest of us.

Bailey Kurariki enjoying home detention

The Sunday Herald reports how Bailey, the country's youngest convicted killer, has been enduring much punishment:

.

"Since being released a fortnight ago the 19-year-old baby-faced killer has had KFC, Burger King and pizza delivered most nights to the secret Auckland address where he's staying. At his birthday party on the day he was released, he was presented with gifts including a $180 pair of shoes, a stereo and a PlayStation console."

.

Meanwhile, Michael Choy's mother gets nothing, and Michael Choy remains dead.

"Kurariki's mother Lorraine West told the Herald on Sunday her son was now making up for "all that stuff he hasn't tasted for ages". He was learning how to text because until now he had never owned a cellphone."

Meanwhile, Michael Choy's mother gets to endure seeing in the media her son's killer "making up" for what he lost, and Michael Choy can't make up for it. Maybe if Bailey worked the rest of his life earning enough to live on and then paying the surplus to Michael Choy's mother - Rita Croskery - he might get sympathy. No, he's the latest celebrity crim. Watch out for his Myspace, Bebo and Facebook sites, cool eh?

Sunday Herald advocates intervention in Burma

Its editorial states "World leaders have condemned the junta's response. President Bush called the regime "isolated or callous", and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon registered his "deep concern and immense frustration". But the time for words is past. "

.

It says the US should take the lead "It should lead a multinational force which intervenes, by force if necessary, and delivers desperately needed aid. It would be a fitting last gesture for President Bush and one which, unlike his invasion of Iraq, the whole world would support and applaud."

Well the whole world wouldn't, there would be many wringing their hands about state sovereignty, but yes. I've been arguing for intervention the last week or so.

Meanwhile Time reports the referendum held on the constitution last Sunday had 99% turnout with a 92% yes vote - and I am waving at the little piggie up in the clouds. CNN reports on continued delays in getting French aid into the country. Contrast this with the heroic efforts in China to respond to its earthquake.

Nats want to revisit MMP

So says the Sunday Star Times. Actually the Sunday Star Times (which has tended to be friendly towards Labour) said "MMP Future in Doubt undr National", implying the Nats would abolish it, rather than hold a referendum. Bit of spin there that Labour will be happy about.

.

Well frankly I don't care much either way. Why? Because I can't get very excited about the different ways you can count heads, rather than what's in them. I opposed MMP for the same reason, and because most of its advocates were Alliance retards, xenophobic Winston groupies or academics. The fact the NZ media didn't for a moment ever probe how organised leftwing support was for MMP is a damning indictment on how uncritical it was in the early 1990s. The truth is the switch to MMP was a reaction to the reforms of the times, a referendum on politicians which ended up putting more in Parliament!

.

What's crazy is that talking about abolishing MMP hands Winston Peter another "conspiracy of those rich bastards" story to wind up the talkback listening economically illiterate xenophobic mediocrity mob.

.

Of course if the Nats want to make a serious difference with electoral reform they could just abolish the Maori seats - but that would require having courage of your convictions, but there is neither courage nor convictions with the Nats nowadays. Abolishing the Maori seats would improve proportionality, and better match constituencies to constituents, but it wont happen. The Nats aren't prepared to answer the inevitable gutter comments from the left of "racism".

.

Another worthwhile option would be having runoffs or preferences for constituency seats. This means that any seats without 50% of the vote to a single candidate would see the top two have a runoff. Clearly if MMP remains, this could be bolted on and make little difference, except for parties below the 5% threshold relying on a single constituency (4 do at the moment).

.

Meanwhile, the polls are showing the Nats may get a whopping majority. Of course this wont quite happen. The polls underestimate the support Labour has from those who don't answer polls as often as angry middle class voters - low income Maori and Pacific Island voters - the people Labour likes to frighten. Don't forget how National's win on election night 2005 was eroded away when the large south Auckland constituencies came through.

.

It's worth noting some of the poll findings though. Clearly voters on the left have started to be a bit clever, with the Greens at 6%. Leftwing voters may have got the idea that if Labour is bound to lose, they may as well cast a vote for a party that reflects their beliefs. This could be the Green's best election in a while.

.

By contrast ACT has inspired no one with only 1%. You'd think ACT could also take advantage of the same trend in reverse, as the Nats are guaranteed victory a vote for ACT could better reflect values of smaller government and reform. It isn't working yet.

.

The more telling result is that the vast majority of voters want tax cuts, income, GST and fuel. Now setting aside the arguments about GST and fuel (which I think deserve greater scrutiny and I do not support as such), it shows a strong majority in favour of government taking LESS money from everyone. Those on the left who think the opposite may pause to think, whereas National and ACT might just wonder why they can't simply reflect, in one way or another, what people want?

Don't forget Zimbabwe, has Africa?

While the Presidential election run off is to happen on 27 June in Zimbabwe, the disasters in Burma and China have diverted global attention from the utter brutality Mugabe's Zanu-PF thugs have been inflicting upon opposition supporters. Morgan Tsvangirai says he will return to Zimbabwe for the campaign, but he is risking his life doing so.

.

The Voice of America reports Amnesty International's concern about Zimbabwe "the beatings, abductions, arson and killings in Zimbabwe have reached crisis levels. It says at least 22 deaths and more than 900 assaults have been recorded."

.

Harrowing images are emerging of the vile brutality the savage scum of Zanu PF are applying to Zimbabweans. The Daily Mail reports the story of Memory:

.

"Robert Mugabe's paid assassins came hunting for 22-year-old Memory, a married mother-of-two. They burst into her home, seized her and her children, and took them to their temporary headquarters in the local village school. ...She told me how on arrival at the school (which she had attended as a child), she had been ordered to sit in the playground with a group of supporters of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) - the opposition party led by Morgan Tsvangirai. On the dot of 8am, the beatings started. Groups of eight people at a time were ordered out for treatment at the hands of a band of around 200 members of Robert Mugabe's militia, each wearing Zanu-PF T-shirts and green, red and yellow bandanas signifying the national flag. Many of them were high on drink or drugs. She watched as four of her close friends were beaten and kicked to death. A fifth friend later died, and others remain unaccounted for. "

.

