Here are some tips, given recent news:
1. Don't ever ever give out your full name or street address until you actually meet the person concerned. Otherwise your risk a stalker.
2. If all your communications have so far involved text or pictures then use the phone. The phone will tell you at least the sex of the person, and possibly the age. It isn't 100% reliable on sex, and maybe 50% reliable on age, but it will tell you intelligence and articulation.
3. Talk on the phone at least two or three times before meeting.
4. When you meet, make sure it is in a public place, that you can check out the person concerned before you approach her or him, and if it isn't obviously safe (cafe outdoors) tell someone you are doing this. Agree to call your friend after the meeting to say you're ok.
5. Just DON'T travel long distances to meet people unless you are willing to take the risk of profound disappointment.
6. Remember people lie. About age, wealth, intentions etc. Let's take some stereotypical examples:
- Poorer, unemployed men will lie about employment status and prospects. Their inability to communicate fluently will out them;
- Older desperate women will lie about their age. Carefully consider the language they use about culture, life and how reluctant they are to send a photo. Out them by saying age doesn't matter, and if it works then decide if you prefer to say "but honesty does";
- Very keen young women will lie about their age, in the other direction. Out them by saying age doesn't matter, then let them down gently;
- Horny men will lie about how they just want to get laid. They wont expend much effort on you if you string them along, but could be fun to tease by finding out how perverted they are;
- Almost all men want to get laid. The difference is whether they want your mind and heart as well as body;
- Horny men pretend to be women to talk to lesbians online and get their photos, and will evade giving new photos or talking on the phone. That's why the phone is useful;
- Desperate men will pretend to be interested in just about anything to get attention. Probe answers about interests and pastimes to see what there is in it;
- Desperate women will flirt and act slutty excessively, just to get attention, but men probably like that;
- Married and attached men (and women) will pretend to be single, or divorcing, or breaking up. If there are regular times you can't call (nights, weekends), odds are you're the bit on the side. Ring at that time once, unless you want to be the bit on the side.
7. The better the online photo the less likely it is to be true. Ask for a photo to be taken in a certain context, i.e. wearing clothes mentioned, or with the car.
8. If you're sceptical, use a phone or number that you can surrender (e.g. old prepaid mobile) in case the person proves to be a disaster.
9. Be strict about honesty. A person may be a bit shy about some things at the start, but if they haven't owned up to major discrepancies within a week or so, then toss them to one side.
Finally, be realistic. The internet has the whole range of people of the world on it. It will be a numbers game or a matter of being discerning, but by and large most people aren't that imaginative or creative. First above all things, to thine own self by true.
17 February 2009
An obituary I missed - Helen Suzman
If most are asked who was South Africa's greatest politican, you'll hear Nelson Mandela. After all he spent much of his life in prison and then enabled the peaceful transition of power from the racial autocracy to the one party dominated democracy. However, if not the the greatest, Helen Suzman deserves the most honourable mention. She was head and shoulders above the intellectually and morally handicapped Thabo Mbeki, and the thieving corrupt scum that make up too many ANC MPs. She was for too long, the sole voice of reason in South Africa's whites only Parliament.
New Years Day saw Helen Suzman pass away. The Economist's obituary tells so much about this remarkable woman.
It talks of her legendary bravery:
"Verwoerd, an earlier prime minister, a man she admitted she was “scared stiff” of, fared no better. “I have written you off,” he told her. “The whole world has written you off,” she retorted.
But also her principled opposition to race based laws regardless of source:
"when the African National Congress, once in power, began to impose quotas for blacks in jobs, she naturally and ferociously opposed it. In many ways black rule proved “a huge disappointment” to her: corrupt, spendthrift, anti-white, and doing little to help the millions of poor blacks whose lot she had tried to improve. Thabo Mbeki’s wilful ignorance over AIDS appalled her.
The world has lost a true principled fighter for freedom, a liberal woman in a country once dominated by bigoted conservative men, now dominated by misogynistic socialist corrupt ones.
It is telling that New Zealand's most well known activist against apartheid, John Minto, is so divorced from South Africa that he couldn't himself pen a column about the passing of this hero. South Africa owes far more to Suzman, than this petty socialist activist from NZ.
New Years Day saw Helen Suzman pass away. The Economist's obituary tells so much about this remarkable woman.
It talks of her legendary bravery:
"Verwoerd, an earlier prime minister, a man she admitted she was “scared stiff” of, fared no better. “I have written you off,” he told her. “The whole world has written you off,” she retorted.
But also her principled opposition to race based laws regardless of source:
"when the African National Congress, once in power, began to impose quotas for blacks in jobs, she naturally and ferociously opposed it. In many ways black rule proved “a huge disappointment” to her: corrupt, spendthrift, anti-white, and doing little to help the millions of poor blacks whose lot she had tried to improve. Thabo Mbeki’s wilful ignorance over AIDS appalled her.
The world has lost a true principled fighter for freedom, a liberal woman in a country once dominated by bigoted conservative men, now dominated by misogynistic socialist corrupt ones.
It is telling that New Zealand's most well known activist against apartheid, John Minto, is so divorced from South Africa that he couldn't himself pen a column about the passing of this hero. South Africa owes far more to Suzman, than this petty socialist activist from NZ.
Scrap the regional fuel tax!
While Canterbury argues about whether to introduce a regional fuel tax to pay for transport projects that users aren't willing to pay for (and understandably so, as motorists of Timaru, where there is hardly any need for new roads wont want to pay for new roads in Christchurch), isn't it time for National to repeal this stupid tax that it voted against?
New Zealanders don't need a 5c/l additional tax on petrol and diesel at the moment, and certainly don't need local authorities planning how to spend money without having accountability to the users (especially with the tax levied at the regional level, when regions like Canterbury extend from Timaru to Kaikoura).
National and ACT opposed the tax when it was before Parliament. So when you voted to change the government, didn't you want change?
New Zealanders don't need a 5c/l additional tax on petrol and diesel at the moment, and certainly don't need local authorities planning how to spend money without having accountability to the users (especially with the tax levied at the regional level, when regions like Canterbury extend from Timaru to Kaikoura).
National and ACT opposed the tax when it was before Parliament. So when you voted to change the government, didn't you want change?
Three strikes?
ACT's policy of "three strikes and you're out" has instant appeal to many, as it sounds like it can keep criminals away for good. The Greens call it lynching, but then the response is mainly in reaction to the manslaughter of Pihema Cameron.
So let's stand back a bit.
What is the criminal justice system meant to do? Essentially three things:
- Change the status of an offender to someone who "wont do it again";
- Punish the offender (to be a deterrent);
- Protect society from future offending.
In that sense, the first conviction should be focused on rehabilitation. It would be refreshing to see a focus on that, a focus on the core chance to turn someone around. In that sense, the biggest disaster of the criminal justice system is to put first time offenders in prisons with recividists - where rehabilitation is tempered with learning how to be a real crim. Putting all first time criminals of a certain degree into a similar facility may address this. A second chance at rehabilitation may also be warranted, but the more frequent a re-offender the more the emphasis has to go from rehab to punishment to protection.
The degree of punishment is always with any custodial offence, but the more severe the crime the greater the punishment. Murder must always have the longest sentence for punishment, as it is the crime that deserves the greatest deterrence. However, grievous violent and sexual offences come next. Repeat offenders should get ever more stringent sentences.
Finally, it is clear that the recividist offender who has shown no interest in rehab should be locked away for extensive periods to protect society. There should be no question that someone who murders twice should never be set free. A repeat sex offender should almost certainly be kept from freedom for a substantial part of his life.
So, in the sense that "three strikes and your out" can allow the shift from rehabilitation for the first strike to preventive detention in the last, I support it. However it should not be a blunt tool. Three vandalism offences is not the same as three murders.
So I propose a "points" system. Such a system would see a convict "earning points" for offences. These would be base points for the crime itself, with additional points for the seriousness of the event. Bear in mind that being "out" should means being in prison for at least half of the remaining years of your life, with an option for renewal if it is assessed that the person concerned remains a threat.
You see, for murder it should be two strikes. For vandalism it may be fifty. For serious violent or sexual offences it could be three strikes, for lesser offences against the person four strikes. For theft it could be ten. Whatever it could be, you get the point. Graduated offences depending entirely on the basic victim impact, increased if the commission was particularly sadistic, calculated and repulsive. What? Ten strikes for burglaries? Well yes. It is better than today, when you may get a couple of years, and then another couple of years, so prison becomes a risk of the offending. You see many criminals do a number of tricks. Theft, assault, fraud or others.
So a points system might just address this. The points may add increasing sentences when you get to say 50 points and 75 points as the criminal builds up to being locked away for good. After all, they then can't say they weren't warned.
Oh and yes I assume victimless crimes are not included, such as blasphemy, drugs laws and not conducting postal services without being registered. For locking someone away for good for being a drug addict is hardly the sign of a civilised society.
So let's stand back a bit.
What is the criminal justice system meant to do? Essentially three things:
- Change the status of an offender to someone who "wont do it again";
- Punish the offender (to be a deterrent);
- Protect society from future offending.
In that sense, the first conviction should be focused on rehabilitation. It would be refreshing to see a focus on that, a focus on the core chance to turn someone around. In that sense, the biggest disaster of the criminal justice system is to put first time offenders in prisons with recividists - where rehabilitation is tempered with learning how to be a real crim. Putting all first time criminals of a certain degree into a similar facility may address this. A second chance at rehabilitation may also be warranted, but the more frequent a re-offender the more the emphasis has to go from rehab to punishment to protection.
The degree of punishment is always with any custodial offence, but the more severe the crime the greater the punishment. Murder must always have the longest sentence for punishment, as it is the crime that deserves the greatest deterrence. However, grievous violent and sexual offences come next. Repeat offenders should get ever more stringent sentences.
Finally, it is clear that the recividist offender who has shown no interest in rehab should be locked away for extensive periods to protect society. There should be no question that someone who murders twice should never be set free. A repeat sex offender should almost certainly be kept from freedom for a substantial part of his life.
So, in the sense that "three strikes and your out" can allow the shift from rehabilitation for the first strike to preventive detention in the last, I support it. However it should not be a blunt tool. Three vandalism offences is not the same as three murders.
So I propose a "points" system. Such a system would see a convict "earning points" for offences. These would be base points for the crime itself, with additional points for the seriousness of the event. Bear in mind that being "out" should means being in prison for at least half of the remaining years of your life, with an option for renewal if it is assessed that the person concerned remains a threat.
You see, for murder it should be two strikes. For vandalism it may be fifty. For serious violent or sexual offences it could be three strikes, for lesser offences against the person four strikes. For theft it could be ten. Whatever it could be, you get the point. Graduated offences depending entirely on the basic victim impact, increased if the commission was particularly sadistic, calculated and repulsive. What? Ten strikes for burglaries? Well yes. It is better than today, when you may get a couple of years, and then another couple of years, so prison becomes a risk of the offending. You see many criminals do a number of tricks. Theft, assault, fraud or others.
So a points system might just address this. The points may add increasing sentences when you get to say 50 points and 75 points as the criminal builds up to being locked away for good. After all, they then can't say they weren't warned.
Oh and yes I assume victimless crimes are not included, such as blasphemy, drugs laws and not conducting postal services without being registered. For locking someone away for good for being a drug addict is hardly the sign of a civilised society.
Wellington's transport priorities for the year ahead
Given that some blogs show a particular interest in this at times, I thought I should give a bit of parochial opinion.
I'll give the Wellington councils their due, the priorities are sensible and well thought out.
The Kapiti Western Link Road (pdf) quite correctly the top priority, as congestion, access and safety issues between Raumati, Paraparaumu and Waikanae are the most serious in the region. What's sad is that the Kapiti Coast District Council remains incompetently divided on this issue - which demonstrates how roads should be run commercially.
There is some agitation that a flyover at the Basin Reserve is number two. The Greens, and anti- road transport lobby have made it their campaign to oppose it, on the spurious grounds that it will damage the Basin, when for over 30 years a similar project has been long planned. The Standard has shown its sense of balance by only quoting information from an anti-flyover site, without giving any proposals to ease congestion at this bottleneck, or reduce traffic on what is the main highway between Wellington airport and the Wellington region (maybe Auckland should have a two lane highway from it's airport?).
The flyover would remove a third of the traffic from the Basin Reserve, making it far easier for pedestrians, cyclists and buses to get round. It would remove that traffic from crossings that service three schools. It would enable traffic lights to be removed from the Basin reducing queues that hold up traffic, including buses, from the south. Ignore the ugly artist impressions given by the anti-campaign, let's wait till the NZ Transport Agency gives something credible.
Advancing the rail network upgrade requires more thinking, it is a little odd that a system that claims such strains on capacity needs so much subsidy, when increasing fares at peak times would address this and pay for equipment replacement. Nevertheless, maintaining rail in Wellington is far more useful than any rail in Auckland.
SH2 Melling Interchange and bridge is an excellent project. The number of traffic lights on the Western Hutt Road is ridiculous on a four-lane highway. Once the Dowse Drive upgrade is complete, it will be clear what priority this project should have against other improvements on SH2.
Paraparaumu and Waikanae station upgrades, given the electrification to Waikanae is difficult to argue against, but again the network should be financially self sustaining.
All in all, fairly modest aspirations. Transmission Gully isn't there because it is still at design stage and there is insufficient money to build it. Hopefully Wellington local authorities retain pragmatic modest ambitions in building roads and improving public transport.
I'll give the Wellington councils their due, the priorities are sensible and well thought out.
The Kapiti Western Link Road (pdf) quite correctly the top priority, as congestion, access and safety issues between Raumati, Paraparaumu and Waikanae are the most serious in the region. What's sad is that the Kapiti Coast District Council remains incompetently divided on this issue - which demonstrates how roads should be run commercially.
There is some agitation that a flyover at the Basin Reserve is number two. The Greens, and anti- road transport lobby have made it their campaign to oppose it, on the spurious grounds that it will damage the Basin, when for over 30 years a similar project has been long planned. The Standard has shown its sense of balance by only quoting information from an anti-flyover site, without giving any proposals to ease congestion at this bottleneck, or reduce traffic on what is the main highway between Wellington airport and the Wellington region (maybe Auckland should have a two lane highway from it's airport?).
The flyover would remove a third of the traffic from the Basin Reserve, making it far easier for pedestrians, cyclists and buses to get round. It would remove that traffic from crossings that service three schools. It would enable traffic lights to be removed from the Basin reducing queues that hold up traffic, including buses, from the south. Ignore the ugly artist impressions given by the anti-campaign, let's wait till the NZ Transport Agency gives something credible.
Advancing the rail network upgrade requires more thinking, it is a little odd that a system that claims such strains on capacity needs so much subsidy, when increasing fares at peak times would address this and pay for equipment replacement. Nevertheless, maintaining rail in Wellington is far more useful than any rail in Auckland.
SH2 Melling Interchange and bridge is an excellent project. The number of traffic lights on the Western Hutt Road is ridiculous on a four-lane highway. Once the Dowse Drive upgrade is complete, it will be clear what priority this project should have against other improvements on SH2.
Paraparaumu and Waikanae station upgrades, given the electrification to Waikanae is difficult to argue against, but again the network should be financially self sustaining.
All in all, fairly modest aspirations. Transmission Gully isn't there because it is still at design stage and there is insufficient money to build it. Hopefully Wellington local authorities retain pragmatic modest ambitions in building roads and improving public transport.
Too fat for New Zealand?
Now on first looks I am sure many would say it right to exclude an American woman weighing 135kg from having residency in New Zealand, because of the risk she would pose to claiming under the public health system. The NZ Herald reports that:
"A medical assessor said there was a relatively high probability that the wife would cost the health service more than the threshold $25,000 over the next four years.
He noted that the guidelines said that people with BMI over more than 35 should not be considered."
Keep that fat woman out! I hear it now, hoards saying she'll cost you all.
Well hold on a minute. Let's look at the rest of the details. She applied with her husband and son. On other aspects of the application for residency they scored well:
"The husband was a butcher with an Arts degree and culinary qualification, and the wife who had business qualifications also had 17 year's experience in design.
In fact, if you set aside concern about her cost to the socialist health system:
"INZ concluded that although the couple "had the potential to have a relatively significant contribution to New Zealand through their skills and experience, it was not compelling enough to outweigh the potential cost (the wife) was likely to impose on the NZ health service".
So how about some lateral thinking? How about granting residency to them all, making it clear the wife has no cover for illnesses related to her obesity? She can get health insurance or pay her own way, but other that she isn't covered. The quid pro quo is that she pays proportionately less income tax - equivalent to not contributing to the state health system.
Then New Zealand gets a family with skills, willing to work and look after themselves (more than thousands of locally born people), and taxpayers don't bear the risk.
Indeed, why not offer all migrants the chance to enter and pay no tax for health, education, welfare or retirement?
Why should anyone care if a very obese person migrates, as long as they aren't a charge on you?
Well hold on a minute. Let's look at the rest of the details. She applied with her husband and son. On other aspects of the application for residency they scored well:
"The husband was a butcher with an Arts degree and culinary qualification, and the wife who had business qualifications also had 17 year's experience in design.
In fact, if you set aside concern about her cost to the socialist health system:
"INZ concluded that although the couple "had the potential to have a relatively significant contribution to New Zealand through their skills and experience, it was not compelling enough to outweigh the potential cost (the wife) was likely to impose on the NZ health service".
So how about some lateral thinking? How about granting residency to them all, making it clear the wife has no cover for illnesses related to her obesity? She can get health insurance or pay her own way, but other that she isn't covered. The quid pro quo is that she pays proportionately less income tax - equivalent to not contributing to the state health system.
Then New Zealand gets a family with skills, willing to work and look after themselves (more than thousands of locally born people), and taxpayers don't bear the risk.
Indeed, why not offer all migrants the chance to enter and pay no tax for health, education, welfare or retirement?
Why should anyone care if a very obese person migrates, as long as they aren't a charge on you?
Key's corporate welfare?
The NZ Herald reports that the PM is "not ruling out the option of helping Fisher and Paykel".
Which of course means using your money (or at the moment your future earnings) to prop up the company. How's your business doing? Could you do with some help?
Why not ask Santa Claus? After all, you'd think that's where the money is coming from.
Why should YOU be forced to pay to prop up one company? After all, you already do so.
You see if you want to buy a dishwasher or clothes washing machine or dryer from one of F & P's competitors, you'll pay a 5% tariff on top of the market price and GST. F & P's products don't face this (a bit less for countries where there is a free trade agreement like Australia).
So you're already doing your bit, by buying their products instead of facing the punitive tax on its competition or paying a tax for the privilege of buying the competition.
Here's a better idea. Cut company tax. Take the opportunity to drop company tax from 30% to 20%, giving all business a break, and have a substantially more competitive rate than Australia, the USA and most European countries.
Of course the quid pro quo should be simple, eliminate ALL forms of corporate welfare, all subsidies for marketing, R & D and the like. That means abandoning nonsense about building a broadband network that users aren't willing to pay for and telcos don't believe is a worthwhile investment. It means letting business be free to compete.
However, John Key appears more interested making you be a compulsory "investor" in F & P.
Oh and if you want ammunition for the left? Using taxes to prop up big business is just handing them it on a plate (though it's hard to beat the Clark government's support for Toll Holdings in buying the railways for well above market prices just before a recession).
Which of course means using your money (or at the moment your future earnings) to prop up the company. How's your business doing? Could you do with some help?
Why not ask Santa Claus? After all, you'd think that's where the money is coming from.
Why should YOU be forced to pay to prop up one company? After all, you already do so.
You see if you want to buy a dishwasher or clothes washing machine or dryer from one of F & P's competitors, you'll pay a 5% tariff on top of the market price and GST. F & P's products don't face this (a bit less for countries where there is a free trade agreement like Australia).
So you're already doing your bit, by buying their products instead of facing the punitive tax on its competition or paying a tax for the privilege of buying the competition.
Here's a better idea. Cut company tax. Take the opportunity to drop company tax from 30% to 20%, giving all business a break, and have a substantially more competitive rate than Australia, the USA and most European countries.
Of course the quid pro quo should be simple, eliminate ALL forms of corporate welfare, all subsidies for marketing, R & D and the like. That means abandoning nonsense about building a broadband network that users aren't willing to pay for and telcos don't believe is a worthwhile investment. It means letting business be free to compete.
However, John Key appears more interested making you be a compulsory "investor" in F & P.
Oh and if you want ammunition for the left? Using taxes to prop up big business is just handing them it on a plate (though it's hard to beat the Clark government's support for Toll Holdings in buying the railways for well above market prices just before a recession).
16 February 2009
Kim Jong Il turns 68 and miracles happen
though it is officially his 67th birthday. You see he was born in the USSR in 1941, but history was rewritten to say he was born at "sacred" Mt Paektu in 1942.
Amazing things happen near his birthday:
The Daily Telegraph notes how it is being reported that "An “unprecedented phenomenon of moon halo” was also observed on Sunday evening, making the night view above the leader’s birthplace “brilliant”. “Those who witnessed the opening of willow catkins earlier than the previous years and the unprecedented nocturnal view said excitedly that even the nature and the sky unfolded such mysterious ecstasy in celebration of the birthday of leader Kim Jong-Il"
AP reports South Korean freedom activists are sending balloons over to North Korea with money (North Korean money) to help encourage an overthrow and assist poverty stricken North Koreans to buy food in the workers' paradise.
Meanwhile scum, like neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, celebrate his birthday.
You might finally care to read this Foreign Policy article, written by a man who was Kim Jong Il's teacher. Then ask yourself whether the apologists for this regime are worth spitting on.
Amazing things happen near his birthday:
The Daily Telegraph notes how it is being reported that "An “unprecedented phenomenon of moon halo” was also observed on Sunday evening, making the night view above the leader’s birthplace “brilliant”. “Those who witnessed the opening of willow catkins earlier than the previous years and the unprecedented nocturnal view said excitedly that even the nature and the sky unfolded such mysterious ecstasy in celebration of the birthday of leader Kim Jong-Il"
AP reports South Korean freedom activists are sending balloons over to North Korea with money (North Korean money) to help encourage an overthrow and assist poverty stricken North Koreans to buy food in the workers' paradise.
Meanwhile scum, like neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers, celebrate his birthday.
You might finally care to read this Foreign Policy article, written by a man who was Kim Jong Il's teacher. Then ask yourself whether the apologists for this regime are worth spitting on.
Tariana Turia sympathises with taggers
So Tariana Turia has, according to the NZ Herald, described taggers "as a misunderstood subculture of artists". Showing her complete lack of understanding of private property (unsurprising really). She also said it was "about resistance". What? Against the government she is a part of? She continues saying it "is about alternative points of view. Some members of our community see it as a crime; others see it as an expression of identity". OK so everything is ok. An alternative point of view would be to vandalise a marae, there is an expression of identity. Damned post-modernist "anything is ok" nonsense.
Brian "don't believe in user pays" Rudman is upset at some of the reactions to the death of Pihema Cameron at the hands of Bruce Emery. He implies the sentence for Emery is too short, because Bailey Kurariki got more - except Kurariki's crime was premeditated. Michael Choy did nothing wrong. Cameron did, and Emery lost it in response.
Emery deserves to be punished. His response was disproportionate. Four years in prison is a heavy price to pay for someone otherwise unknown to the law. It sends a strong signal to others that retaliation for vandalism is not injuries that kill.
However, when Rudman says "Tourists talk about the friendliness of the New Zealanders they meet. But just below the surface there simmers a nasty uncharitable streak that should fill us all with a deep uneasiness. Perhaps it's always lurked there, and it's taken the anonymity of the internet to provide a conduit for it to ooze out. Whatever, it's much more scary to me than the odd tagger abroad at night." He is dead wrong.