If you can stomach it, the images of the state of her body after being beaten are here on the This is Zimbabwe blog. No one with any sense of justice can fail to be sickened by this, sickened by the vileness of Mugabe and his thieving murdering cadres. The US Ambassador to Zimbabwe reported on the BBC's Newsnight programme tonight reports of a woman in her 80s who was hit with an axe, because her grandsons were activists for the Movement for Democratic Change.

.

Meanwhile, Mugabe still has his friends, such as Mohau Pheko who doesn't believe Mugabe is to blame, but then she's one of the great and influential in South Africa being one of the ANC kleptocracy . She's on a board of an organisation called People Opposing Women Abuse, but I bet she wont visit Memory and apologise for providing propaganda for Mugabe - sanctimonious evil bitch. She shares the blood spilt by the savages of Zanu PF.

.

If African governments cannot collectively ensure that the Presidential runoff is free and fair, and Mugabe's thugs don't oppress the population to vote for them, then it will prove they are not fit mature members of the international community. It will show at best their impotence against great evil in their midst, at worst their complicity and appeasement while fellow Africans are murdered, tortured, starved, beaten, bullied and stolen from. The moral leadership and great hope of South Africa after apartheid will have evaporated, as President Thabo Mbeki shakes the hand and treats with respect a murdering tyrant who, if he were white, Mbeki would be demanding worldwide sanctions, and would be funding and arming his opponents.

Mugabe's reputation as an anti-colonial hero is protecting him from scrutiny, criticism and from being arrested, tried and imprisoned for his role in decimating his country and oppressing his people. The tinpot Marxists and collectivist kleptocrats who bully, bribe and connive their way to power in far too many African countries have enough in common with Mugabe to not want anyone to look in their backyards. South Africa is proving also that it is led by a tinpot Marxist who'd rather protect his mate than tell him to stop murdering the common people. Zimbabweans are being murdered and beaten, and South Africa continues to feed and support those commiting those crimes.

Obama and Clinton's pork stinking up world trade

So while the agricultural sector should be raking it in from record commodity prices, CNN reports the US Congress has voted to spend an additional US$40 billion (yes you read right, billion), with another US$30 billion to "allow farmers to idle their land" and offer so-called environmental programmes. Oh and it has been bundled into an increase in food stamps and food aid for the poor, so you can't oppose the whole bill without looking like you're mean to poor people.

.

Yes, so those that continue to farm, who benefit from record commodity prices are to get more money from US taxpayers, which of course reduces the ability of efficient farmers elsewhere in the world to compete and produce. Meanwhile, forget the need for more food, they'll pay some farmers to not produce. Imagine if you paid manufacturers to let a factory lie idle, or a bank to not loan money, or airline to not fly. Actually don't because taking taxes to pay for this pork helps do just that indirectly.

.

However, before you go "Oh not Bush again", the Bush Administration is opposing this.

.

It's the Democrats, the party more people overseas want running the USA. However, there are undoubtedly plenty of Republicans cheering this on too, if they have large rural constituencies. This Bill will help reduce the incomes of farmers in New Zealand, Australia, Africa, Latin America and Asia, it will help keep up the price of food to people worldwide by subsidising poor producers and subsidising non-production.

.

In short the US Congress has voted to screw the world over. Bush has threatened to veto it, but there are so many in Congress supporting it the votes are there to override it. You see this is about the 2008 Congressional elections, it is stinking fly infested pork of the worst kind. It doesn't just screw over American taxpayers and consumers, it screws over farmers the world over. It has been done in a way that means that agricultural subsidies can't be opposed without Democrats screaming "you're opposing food stamps for the poor too". It's filthy, unprincipled politics of the worst kind.

.

So where do the main Presidential candidates stand on this. Associated Press reports Hillary Clinton castigating John McCain because he opposes it. USA Today reports Barack Obama supports the Bill.

.

Hillary Clinton has said "I believe saying no to the farm bill is saying no to rural America", no Hillary it is saying yes to efficient farmers, consumers and taxpayers. It's not your money you thieving harpie.

.

Barack Obama has said "I applaud the Senate’s passage today of the Farm Bill, which will provide America’s hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability". No it rewards non production you vapid flake, it rewards inefficient farmers and steals from hard-working taxpayers AND consumers by taking from their taxes AND inflating food prices, and it punishes farmers in developing countries. So much for the poor.

.

John McCain said "It's a bloated piece of legislation that will do more harm than good for most farmers and consumers". Quite.

.

So leftwing activists around the world, who claim to give a damn about farmers in developing countries, who care about the increase in global food prices. Still going to cheer on Barack Obama like sheeple? Which Presidential candidate would be better for New Zealand and world trade in agriculture? It's a no brainer.

While Burma's people suffer, the NZ government profits

Don't forget that State Owned Enterprise Kordia is working in Burma to help the military junta build a cellphone network. Trevor Loudon blogged about this a few months ago. National condemned it.

.

Yes I guess a Chinese company could have done it instead, but this is the government, trading with negligent murderous lowlife. However, because it is a contract for NZ$80,000, it's ok according to Trevor Mallard.

Obama mania needs to be looked past

Gerard Baker in The Times this morning writes about how Barack Obama is getting idol status from much of the media.

.

"Mr Obama is portrayed throughout as an immanently benevolent figure. Not human really, more a comforting presence, a light source. He is always eager to listen to all aides of an argument, always instilling confidence in the weak-willed, resolutely sticking to his high principles and tirelessly spurning the low road of electoral politics. I stopped reading after a while but I'm sure by the end he was healing the sick, comforting the dying, restoring sight to the blind and setting prisoners free. "

.

Indeed, I've long thought he was getting a free pass from journalists who should know better, who didn't look past his "change" message to ask "what into", his charisma impressing on man and woman alike in a way that no politician should ever seduce. Baker continues...

.

"Some cable TV channels prostrate themselves nightly before him. Most newspapers worship at the altar. They have already set up a neat narrative for the election between Senator Obama and John McCain in November - the Second Coming versus Old Grouchy, The Little Flower of Illinois up against the Scaremongering Axeman from Arizona."

.

This is even though John McCain has long been the acceptable face of the Republican Party to many, he took on George Bush, so a new tactic will now be taken.

.

"now that he's up against Oh! Bama! he will have to be recast in the more familiar Republican mould of villain and scaremonger-in-chief."

.

So it is time, after some of us have been saying it for months, to put Obama under the spotlight. He has far less experience than either "damn those Commies" McCain or "born to rule" Hillary. However as Baker says...

.

"He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee. If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment. "

.

He may make good television, but he may well be the most leftwing major party nominee for the Presidency since George McGovern. It's about time this was made clear.

Happy Birthday Israel but...

The 60th anniversary of Israel was always going to provoke strong responses from those who align themselves to both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Many Jews will celebrate that Israel has survived 60 years surrounded by those committed on its destruction. Palestinian Arabs condemn it as 60 years of occupation.

So this post will be controversial.

The founding of Israel was a political decision, a decision that the British governed territory known as Palestine should be divided into states based upon nationality, and implicitly by religion. It was one of the first actions by the UN. Words are important here, after all arguably everyone living in the territory of Palestine is Palestinian, although the word is only used to describe the Arabs living there. There is no other distinction for the word "Palestinian". However, equally all Arabs living in Israel can be said to be Israelis.

What is clear is how much isn't clear about the years leading up to the creation of Israel. Zionists did act, violently, against Arabs. Arabs responded in kind. Quite simply, bald nationalism drove both sides, and still does - the notion that because one belongs to a certain nationality, there is some greater entitlement to land than that of others. It divides people who wish to live side by side on the same land, and it is a division promoted by the UN from day one.

So Palestinian Arabs have wanted to destroy Israel from day one, although Fatah in recent years has recognised Israel and accepted a "two-state solution", it would be fair to say that many Palestinian Arabs want Israel eradicated. On the other side, many Israelis also sought the end of any notion of a Palestinian Arab state, some wanting the West Bank and Gaza to be part of a greater Israel. However, many also today accept that a "two state solution" is probably the only way that Palestinian Arab aspirations will be met. Having said that, Jerusalem will remain a problem, because of the different ghost intepretations that Jews, Muslims and Christians have and conflicting claims to that city for the same reason.

The right approach would have been to grant independence to all of the Palestinian territory, but for it not to be Israeli or Arab, but a secular state comprising Jews, Arabs and others. Zionists did not seek this, but then neither did many Arabs. Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism both held the same collectivist malignancy. Had Palestinian Arabs had secure private property rights they could have justifiably held onto their own land, or sold it to others including Jews. State land could also have been sold. The displacement of Palestinians, by fear or by force was wrong - but that was then.

Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN partition plan of 1948, and sought to destroy Israel from that day forward. Since then Israel has created a modern liberal western democracy, light years ahead of the authoritarian Arab regimes that surround it. However, the issue of what to do about Palestinian Arabs has been the thorn in the side of Israel ever since, and especially for the Palestinian Arabs themselves.

So on the one hand Israel has reason to celebrate, having been attacked numerous times by those willing to destroy it, it survives, flourishes, maintain an average standard of living that is the envy of its neighbours, and has a relatively high level of freedom and corrupt free government. On the other hand, the West Bank and Gaza are disaster areas. Israel's occupation of both long made sense while neighbouring states vowed to destroy it. However, the creation of settlements, and the virtual martial law endured by Palestinian Arab in those territories has antagonised, and seen much suffering. It is clear that this must be addressed.

Israel has always said it was prepared to trade land for peace. It exchanged the Sinai Peninsula territory that it held after the Six Day War for peace with Egypt. It made peace with Jordan after Jordan recognises its right to exist, and relinquished any claim of the West Bank. Peace with Syria remains elusive, partly because the totalitarian one party state in Damascus finds it convenient to be a haven for terrorists and a rallying point for Islamists (ironic for a secular socialist party). No doubt peace with Syria will involve a settlement regarding the Golan Heights in one way or another.

The rest of the Arab world wont make peace until the Palestinian Arabs do. Much has been surrendered to them in recent years as overtures to make progress were made, by granting autonomy.

Palestinians were granted a chance with the withdrawal from Gaza, a chance they squandered. Gaza could have become a focus for reconstruction, the building of infrastructure, education, a free trade zone, a place for Palestinians and those who govern them to build an enclave of success. Somewhere to say to Israel - "Look we can look after ourselves peacefully, now let us have the West Bank too".

No.

Palestinians voted for Hamas, Hamas chose to use Gaza to launch attacks on Israel proper. Palestinian Arab's chose politicians who are vowed to destroy Israel. Who is surprised that Israel wont concede anything to these people?

Meanwhile Israel is a prosperous country with Western standards of living and a modern technology driven economy. It benefits enormously from US taxpayers, but is, if Arabs paused for a moment, an example of freedom, prosperity and tolerance in that region. The weeping sore of the Palestinian Arabs needs to be healed before Israel can live in peace, but as long as they follow Islamists or socialists, they will remain impoverished. The incompetence of their leaders will be hidden by blaming Israel for their woes, whilst their leaders continue to gain the benefit of subsidies from their oil rich Arab neighbours.

Israel still lives in an environment where many of its near neighbours don't believe it should exist, and almost the whole Islamic world follows this from Sudan to Indonesia. It has Iran, breaching IAEA rules and wishing its annihilation. Perhaps the only UN member state where other members explicitly call for its eradication. It deserves congratulations for surviving against wars that tried to destroy it, and neighbours that wanted it replaced with a Marxist or Islamic dictatorship. In that process of fighting for survival, it has accidentally killed many, and nobody can pretend Israel has not made many mistakes in how Palestinian Arabs were dealt with (indeed until 15 years ago mainstream Israeli politicians were still advancing a greater Israel). However, despite these mistakes Israeli citizens can be proud of the state they have defended, while they have been fighting they have built a livable modern society - when given the chance, Palestinian Arabs have so far failed. Israel is never going to go away, it's about time all its neighbours recognised this.

Oh and by the way, Israel knocked out Saddam's first nuclear reactor, supplier by the ever peace loving morally uplifting French in the 1980s, and last year knocked out Syria's. Nobody else had the courage to do either of those actions, and the world is undoubtedly a better place since Israel prevented Saddam and Assad junior from obtaining nuclear weapons. Something I doubt anyone in the so-called peace movement has ever cheered, because after all none of them really care about peace.