The reaction of so many cheering on the unfortunate death of Cameron is over the top, but does not reflect a nasty uncharitable streak. Rather it is the experience of thousands of people sick of spending their time and money to pay for the likes of petty criminals and thugs who couldn't care less what their actions do to others. It could be tagging, it could be smashing fences, it could be car conversion, burglary, smashing windows or intimidating behaviour against yourself or your kids. It's the anti-social behaviour of an underclass that are seen to get relatively light sentences, and who unjustly get taxpayer funded welfare, housing, healthcare and other assistance, without any thanks. In other words, people who if it weren't for the hard work, enterprise and honesty of the average New Zealander, would have to work or die homeless, starving and sick.
Those who carry the underclass want to pay less tax, want to spend less time cleaning up the damage caused, paying higher insurance premiums and fearing those for whom the self sufficient are targets to abuse. Politicians who fail to hear this message fail to understand the deep anger, that Cameron should not have carried in such a terminal way, but what he represented - the underclass which thinks "fuck you" to those who make an honest living.
Tapu Misa in the NZ Herald sympathises with Cameron's family too. She is concerned Emery showed little emotion. Hardly surprising the man who is in shock that he went too far, that his life with his family and career are ruined, and he faces years incarcerated. Why SHOULD Pihema Cameron's life mean anything to Emery? It shouldn't mean anymore than any other anonymous criminal. We'll never really know what words were said between them, or how the boy acted with Emery, but we know Emery is paying for his mistake.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust is backing Emery. Misa claims it is racial saying "perhaps this illustrates the difference it makes when the person involved is someone McVicar can more easily empathise with - a white, middle-aged middle-class businessman". Maybe it is more a matter of a man who did nothing wrong overreacting to what was being done to his property? Certainly he shouldn't be set free - it is entirely inappropriate to allow vigilante justice when people in such circumstances could get it wrong.
However, the Standard thinks it is institutional racism, as does the Hand Mirror. Steve Pierson at the Standard thinks Bailey Kurariki was just an accomplice to a robbery "that went wrong", and says he is less culpable than Emery.
Let's be clear. In one case:
- Boy vandalises, is caught by the victim, victim chases him and stabs him, resulting in his death.
In another case.
- Boy acts as accomplice to a premeditated robbery, those participating beat the victim to death, boy shows no remorse.
They are not the same. However these are the debates that are needed about the role of the state and what the criminal justice system should do. The right to self defence is about exercising a proportionate response in the circumstances as you see them. Killing a tagger is not a proportionate response, but killing a tagger is not the same as a premeditated murder of an unprovoked victim.
Brian "don't believe in user pays" Rudman is upset at some of the reactions to the death of Pihema Cameron at the hands of Bruce Emery. He implies the sentence for Emery is too short, because Bailey Kurariki got more - except Kurariki's crime was premeditated. Michael Choy did nothing wrong. Cameron did, and Emery lost it in response.
Emery deserves to be punished. His response was disproportionate. Four years in prison is a heavy price to pay for someone otherwise unknown to the law. It sends a strong signal to others that retaliation for vandalism is not injuries that kill.
However, when Rudman says "Tourists talk about the friendliness of the New Zealanders they meet. But just below the surface there simmers a nasty uncharitable streak that should fill us all with a deep uneasiness. Perhaps it's always lurked there, and it's taken the anonymity of the internet to provide a conduit for it to ooze out. Whatever, it's much more scary to me than the odd tagger abroad at night." He is dead wrong.
The reaction of so many cheering on the unfortunate death of Cameron is over the top, but does not reflect a nasty uncharitable streak. Rather it is the experience of thousands of people sick of spending their time and money to pay for the likes of petty criminals and thugs who couldn't care less what their actions do to others. It could be tagging, it could be smashing fences, it could be car conversion, burglary, smashing windows or intimidating behaviour against yourself or your kids. It's the anti-social behaviour of an underclass that are seen to get relatively light sentences, and who unjustly get taxpayer funded welfare, housing, healthcare and other assistance, without any thanks. In other words, people who if it weren't for the hard work, enterprise and honesty of the average New Zealander, would have to work or die homeless, starving and sick.
Those who carry the underclass want to pay less tax, want to spend less time cleaning up the damage caused, paying higher insurance premiums and fearing those for whom the self sufficient are targets to abuse. Politicians who fail to hear this message fail to understand the deep anger, that Cameron should not have carried in such a terminal way, but what he represented - the underclass which thinks "fuck you" to those who make an honest living.
Tapu Misa in the NZ Herald sympathises with Cameron's family too. She is concerned Emery showed little emotion. Hardly surprising the man who is in shock that he went too far, that his life with his family and career are ruined, and he faces years incarcerated. Why SHOULD Pihema Cameron's life mean anything to Emery? It shouldn't mean anymore than any other anonymous criminal. We'll never really know what words were said between them, or how the boy acted with Emery, but we know Emery is paying for his mistake.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust is backing Emery. Misa claims it is racial saying "perhaps this illustrates the difference it makes when the person involved is someone McVicar can more easily empathise with - a white, middle-aged middle-class businessman". Maybe it is more a matter of a man who did nothing wrong overreacting to what was being done to his property? Certainly he shouldn't be set free - it is entirely inappropriate to allow vigilante justice when people in such circumstances could get it wrong.
However, the Standard thinks it is institutional racism, as does the Hand Mirror. Steve Pierson at the Standard thinks Bailey Kurariki was just an accomplice to a robbery "that went wrong", and says he is less culpable than Emery.
Let's be clear. In one case:
- Boy vandalises, is caught by the victim, victim chases him and stabs him, resulting in his death.
In another case.
- Boy acts as accomplice to a premeditated robbery, those participating beat the victim to death, boy shows no remorse.
They are not the same. However these are the debates that are needed about the role of the state and what the criminal justice system should do. The right to self defence is about exercising a proportionate response in the circumstances as you see them. Killing a tagger is not a proportionate response, but killing a tagger is not the same as a premeditated murder of an unprovoked victim.
Kim Jong Il thanks Hillary Clinton
Dear Dear Leader Vice President Hillary Bill Clinton
Thank you so much for your generous birthday gift offer. I knew the pending missile tests would get your attention. I get so ronery (yes I saw that stupid Team America movie too), sorry little joke. I know Bill loves jokes, like I love ladies. I know you like them too.
I’ll be 67, and there will be a huge party in Pyongyang today because the people here love me (see last year). Sorry you can't come, because you'd see millions out to see me, like the ones for your Great Leader Obama.
It pleases me so much at the magnanimity of the US imperialist aggressors that you want to make peace with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. You have finally recognised that you were defeated in 1953 by the brave Korean People’s Army, much like my father singlehandedly kicked the Japanese scum out of Asia.
I know some say it’s because you now have Great Leader President Obama, who I see organises the same sorts of displays of public affection and fawning adulation that I and my father long have enjoyed. That shows me how much closer our countries have come. Bush didn’t understand mass adulation like Obama does. Your husband Bill is clever, letting the negro man take over to generate adulation, whilst putting you there as the real General Secretary. You don’t let people out of the family take over now do you? I mean, just because Great Leader President Obama has a background in progressive politics that made me smile don't mean you let the family down.
Anyway your gift is enticing. You want to give us the peace treaty we have long demanded, diplomatic relations and to take money from your taxpayers to help build my socialist economy. CNN said you want to” assist in meeting the energy and other economic needs of the North Korean people”.
That’s wonderful news. The evil Bush overthrew one of our main markets for sophisticated aeronautical delivery devices, the grassroots drugs market is tough, and those Iranians aren’t wealthy enough to buy those new clear materials we try to sell them (your intelligence got the pronunciation wrong). I can’t seem to sell enough vinalon and magnesium clinker to be able to import Hennessy, Mercedes or computers for my humble country houses.
However, I know you’ll love my plans for the economy. There is a great hotel to be finished in Pyongyang, we want to set up a worldwide TV channel to spread the Juche idea of self reliance (which is catching on now capitalism is dead), and there are hardly any statues of me around. We have loads of workers of all ages in mountain camp homes where they eagerly work seven days a week, with enthusiastic supervision, and the lowest carbon footprint imaginable, ready to help build consumer products for your people. I also want faster internet access, so I can see the hard working young Swedish women who do so much to entertain workers of many lands with their lack of modesty. I know you’ll appreciate them.
Your gift it reminds me of the funny gift your husband Bill gave to the Korean nation in 1994. You were to spend US$4 billion giving us light water nuclear reactors and 500,000 tons of free fuel oil paid for by the US taxpayers (and some of your satellites) in exchange for us stopping plutonium enrichment. He’s such a laugh. We figured that since I run and control everything, and Bill joked about that girl (I could teach you all lessons on handling concubines), we could have the gift AND enrich plutonium. We made some weapons, let one go off, and hey we taught that Bush a lesson. I know you appreciate that.
So how about this, give us the aid, the peace treaty, pull your troops out of the south of Korea like we always wanted, and we’ll let you see all the facilities you have talked about. We will report how your aid money is being well spent and the Korean Central News Agency will report how the country is succeeding so well, like it did accurately since the 1950s.
Get the Japanese imperialists to give us compensation too, and hey we can all get together, and have a bomb. I mean, we’ll have destroyed that bomb, and reunited the country too.
Oh and can you make sure you send Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be your first ambassadors? I'm sure they'd like to meet the greatest film director in the world - me! I'd like to correct them on their depiction of my country at my special film production holiday camps.
Regards
General Secretary Kim Jong Il, Chairman of the National Defence Commission, Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army
Thank you so much for your generous birthday gift offer. I knew the pending missile tests would get your attention. I get so ronery (yes I saw that stupid Team America movie too), sorry little joke. I know Bill loves jokes, like I love ladies. I know you like them too.
I’ll be 67, and there will be a huge party in Pyongyang today because the people here love me (see last year). Sorry you can't come, because you'd see millions out to see me, like the ones for your Great Leader Obama.
It pleases me so much at the magnanimity of the US imperialist aggressors that you want to make peace with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. You have finally recognised that you were defeated in 1953 by the brave Korean People’s Army, much like my father singlehandedly kicked the Japanese scum out of Asia.
I know some say it’s because you now have Great Leader President Obama, who I see organises the same sorts of displays of public affection and fawning adulation that I and my father long have enjoyed. That shows me how much closer our countries have come. Bush didn’t understand mass adulation like Obama does. Your husband Bill is clever, letting the negro man take over to generate adulation, whilst putting you there as the real General Secretary. You don’t let people out of the family take over now do you? I mean, just because Great Leader President Obama has a background in progressive politics that made me smile don't mean you let the family down.
Anyway your gift is enticing. You want to give us the peace treaty we have long demanded, diplomatic relations and to take money from your taxpayers to help build my socialist economy. CNN said you want to” assist in meeting the energy and other economic needs of the North Korean people”.
That’s wonderful news. The evil Bush overthrew one of our main markets for sophisticated aeronautical delivery devices, the grassroots drugs market is tough, and those Iranians aren’t wealthy enough to buy those new clear materials we try to sell them (your intelligence got the pronunciation wrong). I can’t seem to sell enough vinalon and magnesium clinker to be able to import Hennessy, Mercedes or computers for my humble country houses.
However, I know you’ll love my plans for the economy. There is a great hotel to be finished in Pyongyang, we want to set up a worldwide TV channel to spread the Juche idea of self reliance (which is catching on now capitalism is dead), and there are hardly any statues of me around. We have loads of workers of all ages in mountain camp homes where they eagerly work seven days a week, with enthusiastic supervision, and the lowest carbon footprint imaginable, ready to help build consumer products for your people. I also want faster internet access, so I can see the hard working young Swedish women who do so much to entertain workers of many lands with their lack of modesty. I know you’ll appreciate them.
Your gift it reminds me of the funny gift your husband Bill gave to the Korean nation in 1994. You were to spend US$4 billion giving us light water nuclear reactors and 500,000 tons of free fuel oil paid for by the US taxpayers (and some of your satellites) in exchange for us stopping plutonium enrichment. He’s such a laugh. We figured that since I run and control everything, and Bill joked about that girl (I could teach you all lessons on handling concubines), we could have the gift AND enrich plutonium. We made some weapons, let one go off, and hey we taught that Bush a lesson. I know you appreciate that.
So how about this, give us the aid, the peace treaty, pull your troops out of the south of Korea like we always wanted, and we’ll let you see all the facilities you have talked about. We will report how your aid money is being well spent and the Korean Central News Agency will report how the country is succeeding so well, like it did accurately since the 1950s.
Get the Japanese imperialists to give us compensation too, and hey we can all get together, and have a bomb. I mean, we’ll have destroyed that bomb, and reunited the country too.
Oh and can you make sure you send Trey Parker and Matt Stone to be your first ambassadors? I'm sure they'd like to meet the greatest film director in the world - me! I'd like to correct them on their depiction of my country at my special film production holiday camps.
Regards
General Secretary Kim Jong Il, Chairman of the National Defence Commission, Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army
15 February 2009
Able bodied lowlife on invalids benefits
Deborah Coddington in the Herald on Sunday outlines why the government should review every single recipient of the Invalid's Benefit. She talks of the mother of a murderer, who also happens to be a Mongrel Mob member, who verbally abused the wife of the deceased. Someone New Zealand taxpayers are forced to keep housed, fed, clothed, boozed and entertained.
As Coddington says, if the Greens call this beneficiary bashing, let them spend their own money on the likes of them. Good luck setting up the charity called "supporting the underclass trash who help destroy the lives of others".
As Coddington says, if the Greens call this beneficiary bashing, let them spend their own money on the likes of them. Good luck setting up the charity called "supporting the underclass trash who help destroy the lives of others".
Big powerful Auckland council run by a celebrity?
The Sunday Star Times suggests this.
However, Aucklanders should say thanks but NO thanks, if what they want is lower rates and for local infrastructure to be provided on the basis of need, user pays and economic efficiency.
A big powerful council will want to get into every aspect of policy.
A celebrity Mayor would find it difficult to resist what they tend to be addicted to - attention and applause. Thousands would run to the Mayor wanting help and the drug of big government - OPM - Other People's Money. After all, what celebrity wants to be Mayor and simply say "no. You should try to convince people to pay voluntarily".
The next battle for Auckland should be about resisting a supercouncil. The Labour government inspired Royal Commission should be ignored. The key issue is what is the role of local government.
That is a debate the Royal Commission never was asked to enter into, because Labour's belief is "whatever the local community empowers it to do" - which of course simply means "whatever councillors want".
THAT ladies and gentleman is the problem of Auckland local government - it has become the hobby horse of far too many power hungry petty fascists, tempered by good natured people who seek good governance. These battles shouldn't happen - local government, if it is to exist, should be confined to "public goods". National could do worse than introduce a new Local Government Bill, that gives councils 3 years to divest themselves of activities that are not "public goods". That same period should include a prohibition on ANY rates increases over that time.
Rodney Hide is Minister of Local Government, you would think top of his agenda would be abolishing the power of general competence - the power that currently gives councils the power to do whatsoever they like, as long as it is ratified as part of the Long Term Council Community Plan. Abolishing this would do more for Auckland governance than any behemoth sized council.
However, Aucklanders should say thanks but NO thanks, if what they want is lower rates and for local infrastructure to be provided on the basis of need, user pays and economic efficiency.
A big powerful council will want to get into every aspect of policy.
A celebrity Mayor would find it difficult to resist what they tend to be addicted to - attention and applause. Thousands would run to the Mayor wanting help and the drug of big government - OPM - Other People's Money. After all, what celebrity wants to be Mayor and simply say "no. You should try to convince people to pay voluntarily".
The next battle for Auckland should be about resisting a supercouncil. The Labour government inspired Royal Commission should be ignored. The key issue is what is the role of local government.
That is a debate the Royal Commission never was asked to enter into, because Labour's belief is "whatever the local community empowers it to do" - which of course simply means "whatever councillors want".
THAT ladies and gentleman is the problem of Auckland local government - it has become the hobby horse of far too many power hungry petty fascists, tempered by good natured people who seek good governance. These battles shouldn't happen - local government, if it is to exist, should be confined to "public goods". National could do worse than introduce a new Local Government Bill, that gives councils 3 years to divest themselves of activities that are not "public goods". That same period should include a prohibition on ANY rates increases over that time.
Rodney Hide is Minister of Local Government, you would think top of his agenda would be abolishing the power of general competence - the power that currently gives councils the power to do whatsoever they like, as long as it is ratified as part of the Long Term Council Community Plan. Abolishing this would do more for Auckland governance than any behemoth sized council.
Spineless Cameron on Wilders
David Cameron can lamblast the downfall of society, with the latest news of a 13yo boy fathering a child of a 15yo girl - par for the course of the chav underculture in Britain - because he's a Tory toff and the sons and daughters of the privileged never get pregnant, at least not in The Sun. It's an easy target, who is offended by damning teenagers?
So the testicular capacity of the Conservatives when it comes to Islamists is a little different. The Tories sat on the fence, far more interested in attracting Muslim votes than being principled. George Osborne questioned the wisdom of it, in terms of attracting publicity, but he wouldn't talk of freedom of speech.
The Tories aren't any more interested in this than Labour.
So the testicular capacity of the Conservatives when it comes to Islamists is a little different. The Tories sat on the fence, far more interested in attracting Muslim votes than being principled. George Osborne questioned the wisdom of it, in terms of attracting publicity, but he wouldn't talk of freedom of speech.
The Tories aren't any more interested in this than Labour.
14 February 2009
The trial of Duch
Notwithstanding Zimbabwe's horror, it is cold comfort to recall the regime that almost certainly represented the zenith of the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism.
The one regime that ran the steamroller over society, not caring the bones it broke in the process, to make all as one. It eliminated money, as an instrument of capitalism. It executed all those who were educated, it worshipped the illiterate manual labouring peasant, and damned those who had other skills, languages or abilities. It was the ultimate regime of backwardness, it was anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-foreign and anti-capitalist. Mass manual labour was meant to bring happiness, 1975 was designated Year Zero, and around 2 million people died of famine or executions.
It was Democratic Kampuchea, now again Cambodia - run by the Khmer Rouge. Many on the left cheered its victory, including Keith Locke, who undoubtedly ignored the hazy reports from the Khmer Rouge controlled parts of the country of brutal oppression. Images that can be seen in China Pictorial weekly propaganda magazines of the age - peasants disturbingly subdued all dressed identically, with images of Saloth Sar (Pol Pot). Even the vile linguist Noam Chomsky, who evades like a weasel the fact he claimed reports of massacres and brutality in Democratic Kampuchea were CIA propaganda.
Ironically, the communist regime of Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge, because of border incursions, the particular nationalist brutality of the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese, and knowledge of the horror that had damned its neighbour.
I need not tell the story of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The film "The Killing Fields" tells part of it. The book by Haing Ngor "Surviving the Killing Fields" tells you far more about the brutality, inhumanity and bloody minded sadism of the regime.
Phnom Penh was evacuated of virtually all residents, except for some belonging to the regime, and for a prison set up there. Tuol Sleng was set up as S-21, an interrogation centre and prison. Few left alive. 17,000 went through it, the numbers who survived are no more than 20. The man who led S-21 was Duch. He is a mass murderer and sadist. He forced prisoners to torture each other. He demanded confessions that prisoners worked for the CIA or KGB, and would torture until they said so - if they didn't, they would be killed. If they did, they would be left to die of their horrible injuries. He took photos of them all before they were tortured and executed. Tuol Sleng today is a museum of the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, with the eery photos of those who were murdered there covering the walls.
Duch converted to Christianity in the 1990s and has begged forgiveness, but so few of his victims are alive to even offer it. Cambodia finds it difficult to confront its past, with all too many of those in power today having had some role in "Democratic Kampuchea". So it is pleasing regardless to read in the Times that he is about to go on trial. Never, ever should the perpetrators of sadistic tyranny feel they can get away with it, plead forgiveness and all will be well. Cambodia lost nearly 1 in 3 of its citizens because of the Khmer Rouge.
The one regime that ran the steamroller over society, not caring the bones it broke in the process, to make all as one. It eliminated money, as an instrument of capitalism. It executed all those who were educated, it worshipped the illiterate manual labouring peasant, and damned those who had other skills, languages or abilities. It was the ultimate regime of backwardness, it was anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-foreign and anti-capitalist. Mass manual labour was meant to bring happiness, 1975 was designated Year Zero, and around 2 million people died of famine or executions.
It was Democratic Kampuchea, now again Cambodia - run by the Khmer Rouge. Many on the left cheered its victory, including Keith Locke, who undoubtedly ignored the hazy reports from the Khmer Rouge controlled parts of the country of brutal oppression. Images that can be seen in China Pictorial weekly propaganda magazines of the age - peasants disturbingly subdued all dressed identically, with images of Saloth Sar (Pol Pot). Even the vile linguist Noam Chomsky, who evades like a weasel the fact he claimed reports of massacres and brutality in Democratic Kampuchea were CIA propaganda.
Ironically, the communist regime of Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge, because of border incursions, the particular nationalist brutality of the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese, and knowledge of the horror that had damned its neighbour.
I need not tell the story of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The film "The Killing Fields" tells part of it. The book by Haing Ngor "Surviving the Killing Fields" tells you far more about the brutality, inhumanity and bloody minded sadism of the regime.
Phnom Penh was evacuated of virtually all residents, except for some belonging to the regime, and for a prison set up there. Tuol Sleng was set up as S-21, an interrogation centre and prison. Few left alive. 17,000 went through it, the numbers who survived are no more than 20. The man who led S-21 was Duch. He is a mass murderer and sadist. He forced prisoners to torture each other. He demanded confessions that prisoners worked for the CIA or KGB, and would torture until they said so - if they didn't, they would be killed. If they did, they would be left to die of their horrible injuries. He took photos of them all before they were tortured and executed. Tuol Sleng today is a museum of the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, with the eery photos of those who were murdered there covering the walls.
Duch converted to Christianity in the 1990s and has begged forgiveness, but so few of his victims are alive to even offer it. Cambodia finds it difficult to confront its past, with all too many of those in power today having had some role in "Democratic Kampuchea". So it is pleasing regardless to read in the Times that he is about to go on trial. Never, ever should the perpetrators of sadistic tyranny feel they can get away with it, plead forgiveness and all will be well. Cambodia lost nearly 1 in 3 of its citizens because of the Khmer Rouge.
As a footnote, Malcolm Caldwell, a Scottish academic and Marxist, thought the world of the Khmer Rouge. He wrote glowingly of the peasant revolution, and loved it so much, he went there to see it for himself. The Khmer Rouge murdered him on that trip, following days when he was awe inspired by what he saw. Such poetic justice.
Zimbabwe's new government in crisis already
Zimbabwe's secret police have already arrested an MDC MP designated to be Deputy Agriculture Minister for "treason" according to The Times. Roy Bennett, who had his coffee plantation stolen from him by Zanu PF thugs in 2003, was about to fly to South Africa to spend the weekend with his wife. He fled Zimbabwe following accusations he was plotting to assassinate Robert Mugabe, and returned to be an MP again after the power sharing government had been set up.
Zanu-PF has shared nothing but titles. Tonight the BBC, banned in Zimbabwe, had to meet Morgan Tsvangarai in a "safe house" to conduct an interview with him.
Zimbabwe needs a true revolution, and wont be on the path to justice, prosperity and freedom until the Marxist Zanu-PF gangsters are defeated, arrested, tried and imprisoned.
Zanu-PF has shared nothing but titles. Tonight the BBC, banned in Zimbabwe, had to meet Morgan Tsvangarai in a "safe house" to conduct an interview with him.