Endorsement of Edwards boosts Obama

After Hillary's winning of West Virginia, John Edwards's endorsement of Barack Obama should be decisive in confirming Obama's candidacy for the Democratic Party.

.

John Edwards was an earlier candidate in the Democratic Primary race, but pulled out on 30 January. He had won 19 delegates in the early primaries in January and was considered very much the third place runner. He was Vice Presidential running mate for John Kerry in 2004.

.

If Obama can shore up those who support Edwards, who is from South Carolina, he may have every reason to weaken Clinton's professed claim on the "white working class". A claim that is implicitly racist (white working class voters wont vote for a black man).

.

Hillary wont back down though will she? It will drag on, and I am far from unhappy about the contest between two statist believers in big pork-barrel government continuing.

Manchester endures rioting Glaswegians

100,000 Glasgow Rangers fans arrived in Manchester today, where the UEFA cup final was being held, with Rangers playing Zenit St Petersburg. You might think, yes sensible for a sports fan to travel to the city where a key game is being held.

.

Ah, they went to watch the game. Well yes, but on big screen TVs. You seen maybe a fifth of the fans have tickets to the match, the rest came to get bladdered and watch the game on big screens in town. Yes, they travelled to watch the game on TV! (yes they could've done it at home or at the pub since it was on ITV(free to air)).

.

Uh oh.

.

The city is packed with drunken Scots, it got so bad the city's tramway had to be shut down because it couldn't get the fans out of the way of the trams, despite the whistle and horns that blast very loud. Thousands of Mancunians couldn't get home from work as a result.

.

The Manchester City Council, believing the event was making a fortune for the city, set up three locations with huge TV screens so fans from Glasgow and Russia could watch the match and party. Then one of the screens fails five minutes into the match. What do the fans do? Throw bottles and cans at the screen (because that will help). Then, the BBC reports "there's Rangers fans throwing balls and cans at each other because the game's not on."(sic)

See Glaswegian soccer fans don't need supporters of other teams to fight, they just fight each other when they're pissed off!

Zenit beat Rangers 2-0, and a Zenit fan was stabbed as the congratulatory gift from a Ranger's fan. The Manchester Evening News website reports only eight arrests, and Greater Manchester Police consider it a success. Frankly, besides the angry crowd around the failed screen, it was!

Qantas stuffs up A380 cabin release

When Singapore Airlines highlighted the new cabins as the first airline flying the Airbus A380 "whalejet" it got accolades. From the Suites providing proper beds in cabins with sliding doors, being undoubtedly the best first class in the air, its fully lie flat wide business class seats (as wide as the pitch between typical economy class seats), and its slightly wider economy class seats with bigger entertainment screens. Singapore Airlines has something to show off and rightfully so.

.

Emirates is the second airlines to fly the A380, but has not released interior photos. Qantas will be the third, but has.

.

It's so underwhelming, some commentators think the airline has screwed up. I'd have to agree. Here are the publicly available photos. The first class looks no better than Air NZ's Business Premier but reversed the other way, the business class looks like current Qantas business class but the seat cushioning looks dishevelled and uninspiring. Economy class, yawn. Now it might be better if professional photographers and the PR wonks tart it all up (as they should've, not just let some journo take some pics), but look for yourself. Would you choose Singapore Airlines or Qantas? I don't think there is any contest... Singapore remains supreme.

Abandon the railways or just the facts?

The former editor of NZ Trucking Magazine Jon Addison has written in the NZ Herald proposing that the rail network be ripped up and the corridors used to build dedicated trucking roads. I don't agree, I think the cost of that is prohibitive in itself and much of the rail network is too narrow to make that worthwhile (don't forget most railway lines are single track, which means one way roads!). I also think that some railway lines are economically viable (2 hourly freight trains on the main trunk line isn't a bad use of that corridor).

.

However, he has made some very good points that those who worship rail as a religion, than simply a technology, often ignore:

.

"New Zealand's rail network is constrained by more than its ageing bridges and locomotives. Its 3ft 6in (1067mm) narrow gauge tracks limit the speeds at which trains can operate and its 150 tunnels are too small to accommodate double-stacked containers, which have boosted rail efficiency overseas."

.

"Taking the last of these first, the introduction of Euro 5 emissions standards in Europe this October and inevitably eventually in New Zealand will mean that in some urban environments the truck exhaust will be cleaner than the air entering its engine. Truck noise levels have also reduced significantly.

.
While the fuel used by an efficient train will be less than that used by trucks carrying the same weight, this ignores the fact that freight is invariably carted by trucks at one end of the train trip and often at both ends. And at the transition, fuel is used by forklifts or container cranes and increasingly used to maintain the temperature of freight while its waiting to be moved.

.

As far as driver efficiency is concerned, change is on the way. Most of the major automotive manufacturers are working towards driverless vehicles and some are predicting that they are less then 20 years away. All of the technology exists now, and some of it is already appearing in production vehicles.

.

Interesting stuff indeed. He concludes by suggesting that maybe converting the rail network to roads wouldn't add up, but it is worth investigating. Perhaps so. I am more convinced it could be worthwhile using the rail corridors in cities for roads, but in Wellington and Auckland too much money has been poured into passenger rail for this to be worth considering for now.

.

Meanwhile, Keith Ng in the NZ Herald has a column called "Just the Facts" where this week he challenges Richard Prebble's assertion that "it was a myth to say rail was environmentally friendly if the production of rail, locomotives and the need for trucks to take goods to destination were counted". He claims an EECA study is the most authoritative, because it claims the energy intensity of road vs rail is a factor of around 5 to 1. What he doesn't say is the basis for this comparison, because the factors vary wildly. For example, a truckload of freight from Wellington to Petone by rail will burn a lot more fuel per tonne km, than a trainload consigned from Wellington to Auckland.
.

but then he goes to Chris Kissling of Lincoln University. Yes, the same one I fisked a month ago for advocating bullet trains in NZ, "smart clothes" that automatically open doors and "steer people around hazardous places" and that the future of flying is that passengers will be drugged and stacked horizontally on beds! Kissling presumably supplies him with a European study about environmental costs, which makes rail look good, failing to point out to Keith the most recent comprehensive New Zealand study directing comparing rail and road freight environment costs -
.
I've quoted it before, the Ministry of Transport's Surface Transport Costs and Charges study.