Zimbabwe needs a true revolution, and wont be on the path to justice, prosperity and freedom until the Marxist Zanu-PF gangsters are defeated, arrested, tried and imprisoned.
Too often today many think that it is impossible to judge, to say good or evil. However in Zimbabwe Zanu-PF is dripping with evil, from the blood of those murdered, the property of those robbed, those bullied, tortured, imprisoned and the sheer pillage of a country by gangsters - and the destruction of its infrastructure, and the health of its people.
The only justice today could come if the country was invaded, the Zanu PF bandits were rounded up and incarcerated for their crimes. One wish for 2009 is the death of Robert Gabriel Mugabe.
FOOTNOTE: However if you can't kill the bastard, at least laugh at him. Hugo Rifkind brilliantly satirises Robert Mugabe's diary in "My Week" in the Times. My favourite is:
"I call up Tsvangirai to suggest that, if he isn’t keen on massacres, how about a land grab? Just to show he’s one of the team now.
Tsvangirai says there won’t be any land grabs either, because a new day has dawned for Zimbabwe. To illustrate this, he says, he will today be arriving at the Chikurubi maximum security prison in Harare. “But of course you will!” I say, delighted. “For this is where I have designated your new offices and sleeping quarters!”
Tsvangirai adds that, after a couple of hours, he will also be leaving the Chikurubi maximum-security prison in Harare. “Oh,” I say. "
FOOTNOTE: However if you can't kill the bastard, at least laugh at him. Hugo Rifkind brilliantly satirises Robert Mugabe's diary in "My Week" in the Times. My favourite is:
"I call up Tsvangirai to suggest that, if he isn’t keen on massacres, how about a land grab? Just to show he’s one of the team now.
Tsvangirai says there won’t be any land grabs either, because a new day has dawned for Zimbabwe. To illustrate this, he says, he will today be arriving at the Chikurubi maximum security prison in Harare. “But of course you will!” I say, delighted. “For this is where I have designated your new offices and sleeping quarters!”
Tsvangirai adds that, after a couple of hours, he will also be leaving the Chikurubi maximum-security prison in Harare. “Oh,” I say. "
Fitna - see it here.
Fitna - the Dutch film by MP Geert Wilders. Warning this film contains graphic images. The film considers Islamism to be abhorrent to modern liberal democracies, and considers it as malignant as Nazism and Communism.
The House of Lords saw it last night. This film is the excuse given by the British government, supported by the so called Liberal Democrats, to ban Geert Wilders from promoting it in the UK - because he was branded an "extremist" and "peddling hate". Of course he was peddling hate - hatred of Islamism, not Muslims.
PART ONE
PART TWO
Maybe Muslims who are offended by this film might spend time focusing on attacking those who they say are damaging their religion, they might wage war against those they know who incite violence and hatred - and stop wondering why the rest of the world is scared when a segment of Islam so openly seeks to wage war on us all.
The House of Lords saw it last night. This film is the excuse given by the British government, supported by the so called Liberal Democrats, to ban Geert Wilders from promoting it in the UK - because he was branded an "extremist" and "peddling hate". Of course he was peddling hate - hatred of Islamism, not Muslims.
PART ONE
PART TWO
Maybe Muslims who are offended by this film might spend time focusing on attacking those who they say are damaging their religion, they might wage war against those they know who incite violence and hatred - and stop wondering why the rest of the world is scared when a segment of Islam so openly seeks to wage war on us all.
13 February 2009
Tragic family doesn't get it
Pihema Cameron shouldn’t have been a vandal. Bruce Emery was trying to defend his private property, but went too far and stabbed the boy, which killed him. Rightfully, Bruce Emery deserves punishment for a disproportionate response, but as Cactus Kate points out, where was the slightest bit of remorse from Cameron’s family for the boy being a vandal? None, at all. The loving mother was absent, not even in the country at the time.
What’s more disturbing is if you watch this NZ Herald video of the family after the trial. At just after 2:00 a rather dopey looking girl (she looks stoned to be honest) to the right of the mother (left on screen) appears to threaten Emery saying “(unclear) is after you cunt”. Like some gang threat against the guy when he comes out?
This family, which doesn’t teach respect for others or their property. Leanne Cameron said “maybe one of his should die then maybe he could get “over it”", before quickly realising how bad that sounded and said “not saying we’d do it, we wouldn’t do it”. She’d only be happy if Emery had “three months to live”. One of them said “the law sucked”. Well clearly that’s what Pihema Cameron thought when he was breaking it. Although grieving brings out strong emotions, can one at least hope a bit of thinking would see them realise - damned Pihema doing no good, why did he get up to that? Why NOT say "Pihema shouldn't have been doing what he was doing"?
What’s bizarre is the Police saying they were concerned, in prosecuting, about the message of people carrying knives in the street. What the hell is the context here? Young people roaming the streets with knives are nothing like a man bringing a knife from his kitchen on his own property to chase a vandal (who appears to have confronted him instead of run away). Have the Police got a damned clue?
Yes it is sad the boy died, but the best thing his mother could do for his memory is to damned well make sure none of the rest of her kids are criminals, and inculcate values of respecting other people's property. A culture of treating others and their property as if they are fair game to do whatever you like has to end.
What’s more disturbing is if you watch this NZ Herald video of the family after the trial. At just after 2:00 a rather dopey looking girl (she looks stoned to be honest) to the right of the mother (left on screen) appears to threaten Emery saying “(unclear) is after you cunt”. Like some gang threat against the guy when he comes out?
This family, which doesn’t teach respect for others or their property. Leanne Cameron said “maybe one of his should die then maybe he could get “over it”", before quickly realising how bad that sounded and said “not saying we’d do it, we wouldn’t do it”. She’d only be happy if Emery had “three months to live”. One of them said “the law sucked”. Well clearly that’s what Pihema Cameron thought when he was breaking it. Although grieving brings out strong emotions, can one at least hope a bit of thinking would see them realise - damned Pihema doing no good, why did he get up to that? Why NOT say "Pihema shouldn't have been doing what he was doing"?
What’s bizarre is the Police saying they were concerned, in prosecuting, about the message of people carrying knives in the street. What the hell is the context here? Young people roaming the streets with knives are nothing like a man bringing a knife from his kitchen on his own property to chase a vandal (who appears to have confronted him instead of run away). Have the Police got a damned clue?
Yes it is sad the boy died, but the best thing his mother could do for his memory is to damned well make sure none of the rest of her kids are criminals, and inculcate values of respecting other people's property. A culture of treating others and their property as if they are fair game to do whatever you like has to end.
Maiden speech: Catherine Delahunty: Addict of compulsory collectivism
Before I catch up with the ones from late last year, there is Catherine Delahunty, who presented her maiden speech yesterday.
I previously called Delahunty our newest enemy of reason. She hates democracy, believes Maori crime is due to racism, and thinks of everyone as members of groups. Collectivist par excellence.
Her maiden speech said it all. Countless mysticism, references to tribalism, and even anthropormophising inanimate objects. She has demonstrated exactly what I foretold, an enemy of reason and individualism.
For starters, she thinks that those New Zealanders not born of Maori descent are enjoying “colonial privilege”. What does this mean? That it could be taken away from us?
“We are citizens of the nation of Aotearoa New Zealand and we are Pakeha. I’ve been told one meaning of Pakeha is "of a different breath". We enjoy ongoing colonial privilege, but we have an opportunity to take responsibility for this and work for a justice-based peace. This justice is desperately needed from Ruatoki to Gaza.”
Justice based peace? What does she want taken from you? What about Gaza Catherine? Palestinians control it, but their government used it to attack Israel. Was that ok Catherine?
However I didn’t need to know when she lost her virginity “I embrace this new chapter with all the illusions of a maiden. Last time I was a maiden was 40 years ago. It’s refreshing to revisit that time of passionate conviction, when it was our unique duty to resist the system while wearing a lot of black clothing.” What? Duty imposed by whom? Ah the sacred collective you want us to live under perhaps?
She antropormorphises a mountain and a river, which explains why she is with the Greens who sometimes prefers inanimate objects to human beings:
“When I left this cold city, at 17, I went to live with a mountain” Lunatic!
“In the 1990s, thanks to Gordon and Greenpeace I met a river.” No that's called drowning, it interferes with oxygen to the brain.
She goes on about beneficiary rights. Talks of Pakeha as racist wine drinkers,.She thinks of prisons as places where victims of capitalism go – not people who steal, assault, rape and murder. Maori are the victims, Pakeha are the wealthy thieving colonialists. A simple world for a simple woman.
However, it’s near the end that her real hatred for individual achievement and judging people on what they do, not who they are, comes out.
She says “For Leo and every tiny person starting out in life, you deserve something so much more precious than individualism.” What is MORE than that? What is more than realizing your full potential, enjoying life and being yourself? Well if you’re Catherine, you pigeonhole as a matter of course. Individuals make life too complicated if you spend your life stereotyping men and women. You need to belong to a collective approved by her to fight science, pollution, production, technology, culture or whatever else is part of her list. She fought nuclear weapons as a child allegedly.
Then she says:
“In a healthy group the individual can thrive, it is not a war between nanny state and the free market, the real struggle is between earth-based collective well-being versus a polluted globalised greed”
No it isn’t Catherine. It is between respecting individual rights and extending private property rights over the world, which provides a way to address pollution. It is about adults interacting voluntarily versus the statist collectivist anti-reason violence promoters like the Green Party.
It ends on the most bizarre linkage "The international financial crisis is inextricably linked to climate change and if we can’t work the linkage out then Papatuanuku will spell it out for us."
Yep, you stick with that Catherine, go back to living with your mountain and meeting rivers - another MP who cares so much about the planet, but who seems to spend so little time on it - except that she prefers the planet to meeting individuals.
Be grateful the Greens are in Opposition now.
I previously called Delahunty our newest enemy of reason. She hates democracy, believes Maori crime is due to racism, and thinks of everyone as members of groups. Collectivist par excellence.
Her maiden speech said it all. Countless mysticism, references to tribalism, and even anthropormophising inanimate objects. She has demonstrated exactly what I foretold, an enemy of reason and individualism.
For starters, she thinks that those New Zealanders not born of Maori descent are enjoying “colonial privilege”. What does this mean? That it could be taken away from us?
“We are citizens of the nation of Aotearoa New Zealand and we are Pakeha. I’ve been told one meaning of Pakeha is "of a different breath". We enjoy ongoing colonial privilege, but we have an opportunity to take responsibility for this and work for a justice-based peace. This justice is desperately needed from Ruatoki to Gaza.”
Justice based peace? What does she want taken from you? What about Gaza Catherine? Palestinians control it, but their government used it to attack Israel. Was that ok Catherine?
However I didn’t need to know when she lost her virginity “I embrace this new chapter with all the illusions of a maiden. Last time I was a maiden was 40 years ago. It’s refreshing to revisit that time of passionate conviction, when it was our unique duty to resist the system while wearing a lot of black clothing.” What? Duty imposed by whom? Ah the sacred collective you want us to live under perhaps?
She antropormorphises a mountain and a river, which explains why she is with the Greens who sometimes prefers inanimate objects to human beings:
“When I left this cold city, at 17, I went to live with a mountain” Lunatic!
“In the 1990s, thanks to Gordon and Greenpeace I met a river.” No that's called drowning, it interferes with oxygen to the brain.
She goes on about beneficiary rights. Talks of Pakeha as racist wine drinkers,.She thinks of prisons as places where victims of capitalism go – not people who steal, assault, rape and murder. Maori are the victims, Pakeha are the wealthy thieving colonialists. A simple world for a simple woman.
However, it’s near the end that her real hatred for individual achievement and judging people on what they do, not who they are, comes out.
She says “For Leo and every tiny person starting out in life, you deserve something so much more precious than individualism.” What is MORE than that? What is more than realizing your full potential, enjoying life and being yourself? Well if you’re Catherine, you pigeonhole as a matter of course. Individuals make life too complicated if you spend your life stereotyping men and women. You need to belong to a collective approved by her to fight science, pollution, production, technology, culture or whatever else is part of her list. She fought nuclear weapons as a child allegedly.