It contradicts what Chris Kissling and Keith Ng says, showing that Keith isn't showing "just the facts", since he ignored one of the most authoritative studies. What did it say? Well it compared the environmental impacts of freight between Wellington and Auckland, Napier and Gisborne and Kinleith and Tauranga. The comparison is as follows:

.

Environmental costs per net tonne km in NZ$

Wellington-Auckland rail NZ$0.008, road NZ$0.006

Napier-Gisborne rail NZ$0.002, road NZ$0.002

Kinleith-Tauranga rail NZ$0.001, road NZ$0.004

.

So in other words, on average it is more environmentally friendly to send freight by road between Wellington and Auckland than by rail, but the opposite between Kinleith and Tauranga. In which case, Richard Prebble is pretty much right.

How to help stop the outflow to Australia

Not PC has said much of what I want to say about the first Rudd government Budget in Australia.

.

Difficult to argue with tax cuts that are matched by spending cuts and a budget surplus. This is the sort of language that the National Party can't understand, and this is a Labour government using it. Just shows how far to the left mainstream politics in New Zealand has been dragged by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, and how meekly John Key and Bill English have followed them there. The fact the Australian Greens are moaning that defence spending is 40x that on climate change shows the budget is still sensible.

.

Of course a fortune of middle class welfare and industrial pork is being spent too, as Australia squanders the good times, and the spending cuts are relatively modest, but nevertheless there is a lesson for National. How DO you close the gap in GDP per capita between Australia and NZ and how do you encourage NZers to stay?

.

Australia has a A$16,000 tax free income threshold. Adopting the Libertarianz (and now ACT) policy of a NZ$10,000 tax free threshold would be a start. However, what else does the Australian income tax regime show?

.

I used the Australian tax office and NZ IRD tax calculators to find out, using the 2007-08 year as my base.

.

A present it is as follows:

.

A person on A$180,000 (NZ$221,000) pay A$61,350 (NZ$75,258) in tax. In NZ the same amount (NZ$221,000) would see income tax of NZ$77,412. In other words you pay NZ$1,884 a year more in income tax in NZ compared with Australia.

.

The second tax rate is 40%, it cuts in at a threshold of A$80,001 (NZ$98,147) from this year.

A person on A$80,001 would pay A$19,850 (NZ$24,352). In New Zealand someone on NZ$98,147 would pay NZ$29,547 in income tax. You pay NZ$5,195 more in income tax in New Zealand compared to Australia.

.

If you earn A$40,000 (NZ$49,058), in Australia you pay A$7,350 (NZ$9,015). In NZ you pay NZ$11,059 in income tax. That's NZ$2,014 more than in Australia.

.

For A$20,000 (NZ$24,532) in Australia you pay A$2,100 (NZ$2,576). In NZ you pay NZ$4,784, NZ$2,208 more than in Australia.

.

You get the picture. That's BEFORE the current budget. That budget cuts the second highest tax rate from 40% to 37% in stages by 2010, and the raises the threshold for the 15% rate. Dr Cullen cannot even start to pretend that income tax in New Zealand is competitive with Australia. The left can go on about wages, but if wages increase in New Zealand so do the taxes - you are better off - dollar for dollar - earning the same wage in Australia compared to New Zealand.

.

So how DO the rates compare.

In Australia the first A$6000 is tax free, New Zealand has no tax free threshold.

After A$6000, Australians pay 15% until you get to A$34,000.

In New Zealand you pay 19.5% on every dollar up to NZ$38,000.

After A$34,000, Australians pay 30% until you get to A$80,000.

In New Zealand you pay 33% for every dollar after NZ$38,000 until you get to NZ$60,000.

After A$80,000, Australians pay 40% until you get to A$180,000, after which you pay 45%.

In New Zealand you pay 39% for every dollar after NZ$60,000.

Of course, the tax free threshold does mean that you have to earn more than A$180,000 before you pay more than you do in New Zealand. So you might wonder why tax policy in New Zealand is to penalise around 99% of the population, relative to Australia.

.

So while political parties wonder what might help stop the brain drain, they may look plainly at tax rates.

UPDATE: And the Dominion Post reports that someone on NZ$30,000 would pay 37% less in tax living in Australia compared to New Zealand following the Australian LABOUR budget. How wilfully blind can the left be that tax isn't an issue? It was also noted that with that budget, Australians have had ten years of continuous tax cuts, whereas New Zealand has had eight years of no tax cuts and one year previous of a tax increase. Nevermind, New Zealanders really don't know best how to spend their own money compared to Dr Cullen do they? That, after all, is what Labour and the Greens believe, do you?

Rapist has a right to housing in the UK

The Daily Telegraph tells the tale of Michael Clark. He is a charming fellow, he's a welfare beneficiary. Until recently, his criminal portfolio included the following:

.

- Three years for sexual assault of a woman:

- Seven years for raping a woman in her own home;

- Three years for sexually assaulting another woman;

- Conviction for assault;

- Two convinctions for assaulting police officers including biting the testicles of one.

.

After completing his sentence for the sexual assault he moved to Leeds. Like the useless man he is, he went to the local council wanting to be housed. The council refused. He hadn't been a resident before, besides his criminal record hardly made him a priority. However, the charity "Shelter", who he apparently approached, told the council that it couldn't refuse him as it could face judicial review for - wait for it - infringing upon his human rights.

.

You see, in the UK, a convicted rapist has the right to force the rest of us to provide him with housing. Whilst others struggle facing mortgage foreclosures, and paying rent, they are forced to pay council tax so criminals can have somewhere to live. That's the caring loving embrace of socialism, embracing the criminal whilst a clasped fist is ready to threaten you if you don't pay FOR him.

.

So the council found him privately provided accommodation and he went on a benefit. Parasite is the correct word. He became friends with a family two houses down from him. Although he was on the Sex Offenders' Register, they had no idea who he was. His sentence included no post release supervision or probation, so he was free. So one day, he entered the family's home, inside was Zusanna, 14, who he sexually assaulted, then he stabbed her, stomped on her head and slit her throat. After doing that he went to the Post Office to get his benefit and took a trip to Blackpool.

.

He is now doing thirty five years for her murder and sexual assault.