Then she says:
“In a healthy group the individual can thrive, it is not a war between nanny state and the free market, the real struggle is between earth-based collective well-being versus a polluted globalised greed”
No it isn’t Catherine. It is between respecting individual rights and extending private property rights over the world, which provides a way to address pollution. It is about adults interacting voluntarily versus the statist collectivist anti-reason violence promoters like the Green Party.
It ends on the most bizarre linkage "The international financial crisis is inextricably linked to climate change and if we can’t work the linkage out then Papatuanuku will spell it out for us."
Yep, you stick with that Catherine, go back to living with your mountain and meeting rivers - another MP who cares so much about the planet, but who seems to spend so little time on it - except that she prefers the planet to meeting individuals.
Be grateful the Greens are in Opposition now.
Britain bans anti-Islam Dutch MP
Today according to CNN, Dutch citizen and MP Geert Wilders was stopped from entering the UK at Heathrow Airport. Why? Because the UK government thinks a man who simply states he hates Islam (not Muslims), and that he wants an end to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands is spreading "hate".
Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary said his opinions "would threaten community security and therefore public security" in the UK according to the Daily Telegraph.
Since when do opinions threaten community security? That's the language that you hear from North Korea, China, Burma, Iran or Saudi Arabia.
What fucking country is this Jacqui Smith? Since when are YOU the arbiter of "opinions"? Oh and how do you cope with the thousands of Islamists in the country? How do you control yourself with the BNP? No - a Dutchman who criticises a religion is fair game.
Wilders was entering the UK (bear in mind that there is meant to be freedom of movement within the EU) to promote his film - Fitna, which criticises Islam.
So apparently, you can't enter the UK if you criticise a religion?
Ah but isn't Wilders some racist fascist? From the far right? No. Put down the Guardian (which calls him far right) and stop believing the nonsense that everyone who isn't a leftwing post-modernist "all opinions are valid" halfwit is a fascist. Wilders is closer to being libertarian.
Wikipedia has his political platform, which is essentially shrink the state, tough on crime and migration. He also wants to ban additional Muslim migrants and have the state pay for existing ones to leave (though not forcibly deport).
Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary said his opinions "would threaten community security and therefore public security" in the UK according to the Daily Telegraph.
Since when do opinions threaten community security? That's the language that you hear from North Korea, China, Burma, Iran or Saudi Arabia.
What fucking country is this Jacqui Smith? Since when are YOU the arbiter of "opinions"? Oh and how do you cope with the thousands of Islamists in the country? How do you control yourself with the BNP? No - a Dutchman who criticises a religion is fair game.
Wilders was entering the UK (bear in mind that there is meant to be freedom of movement within the EU) to promote his film - Fitna, which criticises Islam.
So apparently, you can't enter the UK if you criticise a religion?
Ah but isn't Wilders some racist fascist? From the far right? No. Put down the Guardian (which calls him far right) and stop believing the nonsense that everyone who isn't a leftwing post-modernist "all opinions are valid" halfwit is a fascist. Wilders is closer to being libertarian.
Wikipedia has his political platform, which is essentially shrink the state, tough on crime and migration. He also wants to ban additional Muslim migrants and have the state pay for existing ones to leave (though not forcibly deport).
He has, of course, upset a lot of Muslims. While he appears libertarian, calling for banning the Koran erodes that, but he notes that Mein Kampf is banned and he treats the Koran as similar. However, he is clear that he hates Islam, NOT Muslims. He says the Koran contains terrible things, is a fascist book that incites hatred and that Mohammed would today be hunted down as a terrorist (let alone a pedophile).
So yes he is radical, and no I don’t agree with all his policies. However, he is no fascist, he is not promoting hate of people, he is promoting hatred of a religion – and one that is entirely justified.
As usual, Muslims in Britain are getting offended by his views. Which is their right, and tough. Live with it. Britain was a free country, where people can express openly opinions on politics and religion, and put up with whether or not it offends others. I'm an atheist, I find there is something in all religions I know that I despise, and I'd rather children were not raised under any religion. In a free society I can have that view and people can agree, disagree, be offended or ignore it.
There is NO evidence that he would incite violence against Muslims, NO evidence that he would incite hatred through hating Islam. It is like saying that hating the North Korean government means hating Koreans, or hating the Chinese government is anti-Chinese.
Wilders describes Gordon Brown "Europe's biggest coward". He's right.
Freedom has slipped back another notch in the UK today. If you wanted further proof that the Gordon Brown Labour government is uninterested in defending the values of this country from the fear and hatred spread by Islamists, you can see it plain and simple.
And sadly, it just adds fuel to the likes of the British National Party – a party of explicit bigotry, racism and knuckle dragging losers – who will ask why Islamists are appeased, but those vehemently against them are banned.
UPDATE: Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat MP has proven clearly that the Lib Dems are no party of freedom. Brainless git.
Israel votes for security
Well despite Tzipi Livni’s claim of victory, it is unlikely she can form a coalition government, as without the Likud party she can’t get a majority together (assuming those parties more conservative than the Likud reject her). It is more likely that Binjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party will form a coalition with the conservative and religious parties. It is a damning indictment of the Labor Party to slip into fourth.
However, why did Israelis move to the right? Well it is about security. The rocket attacks from Gaza tired many, and they damned Labor for its incompetence, although Kadima got credit for confronting Hamas directly. There is also the Obama factor.
With Obama talking of change and talking to Iran (which has called for Israel’s destruction), Israelis fear insecurity and the US pushing for concessions to Israel’s enemies. So they vote for the parties most willing to take a hardline against the Palestinian political parties and Israel’s enemies.
Parties like Yisrael Beitenu, which calls for the boundaries of Israel to be redrawn to effectively evict most Israeli Arab citizens and include Jews in West Bank settlements. Shas wants Israel governed by Jewish religious law.
So the challenge for the Obama Administration is how to deal with Netanyahu, who has called for an “economic peace” before a political peace. In others words, encouraging Palestinian economic activity, trade and development, ahead of deciding the political status of the occupied territories. This was to give Palestinians a better life and a stake in peace, before negotiating peace. However, he also supports expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank – which is hardly going to engender support among Palestinians who see Netanyahu as a man who has in the past supported a Greater Israel, and opposition to any Palestinian state.
The sad tension of Israel is that it is a country based on ethnicity, targeted by religious fundamentalist Arabs, and needs security from them. Meanwhile its own religious fundamentalist Jews gleefully treat Palestinian and Israeli Arabs as second class citizens. The more secular Israel can be the better it will be for Israel and for the Palestinians.
However, one thing that Israel can claim, over its neighbours - even Iraq with its embryonic democracy - Israelis can choose their leaders, have a vigorous vibrant liberal democracy and they can criticise their leaders.
That is a freedom that should spread throughout the Middle East, and it is the honest beautiful truth about Israel that its leftwing worldwide opponents ignore - just as they ignore the dictatorships, absolute monarchies and tyrannies that exist in virtually all Arab states.
However, why did Israelis move to the right? Well it is about security. The rocket attacks from Gaza tired many, and they damned Labor for its incompetence, although Kadima got credit for confronting Hamas directly. There is also the Obama factor.
With Obama talking of change and talking to Iran (which has called for Israel’s destruction), Israelis fear insecurity and the US pushing for concessions to Israel’s enemies. So they vote for the parties most willing to take a hardline against the Palestinian political parties and Israel’s enemies.
Parties like Yisrael Beitenu, which calls for the boundaries of Israel to be redrawn to effectively evict most Israeli Arab citizens and include Jews in West Bank settlements. Shas wants Israel governed by Jewish religious law.
So the challenge for the Obama Administration is how to deal with Netanyahu, who has called for an “economic peace” before a political peace. In others words, encouraging Palestinian economic activity, trade and development, ahead of deciding the political status of the occupied territories. This was to give Palestinians a better life and a stake in peace, before negotiating peace. However, he also supports expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank – which is hardly going to engender support among Palestinians who see Netanyahu as a man who has in the past supported a Greater Israel, and opposition to any Palestinian state.
The sad tension of Israel is that it is a country based on ethnicity, targeted by religious fundamentalist Arabs, and needs security from them. Meanwhile its own religious fundamentalist Jews gleefully treat Palestinian and Israeli Arabs as second class citizens. The more secular Israel can be the better it will be for Israel and for the Palestinians.
However, one thing that Israel can claim, over its neighbours - even Iraq with its embryonic democracy - Israelis can choose their leaders, have a vigorous vibrant liberal democracy and they can criticise their leaders.
That is a freedom that should spread throughout the Middle East, and it is the honest beautiful truth about Israel that its leftwing worldwide opponents ignore - just as they ignore the dictatorships, absolute monarchies and tyrannies that exist in virtually all Arab states.
National's police state
It is no surprise that Simon Power is gleefully pushing legislation allowing the Police to collect DNA samples from people it "intends to charge". At university, Simon had thoroughly conservative views that clearly showed his intended path to power. While refreshing against the vile vapid leftwing quasi-liberal nonsense of Victoria University, it was clear to most who knew him that he wanted to repeat the revolution of the 80s, but do it without the liberal Labour social agenda.
Everyone charged with an imprisonable offence will have their DNA taken, and held by the state, regardless of guilt. So a nice cozy database of citizens will be built up. Similar to the one the UK government has built up, and has been damned by the EU for it.
Idiot Savant at No Right Turn has got it right.
"It makes the mere fact of suspicion itself (rather than the grounds for suspicion) enough to take evidence and conduct searches which may have no connection to the original offence. And it does this for a particularly invasive form of search. Taking a DNA sample is not like taking a fingerprint (something which can be done to anyone arrested). It yields far more - and far more private - information, and uses far more invasive methods. It requires them to stick needles into you. That should require a very high threshold. Instead, the police want to do it to anyone who comes into their hands as a routine procedure."
Well it doesn't require needles, but beyond that he is correct. It should have a threshold of being charged, not merely arrested.
However, who said a National government would mean less nanny state?
and what does ACT think?
Everyone charged with an imprisonable offence will have their DNA taken, and held by the state, regardless of guilt. So a nice cozy database of citizens will be built up. Similar to the one the UK government has built up, and has been damned by the EU for it.
Idiot Savant at No Right Turn has got it right.
"It makes the mere fact of suspicion itself (rather than the grounds for suspicion) enough to take evidence and conduct searches which may have no connection to the original offence. And it does this for a particularly invasive form of search. Taking a DNA sample is not like taking a fingerprint (something which can be done to anyone arrested). It yields far more - and far more private - information, and uses far more invasive methods. It requires them to stick needles into you. That should require a very high threshold. Instead, the police want to do it to anyone who comes into their hands as a routine procedure."
Well it doesn't require needles, but beyond that he is correct. It should have a threshold of being charged, not merely arrested.
However, who said a National government would mean less nanny state?
and what does ACT think?
Justice system working
Bailey Kurariki's final chance? Oh please.
Look, you have a choice. Either pour time and money into serious rehabilitation - which means him NOT returning to the community of trash he hangs around with, being placed in a job that is physically demanding and banning him from associating with those who live on the level of scum that will lead him into offending again.
Or, throw him away and lock away the key.
Because this guy doesn't give a shit, he has no sense of right and wrong, and couldn't care less - he was an accessory to manslaughter, and has spent a few years learning how to be tough. The only chance he should be given is one that doesn't involve just being released to live the parasitical existence he did before - it is something different. If you believe he should have that chance (and arguably, convicted of manslaughter, not murder - and of the age he was, he should), then you need to pay for it. If not, then you either release him if he is expected to not be a danger to anybody else (which isn't optimistic) or lock him away and throw away the key.
You see the criminal justice system can either rehabilitate, punish or prevent crimes. Your first strike is the chance to be rehabilitated. The second is another attempt, but with punishment for stuffing up, the third should be it - you're no longer fit to remain in society so it is preventive detention.
Bailey is sadly going to get many chances.