.

So who is responsible for this monster being funded and housed to commit crimes, again and again?

.

Well the Police claim that "regular checks" were being made on him and he was being "managed in the community". Clearly. It would be easy to blame the judiciary for not sentencing him to preventive detention with him already having a string of violent offences including those of a sexual nature. After all, how many times should someone be allowed to ruin people's lives before they should be locked away for good.

.

Leeds City Council claims it was not concerned about his rights, but mentioned that Shelter warned of judicial review if it continued to refuse to house him. So the council capitulated. Of course it should have refused, but if its legal advice was that it is futile then it had to find a place for him. Placing him close to a family could be seen as negligent, although where DO you put a convicted rapist?

.

Shelter denies asking or threatening a judicial review, although it did say "Questions need to be asked as to why this young girl and her family were housed next to a known sex offender" as it appears they moved in after Michael Clark had been housed. Why should they be the ones who are inconvenienced because of a piece of pond scum? I'd prefer if Shelter actually used its OWN money to pay for him to live somewhere if they give a damn.

.

So who is to blame? Well it is political. Politicians pass the legislation for sentencing. 35 years for murder of a young girl is a nonsense. The man should have life, the man should have had tougher sentences for being a repeat violent offender, and he should have been monitored given he was already determined to be too dangerous to release back into his home town! However, there aren't enough prisons (politicians decided that one).

.

Secondly, politicians granted everyone, including convicted violent criminals, the "right" to housing. What this means is that everyone else is forced to pay for those who aren't able and/or willing to work to make enough to pay for somewhere to live. It's not a right at all of course, because if everyone claimed it - it could never be delivered. It only "works" because the majority of people can pay for their own housing and their incomes can be pilfered to pay for others.

.

So what should happen? Recidivist violent dangerous criminals shouldn't be free -simple as that. They should be in prison, for life, to protect the rest of us. All those with convictions for violent offences should have no claim on the state for welfare or housing. You are worried they will starve or steal? Go give them some of your charity, go on, help them. I couldn't care less if the likes of Michael Clark were found drowned in a stream, he has no interest in living a peaceful existence leaving others alone - he is a threat, but if someone wants to save them, go for it.

.

However, in the UK, you can be a rapist, come out of prison and you can expect everyone else to pay for you to live and be housed.

.

Socialism is so fair isn't it?

Chavez calls Merkel a Nazi

According to the BBC he has now effectively called German Chancellor Angela Merkel a Nazi saying "She is from the German right.... The same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism. That's the Chancellor of Germany today."

.

so there are still people on the left who are sycophants to this lunatic? All she said was that he doesn't speak for Latin America, and unless Venezuela is some great new imperial power, she is right.

.

Another thieving leftwing autocratic maniac.

Why liberation from Saddam isn't enough..

Whilst one of the most widely understood mistakes of the invasion of Iraq was to fail to have a comprehensive, well armed strategy to control the country, impose law and order and confront the Islamist insurgency, a less well understood one is the more complicated one, the more delicate one - the need to confront the sexist violent culture than lay underneath. It is this that the Islamist insurgents are taking advantage of.

.

Take the case of Rand Abdel-Qader. She's 17 and dead. She used to live in Basra in Iraq.

.

As the NZ Herald reports, her father stamped on her, suffocated her and stabbed her to death. He remains free.

.

What did she do? She fell in love with a British soldier, who she had had merely conversations with over several months. She dared to talk to him in public, so, it appears under Iraqi culture, it was ok for her father to murder her for the "disgrace she brought".

.

The police approved of his actions. After he killed her, her corpse was thrown in a makeshift grave and her uncle spat on her before she was buried.

.

"it has been alleged by one senior unnamed official in the Basra governorate that he has received financial support from a local politician to enable him to "disappear" to Jordan for a few weeks, "until the story has been forgotten" - the usual practice in the 30-plus 'honour' killings that have been registered since January. Such treatment seems common in Basra where militias have partial control."

Her mother supported her, but is paying the price. "Rand's mother, 41, remains in hiding after divorcing her husband in the immediate aftermath of the killing, living in fear of retribution from his family. She also still bears the scars of the severe beating he inflicted on her, breaking her arm in the process, when she said she was going."

.

So you see that's what the insurgency brings to Iraq, but it is also what appears to be culturally and legally "ok" still. It is unclear if this young woman would be any better off under the secular government, but what is clear is that fundamental values of life, freedom and decency remain absent from many in Iraq. Short of full scale occupation and imposition of a constitution and individual freedom (ala post war West Germany and Japan), this cannot be achieved. The benefits of making Iraq into a liberal democracy that respects individual rights and freedom would be high, but the costs are also very high, and sadly US foreign policy has been obsessed with democracy as the answer - when democracy can often deliver the sad fact that a majority of people in a country may be sexist, racist and want the government to do violence to minorities.

.

Under the status quo there is no easy answer. Westerners could help fund and support Arab womens' groups and those fighting for individual rights in Iraq. Western governments could pressure Iraq's government to act against honour killings. However, one of the most important actions is to continue fighting the Islamist insurgents. They are the enemies of the West, but as importantly they are enemies of many ordinary Iraqis.

.

Of course, ignorant so-called peace loving anti-Americans who apparently care about women's rights will still support the insurgency. Barack Obama meantime would just sit by and let Iraq go Islamist.

.

Hat tip: Jameson's blog on Solopassion

Is it real?

OK, whilst Hillary Clinton has won, as expected, in West Virginia (country roads, take me home, to the place, I belong) large parts of which are the "hicksville" that Obama so deftly insulted. Hillary is claiming that working class white voters are what counts (and with a poll saying 35% of her supporters would vote McCain rather than Obama she might be right, although it may be exactly the same with Obama I suspect).

However, to digress look at this photo. Hillary constantly does this faux "grin of recognition and point" action when on a podium. I know it's petty, but the lying power hungry shrew does it EVERYWHERE, as if she has friends in every state and every town. Is it fake? Or is she laughing at the poor dress sense of her supporters, or their messianic banality to want this compulsive liar run their lives?

The murdering thieving scum in Rangoon

Associated Press is reporting the following:

.

"The United Nations said Tuesday that only a tiny portion of international aid needed for Myanmar's cyclone victims is making it into the country, amid reports that the military regime is hoarding good-quality foreign aid for itself and doling out rotten food."

.

"A longtime foreign resident in Yangon told the AP in Bangkok that angry government officials have complained to him about the misappropriation of the aid by the military. He said the officials told him that quantities of the high-energy biscuits rushed into Myanmar by the WFP on its first flights were sent to a military warehouse. They were exchanged by what the officials said were "tasteless and low quality" biscuits produced by the Industry Ministry to be handed out to cyclone victims, the foreign resident said."

.

There is only one answer - it is direct intervention. If government wont do it, why not let mercenaries? Oh that's right, it was banned by Labour, and supported by the Greens. No doubt because some mercenaries are questionable, but what would be better for Burma now than a private army going in and taking control of the devastated areas in the country, and pointing guns at the kleptocratic dictators to get them to pull back and let these destitute people be saved?

.

There is no legitimacy in the Burmese government, it deserves no respect - contrast it even to the communist party led dictatorship in China which DOES care for the people devastated in the recent earthquake. That's why, despite what is bad about China, it has come a very long way in recent decades and nothing compares China to Burma.

What did Peter Brown think before he went there?

According to the NZ Herald when asked about the junket to eastern Europe you paid for and the personal highlight of the trip, he said it was Auschwitz, and of it said:

.

"I didn't believe it would be so evil....."

.

What does it take Peter? Seriously. How fucking evil does genocide have to be? What did you think it was, a prison camp?

.

then to top it off, he just doesn't get it.

.

He said "it just reinforced for me the importance of democracy"

.

Why, because the Nazis got elected? You honestly think the Nazis would have lost elections in the 1930s? Would it have been ok had the Germans voted to gas the Jews (they voted for anti-semitic policies)? Pick up Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners... I doubt democracy would have saved the Jews Peter. The word is freedom, but you belong to a nationalist xenophobic party that has been propping up the Clark Labour government, you don't really understand that concept.

.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of one of those people you trust to make decisions on your retirement income, your healthcare, your kid's education and how to spend around 40% of your income. It's not his fault, he's just not very bright.

British Labour increases tax free threshold out of desperation

Following on from the fiasco of abolishing the 10% income tax rate (putting thousands of people on low incomes on a higher tax rate), the absolute gutting of Labour in the local body elections, polling for the Crewe-Nantwich by-election (a safe Labour seat) that shows a 7000 vote majority being overturned with a Conservative victory, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a "compensation package". He had to, as Labour backbench MPs were threatening to vote against the Budget legislation because of the abolition of the 10% tax rate, quite simply Brown's government was risking losing supply from its own party! The days of Labour being trusted with the economy in the UK are over, but it is two years till the next general election.

.

The package is simple. The low income tax free threshold is to be raised by £600 per annum to £6035 a year. However, the so-called "rich" get none of it, because the threshold for the 40% top tax rate is being reduced by the same proportion.

.

Of course none of this comes from cutting spending. No, another £2.7 billion of borrowing to fund this tax cut. Never mind, Labour wont be in forever, they can let those nasty Tories clean up the finances and get them blamed for cutting spending.

.

Labour under Gordon Brown is running bigger and bigger deficits and an ever more complicated tax system. How long can Labour in the UK overspend and overspend? Could it ever consider that its heavy borrowing programme contributes to the credit crisis and the level of interest rates?

Meanwhile, New Zealanders might wonder why neither major party believes in income tax free thresholds, when their family and friends in the UK can earn around NZ$15,000 and pay no income tax. Libertarianz and ACT are advocating a $10,000 tax free threshold and even the Greens advocated a $5,000 threshold at the last election.

The lesbian threesome that wasn't

Got to love "Flight of the Conchords" Jemaine Clement and Bret McKenzie. According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

.

"Scruffy New Zealander Jemaine Clement from the folk-parody group Flight Of The Conchords was approached by a girl at a party in Scotland, who invited him to a spit roast. She wanted to know if Bret McKenzie, his band mate, would also attend. Thinking she was referring to a barbecue, Jemaine said yes. Hey, they both liked meat. "She said, 'I wouldn't usually ask. I'm a lesbian,' and I thought, 'Why would that stop you asking for a barbecue?"' Soon after, Clement discovered a spit-roast was British slang for a threesome and declined, mightily embarrassed."

.
What can you say to that? They probably didn't want to see each other's meat or else she really wasn't worth it, plus it might have helped had she brought along three friends - you see THAT's the threesome famous guys want.

Party pill regulation continues

Having succeeded swimmingly in not reducing harm by banning BZP, the Dominion Post reports that the Health Ministry is now proposing a different approach to other party pills. Age restrictions, labelling requirements and licences to sell them (all stuff to make a bureaucrat wet himself). Now while I'd agree with an age restriction, labelling requirements seems over the top and having licences to sell something isn't proven to do much other than put up the price and start creating a black market - BUT my big question is this. Why hasn't BZP simply been treated the same way? Why not legalise BZP, put an age restriction on it and regulate it?

.

If ACC was abolished, then those who sell such products would face the risk of damaging lawsuits for causing personal injury by accident - in other words, just like most countries in the Western world. Whilst the ACC folly continues, the arguments for some regulation of substances remain.

.

However, my question remains - if party pills are to be controlled like alcohol, why not make extend this to BZP, and remove the ban?

Is ACT prepared to support a Labour government?

From ACT's website:

"Rodney Hide: Does the Minister feel so strongly against giving parents a choice of school, including independent schools, that he would resign as Minister of Education if that were a condition of support from MMP parties for a future Government?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I think the likelihood of Labour going into coalition with ACT is nil, especially with the addition of Roger Douglas to its party list."

.

According to this, Rodney Hide is teasing Labour into considering whether it engages in, at least, a confidence and supply agreement with ACT if it needed to do so to remain in power after the 2008 election. Tactically of course, given National's unwillingness to consider Sir Roger Douglas for Cabinet, this might make a little sense for ACT, so that there is some leverage over the Nats after the election. However, if you voted National in 2005 and now are contemplating ACT, because the Nats are a shoo in, Rodney Hide seems safe in Epsom and you want a CHANGE in government to implement more free market policies, you might hesitate if Rodney Hide actually keeps Helen Clark in power.