Look, you have a choice. Either pour time and money into serious rehabilitation - which means him NOT returning to the community of trash he hangs around with, being placed in a job that is physically demanding and banning him from associating with those who live on the level of scum that will lead him into offending again.
Or, throw him away and lock away the key.
Because this guy doesn't give a shit, he has no sense of right and wrong, and couldn't care less - he was an accessory to manslaughter, and has spent a few years learning how to be tough. The only chance he should be given is one that doesn't involve just being released to live the parasitical existence he did before - it is something different. If you believe he should have that chance (and arguably, convicted of manslaughter, not murder - and of the age he was, he should), then you need to pay for it. If not, then you either release him if he is expected to not be a danger to anybody else (which isn't optimistic) or lock him away and throw away the key.
You see the criminal justice system can either rehabilitate, punish or prevent crimes. Your first strike is the chance to be rehabilitated. The second is another attempt, but with punishment for stuffing up, the third should be it - you're no longer fit to remain in society so it is preventive detention.
Bailey is sadly going to get many chances.
12 February 2009
Zimbabwe's new chapter?
After the cowardly strong arming of South Africa, Morgan Tsvangarai has been sworn in as Zimbabwe's new Prime Minister, leading a Cabinet the majority of which does not include the murderous gangster group - Zanu PF.
According to the BBC, Tsvangarai has said the first priority is to get the economy working again, with an end to political violence and all public sector workers to be paid in foreign currency - effectively declaring an end to the virtually worthless Zimbabwe Dollar.
Mugabe will hope this will shield him and his gangsters from scrutiny and attention, and that it protects their booty from being taken off them, and them all from arrest for the violence and kleptomania they are guilty of. Mugabe undoubtedly also hopes it can mean aid flows freely, and his fellow thugs can claim their share - and his lavish lifestyle can continue uninterrupted.
However, it is difficult to say what will happen. The government may not achieve much if policies don't change, if Mugabe's mob stop political intimidation and free speech cannot return to Zimbabwe. For without fundamental change, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mr Tsvangarai will hope he can exercise authority to make some improvements, and that Mugabe is weakened - or better yet, that if it all stalls he can blame it on Mugabe and Zanu-PF, and he will have some power base to call for new elections and for them to be monitored and policed effectively.
According to the BBC, Tsvangarai has said the first priority is to get the economy working again, with an end to political violence and all public sector workers to be paid in foreign currency - effectively declaring an end to the virtually worthless Zimbabwe Dollar.
Mugabe will hope this will shield him and his gangsters from scrutiny and attention, and that it protects their booty from being taken off them, and them all from arrest for the violence and kleptomania they are guilty of. Mugabe undoubtedly also hopes it can mean aid flows freely, and his fellow thugs can claim their share - and his lavish lifestyle can continue uninterrupted.
However, it is difficult to say what will happen. The government may not achieve much if policies don't change, if Mugabe's mob stop political intimidation and free speech cannot return to Zimbabwe. For without fundamental change, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mr Tsvangarai will hope he can exercise authority to make some improvements, and that Mugabe is weakened - or better yet, that if it all stalls he can blame it on Mugabe and Zanu-PF, and he will have some power base to call for new elections and for them to be monitored and policed effectively.
I am not optimistic though. The best answer for Zimbabwe would have been mercenaries to stage a coup and overthrow Mugabe - because he and his thugs have rampaged through that once wealthy land and taken what they wished, and harmed those in their way. There should be no Western aid to Zimbabwe, except through private channels that have nothing to do with the state, whilst Mugabe is in power. Let's hope the change in Zimbabwe is the beginning of the end of this vileness. Africa must surely be tired of being ruled by thieving murdering thugs and their henchmen.
"Green" council policies saw death and destruction
A report in The Age in Melbourne claims that local authorities contributed to the seriousness of bushfires, by refusing permission for residents to cut down trees on their properties.
“Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said. “We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."
Yes, so private property rights are ignored, so trees survive – to burn and destroy homes and kill people.
“Another resident said she had asked the council four times to tend to out-of-control growth on public land near her home, but her pleas had been ignored.”
After all, council’s know how to look after public land don’t they?
So the envirovangelists, after claiming it was the fault of CO2 emitters, actually exacerbated the situation by their tree worshipping. Don’t expect them to admit they were wrong though. Don't expect the so called friends of social justice to encourage the remaining residents to sue the council for negligence - except perhaps for not protecting the trees at all costs.
“Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said. “We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."
Yes, so private property rights are ignored, so trees survive – to burn and destroy homes and kill people.
“Another resident said she had asked the council four times to tend to out-of-control growth on public land near her home, but her pleas had been ignored.”
After all, council’s know how to look after public land don’t they?
So the envirovangelists, after claiming it was the fault of CO2 emitters, actually exacerbated the situation by their tree worshipping. Don’t expect them to admit they were wrong though. Don't expect the so called friends of social justice to encourage the remaining residents to sue the council for negligence - except perhaps for not protecting the trees at all costs.
11 February 2009
Keynesia's new plan
So what about that fiscal child abuse then?
Going through the Kiwiblog list:
- 5 new schools? While the private sector closes good schools as it struggles to attract parents forced to pay twice for education if they want to opt out of the state sector. Wonderful stuff - Labour lite indeed.
- School refurbishments and maintenance? So did Labour do this on the cheap or is this just about bringing forward some paint and roof repairs that would have been done anyway? This is the economic equivalent of saying you can stimulate the economy if more windows are broken and need repairing.
- More special schools facilities. Any notion of how many will use these, and whether it would be cheaper to just pay the kids families' directly for a tutor?
- A trades academy on Southern Cross Campus in Mangere. So you couldn't give people taxes back and let them pay for this?
- Help schools accelerate existing building projects that have stalled. What the hell is THAT about? School's mismanaging funds? Funds cut for political or administrative reasons? Or is it just an admission that the centralised socialist education system provides opportunities for such unaccountable mismanagement?
Going through the Kiwiblog list:
- 5 new schools? While the private sector closes good schools as it struggles to attract parents forced to pay twice for education if they want to opt out of the state sector. Wonderful stuff - Labour lite indeed.
- School refurbishments and maintenance? So did Labour do this on the cheap or is this just about bringing forward some paint and roof repairs that would have been done anyway? This is the economic equivalent of saying you can stimulate the economy if more windows are broken and need repairing.
- More special schools facilities. Any notion of how many will use these, and whether it would be cheaper to just pay the kids families' directly for a tutor?
- A trades academy on Southern Cross Campus in Mangere. So you couldn't give people taxes back and let them pay for this?
- Help schools accelerate existing building projects that have stalled. What the hell is THAT about? School's mismanaging funds? Funds cut for political or administrative reasons? Or is it just an admission that the centralised socialist education system provides opportunities for such unaccountable mismanagement?
- 69 new state houses. You thought the property market had stagnated, so clap National for wanting to help that along. Isn't it good to get more people housed by the state? Good job Labour won the election.
- Upgrades and renovations to 10,000 state houses! Only worthwhile if they add net value to the houses, before they can be sold. I'm sure that is behind it all right??
- Small regional roading projects? Well given all road taxes are now spent on land transport, this is a subsidy for roads, but are the projects all of a high value? Hopefully we'll find out soon.
- Accelerating large state highway projects? Well here I can add a little value:
- Kopu Bridge replacement? Good, though a prime candidate for a modest toll, one sign this is worthwhile is that Jeanette Fitzsimons doesn't like it.
- Matahorua Gorge realignment. This is State Highway 2 between Napier and Gisborne. Not a bad project, but not particularly high value.
- Hawke's Bay Expressway southern extension. Oh please, this is far from necessary. Hardly any congestion or safety issues here (and you wonder why two projects in Hawke's Bay?)
- Muldoon's Corner easing. Removing a hairpin curve on the Rimutaka Hill Road. Sounds like a cheap alternative to Transmission Gully, improving the second route out of Wellington. Not a high value project.
- Christchurch Southern Motorway. By far the largest project, and one that does ease congestion. A major new route into Christchurch from the south will make living in Rolleston more attractive (seriously).
No extra money for Auckland state highways, which indicates how much Labour poured money into them.
So be grateful the package is rather small, its damage will be relatively small, but hey most of you want the government to "do things" right?
- Upgrades and renovations to 10,000 state houses! Only worthwhile if they add net value to the houses, before they can be sold. I'm sure that is behind it all right??
- Small regional roading projects? Well given all road taxes are now spent on land transport, this is a subsidy for roads, but are the projects all of a high value? Hopefully we'll find out soon.
- Accelerating large state highway projects? Well here I can add a little value:
- Kopu Bridge replacement? Good, though a prime candidate for a modest toll, one sign this is worthwhile is that Jeanette Fitzsimons doesn't like it.
- Matahorua Gorge realignment. This is State Highway 2 between Napier and Gisborne. Not a bad project, but not particularly high value.
- Hawke's Bay Expressway southern extension. Oh please, this is far from necessary. Hardly any congestion or safety issues here (and you wonder why two projects in Hawke's Bay?)
- Muldoon's Corner easing. Removing a hairpin curve on the Rimutaka Hill Road. Sounds like a cheap alternative to Transmission Gully, improving the second route out of Wellington. Not a high value project.
- Christchurch Southern Motorway. By far the largest project, and one that does ease congestion. A major new route into Christchurch from the south will make living in Rolleston more attractive (seriously).
No extra money for Auckland state highways, which indicates how much Labour poured money into them.
So be grateful the package is rather small, its damage will be relatively small, but hey most of you want the government to "do things" right?
Iran's 30 years of Islamist terror
The 1979 lesson of Iran was a painful one for the United States. The regime of the Shah had spent previous years becoming increasingly authoritarian, despite its secular outlook its intolerance of dissent and its own extravagance sowed the seeds for opposition. Iranians overthrew the monarchy and embraced a new form of authoritarianism. Secularism was gone, the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded.
From then, the Iranian regime has brutally oppressed those within its borders who wish to see an end to secular rule. An Islamic cultural revolution was imposed, with the Committee for Islamization of Universities ensuring an "Islamic atmosphere" for every subject, including engineering. Broadcasting and the press was severely restricted with only Islamist programming permitted. While discussion and debate is allowed, it is within an Islamist context. In other words, you can criticise policies, but you can't criticise the Islamic Republic.
Women have a lesser status in Iran. For example:
- A woman needs her husband's permission to work outside the home or leave the country;
- the value of woman's life is half that of a man;
- Daughters are entitled to half the inheritance of sons;
- Women are required to cover their bodies and hair.
Notice how the peace loving feminist left regularly protests outside Iranian embassies about this. Yep, notice how invisible they are.
Apostasy (converting from Islam to another religion) is punishable by death, so tough luck being raised as a Muslim.
The criminal age of legal responsibility is 15 for boys and 9 for girls. Iran has executed 26 people under 18 since 2005. I have noticed the extensive protests and flag burning about that by the peace loving left. It executes over 300 prisoners every year.
According to Human Rights Watch "Iran retains the death penalty for a large number of offenses, among them cursing the Prophet, certain drug offenses, murder, and certaincrimes, including adultery, incest, rape, fornication, drinking alcohol, "sodomy," same-sex sexual conduct between men without penetration, lesbianism, "being at enmity with God" ( haddmohareb), and "corruption on earth".
Internationally, the Islamic Republic has annually called for death to the USA and death to Israel. It has supported the IRA, Hamas, Hizbollah and been a base for training terrorists. It thumbs its nose at the IAEA while it develops its nuclear programme.
Meanwhile, it has a President who denies the holocaust, who cheers on the eradication of Israel.
The Islamic Revolution is a reason to jeer. Not because the regime it overthrew was good, but because this is worse. It was like the Khmer Rouge overthrowing the corrupt nasty Lon Nol regime in Cambodia.