.

Now if you think this is unlikely, consider this. It has seemed both in 2002 and 2005 that Labour's natural partner would be the Greens, but it has avoided confidence and supply and coalition agreements with it after both elections. The Greens were hardly going to support National were they? By contrast, did the average Labour voter expect United Future to keep the government in power for two terms and NZ First for one? Is it inconceivable that a Phil Goff lead Labour Party (let's say Clark is rolled before the election, highly unlikely unless Labour's polling drops below 30%) would seek confidence and supply from ACT, if Labour did implement some modest tax cuts and uh.. did something else? (help me here). After all, it is far from inconceivable that National will partner up with the Maori Party, and the feelers have been out between the Nats and the Greens (although that does seem like hard work).

.

So what would be ACT's bottom line for a confidence and supply agreement with Labour OR National? Not the details, it's clear that would be worked through. However, I'd hope it included the following:

.

- A tax free income threshold, abolition of the 39% top tax rate and lowering of company tax;

- Education vouchers for primary and secondary education;

- Including private property rights in the RMA if not replacing it;

- End to the growth of the state sector and identification of opportunities to privatise by sale AND issuing shares directly to the public.

As Hillary has her last stand

It is worth reminding you all the eloquent words of Christopher Hitchens on Hillary Rodham Clinton. My favourite snippets are below:

"For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done."
.
"It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all (Bill) Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton...Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues.""

.

"During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat.... What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."

It's time to bury the attempted Clinton dynasty once and for all.

ACT's great chance

- Low flat tax;
- Choose private, integrated or state schools and funding follows every child;
- Have a health insurance account you choose to get the care you need;
- Choose the accident and sickness cover you want based on your risk;
- Pay for your own retirement nest egg that can be inherited without the state.

No it's not a libertarian agenda, but it should be ACT's. An agenda to reflect its name, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. An agenda that means school funding follows parents' decisions, that means what you pay for healthcare reflects your risk and waiting lists are traded for hospitals dealing with customers who expect service. Moving the no fault flat rate ACC model to one where people with low risk pay less premiums than those that are high risk, and finally making retirement a personal responsibility. Big tax cuts so people can pay for health and sickness insurance that reflects their risk, responsibility and what they want.

It would be a point of difference from National, but will it happen?

Following on from the Libertarianz annual conference in the weekend, some of the usual inter-necine mumblings between ACT and Libertarianz have reminded me of what we should all be arguing about - quite simply this election is the best opportunity in recent history to present freedom at the ballot box since the 1980s.

Why?

The 1990s National government once had a strong appetite for economic freedom, and was still privatising and deregulating even up to 1999 (ACC and Postal services being the last example), although it had virtually no appetite for personal freedom. ACT and Libertarianz both grew in 1996 and 1999 because of increased frustration at the limp wristed attitude to freedom of National After National lost in 1999, it struggled to regain power against Labour (which of course has no interest in shrinking the state). In 2002 National offered next to nothing and ACT had its best ever result.

However, the last election was difficult for both ACT and the Libertarianz. National in 2005 offered a semi-libertarian leader and a platform to cut taxes, privatise and abolish race based privilege by the state. Supporters of ACT and the Libertarianz voted National as they saw the chance, which appeared distant only a year before, that Labour could be defeated. Funnily enough having nearly won an election on principle, National has run a mile from it.

Labour is finished. National can almost sleepwalk to victory, and as it does so it has moved to the centre. National is Labour lite, and no one who wants a smaller state and more freedom can see a vote for National being good for anything other than replacing Helen Clark with John Key (maybe worthy but not much more than that).

So this is where ACT can come in.

Sir Roger Douglas in his widely reported ACT conference address advocated a positive agenda that is NOT all ACT Policy, including shifting healthcare to an insurance based model, education vouchers, make the first $20,000 tax free, drop the 39% tax rate, implicitly opening ACC fully up to private competition including personal accident and sickness insurance (replacing sickness benefit perhaps). Positive stuff. Frankly, with Sir Roger Douglas ACT has a chance to have a presence and to debate head on, ON PRINCIPLE, with Key and Clark. After all, Clark was in Cabinet with him.

ACT could advocate zero income tax like Sir Roger did in his book Unfinished Business, or flat tax like it did in the late 1990s. However, regardless of detail it can outline a vision of less government and substantial more choice for education, health (and ACC and sickness insurance which are ignored but directly related) and retirement. Kiwisaver for example could be shifted into private accounts that could replace National Superannuation in due course.

This agenda could inspire people to think "wow I could send my kids to private school without paying twice" or "i can live a healthy lifestyle and pay less for healthcare AND have my own insurance account to ensure I get cover when I need it". At one time Sir Roger Douglas believed 50% of voters would go for this, then he reduced his ambition to 30%. Surely 10% would be attracted by this prospect of serious reform of education, healthcare, ACC, the welfare state and cutting taxes. Especially with the credibility of Sir Roger Douglas on the ballot.

Whilst National limps to power, ACT could inspire those who want serious change to vote for it as a viable coalition partner, instead of the morally bankrupt Maori and NZ First Parties.

If not now, then when?

Oh and Libertarianz? Don't worry, there is still room there. I don't expect ACT to advocate privatising schools and hospitals, ending the welfare state, abolishing the RMA, reforming drug laws, abolishing laws on blasphemy and the rest. No. ACT is not the libertarian party. Libertarianz is a bigger package, a complete one to shrink the state on principle to its core functions. Personal liberty has never been much on the ACT agenda, although to be fair in the last three years ACT has been far better on this front than it ever was before.

ACT DOES have Sir Roger Douglas who has more political courage than virtually anyone in National, and it has Rodney Hide who, on a good day, can be quite inspiring. If you can't ride a wave of anti-Labour sentiment to grow, become a critical fixture for National and pull National towards some serious reform then you should give up. Don't be limp wristed, be bold, be like the Greens, be advocates for consumer choice, taxpayer rights and private enterprise. Attack the inability of state health and education monopolies to deal with people's needs, demand that government shrink and taxes shrink with it.

It is, after all, what you exist to advocate. After all, do you think a National Party Cabinet would be better or worse off with Sir Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide on it? How likely is it if nobody really knows what ACT is offering?