So today why don't you tell your local Iranian embassy to fuck their revolution, and that you can't wait till Iranians can live their lives the way they wish, without the Islamist bullies spying, arresting, torturing and murdering them. While you consider that, ask yourself why so few of the leftwing protest movement give a damn about Iran. Ask why they tolerate women being treated as men's chattels (and no, comparatively liberal Tehran is not the measure of that country). Ask why they are silent over the execution of a 16 year old girl because she had sex with unmarried men, but will jump at the chance to damn Israel to hell for engaging in a war of self defence. Ask why they protested en masse against US nuclear warships, but wont raise a banner against Iran's nuclear programme.
The sooner the Islamic Republic of Iran is an era (error) in history of Iran, the better, the safer for the world and Iranians. The secularist bullies need to be sent back to the mosques, out of Parliaments, out of laws and let Iranians be free.
Iran's government is evil. If you doubt it, then read this post I made two and half years ago, about the children the scum execute. Yes lovely types.
The flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran isn't worth wiping your arse on and setting fire to - but it would be nice if someone did it.
From then, the Iranian regime has brutally oppressed those within its borders who wish to see an end to secular rule. An Islamic cultural revolution was imposed, with the Committee for Islamization of Universities ensuring an "Islamic atmosphere" for every subject, including engineering. Broadcasting and the press was severely restricted with only Islamist programming permitted. While discussion and debate is allowed, it is within an Islamist context. In other words, you can criticise policies, but you can't criticise the Islamic Republic.
Women have a lesser status in Iran. For example:
- A woman needs her husband's permission to work outside the home or leave the country;
- the value of woman's life is half that of a man;
- Daughters are entitled to half the inheritance of sons;
- Women are required to cover their bodies and hair.
Notice how the peace loving feminist left regularly protests outside Iranian embassies about this. Yep, notice how invisible they are.
Apostasy (converting from Islam to another religion) is punishable by death, so tough luck being raised as a Muslim.
The criminal age of legal responsibility is 15 for boys and 9 for girls. Iran has executed 26 people under 18 since 2005. I have noticed the extensive protests and flag burning about that by the peace loving left. It executes over 300 prisoners every year.
According to Human Rights Watch "Iran retains the death penalty for a large number of offenses, among them cursing the Prophet, certain drug offenses, murder, and certaincrimes, including adultery, incest, rape, fornication, drinking alcohol, "sodomy," same-sex sexual conduct between men without penetration, lesbianism, "being at enmity with God" ( haddmohareb), and "corruption on earth".
Internationally, the Islamic Republic has annually called for death to the USA and death to Israel. It has supported the IRA, Hamas, Hizbollah and been a base for training terrorists. It thumbs its nose at the IAEA while it develops its nuclear programme.
Meanwhile, it has a President who denies the holocaust, who cheers on the eradication of Israel.
The Islamic Revolution is a reason to jeer. Not because the regime it overthrew was good, but because this is worse. It was like the Khmer Rouge overthrowing the corrupt nasty Lon Nol regime in Cambodia.
So today why don't you tell your local Iranian embassy to fuck their revolution, and that you can't wait till Iranians can live their lives the way they wish, without the Islamist bullies spying, arresting, torturing and murdering them. While you consider that, ask yourself why so few of the leftwing protest movement give a damn about Iran. Ask why they tolerate women being treated as men's chattels (and no, comparatively liberal Tehran is not the measure of that country). Ask why they are silent over the execution of a 16 year old girl because she had sex with unmarried men, but will jump at the chance to damn Israel to hell for engaging in a war of self defence. Ask why they protested en masse against US nuclear warships, but wont raise a banner against Iran's nuclear programme.
The sooner the Islamic Republic of Iran is an era (error) in history of Iran, the better, the safer for the world and Iranians. The secularist bullies need to be sent back to the mosques, out of Parliaments, out of laws and let Iranians be free.
Iran's government is evil. If you doubt it, then read this post I made two and half years ago, about the children the scum execute. Yes lovely types.
The flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran isn't worth wiping your arse on and setting fire to - but it would be nice if someone did it.
Obama's confusion of whose money he is spending
"Only the federal government has the resources necessary..."
That's called a lie. It doesn't have it, it is printing it, borrowing it from future childrens' taxes.
You see that's the problem. Mortgaging future taxpayers now, and NO accountability for it.
That's called a lie. It doesn't have it, it is printing it, borrowing it from future childrens' taxes.
You see that's the problem. Mortgaging future taxpayers now, and NO accountability for it.
Maiden Speech 3: Kevin Hague: Green and confused
In my ongoing series catching up with the new MPs, there is Kevin Hague. A new Green list MP. My hopes weren't high, but he was CEO of the West Coast District Health Board - you would hope someone of that position, responsible for a region's healthcare, would be clever.
His maiden speech is here.
So:
- He is keen on the Treaty of Waitangi (whatever rocks your boat, funny how the Green party does so badly in Maori seats).
- He doesn't believe in objective reality instead "a new economics that values intrinsic natural characteristics and recreational use". Presumably if different people value things differently, Kevin will sort them out?
- He doesn't believe that you can change your health by your eating, drinking, exercise, smoking, drinking and drug taking because "the health of a population group is largely a reflection of the power it has over its own circumstances, and the environment surrounding it, and that good health improvement can only result from political will". Yep, only politics can make you healthier. Idiot.
- You can only be happy once? "Growth achieved through the bubble economics of speculation is exploitation of another sort, where the non-renewable resource is human dignity and happiness". Happiness isn't renewable?
- Yet he is an atheist and proud of it. Wonderful stuff "I absolutely reject the idea that ethical or moral behaviour has its source in religious faith." I absolutely agree that it need NOT have such a source.
Then he goes off beam:
- "In the absence of such external power then the responsibility for determining how we should live together, and for acting to achieve that state, is solely, but collectively, ours". See no objective basis for it, people vote for how they should live together. Like some tribe.
- "Only two coherent philosophies are possible: survival of the fittest, with no regard to the effect on any other person, or a world in which we recognise our interdependence and respect for the equal and inalienable rights of every person. I have a passionate allegiance to the second of these belief system" Bollocks, there are other philosophies. People are not interdependent, but they can enhance their lives by trade and exchange and being social.
- Now we know what he means, he likes Marxism "It has echoes in ‘to each according to their need; from each according to their means’ or in my personal motivator "If not me, then who? If not now, then when?"
So it's Darwinism or Marxism - nice!
He goes on, he even thinks we should iron out everyone's opportunities to be the same "What are these inalienable rights that each person is entitled to? Eleanor Roosevelt (driving force behind the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which we celebrated yesterday) referred to equal justice, equal dignity, and equal opportunity." How do you guarantee equal opportunity or equal dignity unless children are raised collectively in some Orwellian nightmare? I doubt he understands that though.
Yet then he just, for a few sentences appears to get it "I think another valuable right to conceptualise is autonomy, provided that the exercise of that autonomy does not reduce that of another person. For me the opportunity to make decisions affecting one’s own life, tempered only by the effect of those decisions on others, is driven directly from this central idea and is exactly the idea captured by the Charter principles of appropriate decision-making, and non-violence."
I'd like to hear him talk about that. The effects of the decisions on others though is not the same as not infringing on the rights of others. After all, if I decide not to spend money, or not to take a job or not to go out with a friend, it affects another - but I should have that right. Why should anyone else make such a decision?
Then we get into the envirovangelism: "My personal principle is to take only what resources I need from the natural world and to harm the natural world to the least extent possible." He wont be driving, flying or eating more than subsistence then. Look forward to Mr Ascetic's principle actually being proven wrong.
He remembers the death of Bobby Kennedy (sad but yawn).
So really, he's a bit confused. How the people of the West Coast coped when he was Chief Executive of the West Coast District Health Board is beyond me. He's a Marxist, a believer in armageddon and has many bizarre ideas (maybe he just doesn't pick his words well, which is particularly bad in a legislator).
His maiden speech is here.
So:
- He is keen on the Treaty of Waitangi (whatever rocks your boat, funny how the Green party does so badly in Maori seats).
- He doesn't believe in objective reality instead "a new economics that values intrinsic natural characteristics and recreational use". Presumably if different people value things differently, Kevin will sort them out?
- He doesn't believe that you can change your health by your eating, drinking, exercise, smoking, drinking and drug taking because "the health of a population group is largely a reflection of the power it has over its own circumstances, and the environment surrounding it, and that good health improvement can only result from political will". Yep, only politics can make you healthier. Idiot.
- You can only be happy once? "Growth achieved through the bubble economics of speculation is exploitation of another sort, where the non-renewable resource is human dignity and happiness". Happiness isn't renewable?
- Yet he is an atheist and proud of it. Wonderful stuff "I absolutely reject the idea that ethical or moral behaviour has its source in religious faith." I absolutely agree that it need NOT have such a source.
Then he goes off beam:
- "In the absence of such external power then the responsibility for determining how we should live together, and for acting to achieve that state, is solely, but collectively, ours". See no objective basis for it, people vote for how they should live together. Like some tribe.
- "Only two coherent philosophies are possible: survival of the fittest, with no regard to the effect on any other person, or a world in which we recognise our interdependence and respect for the equal and inalienable rights of every person. I have a passionate allegiance to the second of these belief system" Bollocks, there are other philosophies. People are not interdependent, but they can enhance their lives by trade and exchange and being social.
- Now we know what he means, he likes Marxism "It has echoes in ‘to each according to their need; from each according to their means’ or in my personal motivator "If not me, then who? If not now, then when?"
So it's Darwinism or Marxism - nice!
He goes on, he even thinks we should iron out everyone's opportunities to be the same "What are these inalienable rights that each person is entitled to? Eleanor Roosevelt (driving force behind the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which we celebrated yesterday) referred to equal justice, equal dignity, and equal opportunity." How do you guarantee equal opportunity or equal dignity unless children are raised collectively in some Orwellian nightmare? I doubt he understands that though.
Yet then he just, for a few sentences appears to get it "I think another valuable right to conceptualise is autonomy, provided that the exercise of that autonomy does not reduce that of another person. For me the opportunity to make decisions affecting one’s own life, tempered only by the effect of those decisions on others, is driven directly from this central idea and is exactly the idea captured by the Charter principles of appropriate decision-making, and non-violence."
I'd like to hear him talk about that. The effects of the decisions on others though is not the same as not infringing on the rights of others. After all, if I decide not to spend money, or not to take a job or not to go out with a friend, it affects another - but I should have that right. Why should anyone else make such a decision?
Then we get into the envirovangelism: "My personal principle is to take only what resources I need from the natural world and to harm the natural world to the least extent possible." He wont be driving, flying or eating more than subsistence then. Look forward to Mr Ascetic's principle actually being proven wrong.
He remembers the death of Bobby Kennedy (sad but yawn).
So really, he's a bit confused. How the people of the West Coast coped when he was Chief Executive of the West Coast District Health Board is beyond me. He's a Marxist, a believer in armageddon and has many bizarre ideas (maybe he just doesn't pick his words well, which is particularly bad in a legislator).
Nick Smith gives trolley buses free run?
Government genius Nick Smith has been reported in the NZ Herald saying the government planned to waive road user charges on electric vehicles.
Odd that, given that road user charges are set to recover the costs of road maintenance from vehicles that don't pay petrol tax. Electric vehicles aren't weightless.
However, Smith may learn that opening his mouth before he understands something can cost. You see there have been electric vehicles paying road user charges for years - Wellington's trolley bus fleet being the notable ones. Not many indeed, but these are heavy vehicles that do tear up Wellington streets, and not charging them for doing so (but charging diesel buses) would make Wellington Bus and its owner, Infratil, rather happy.
So Nick, giving trolley buses a free ride on the roads too now? How many more electric cars will be encouraged because they wont be paying 4.5c/km?
Odd that, given that road user charges are set to recover the costs of road maintenance from vehicles that don't pay petrol tax. Electric vehicles aren't weightless.
However, Smith may learn that opening his mouth before he understands something can cost. You see there have been electric vehicles paying road user charges for years - Wellington's trolley bus fleet being the notable ones. Not many indeed, but these are heavy vehicles that do tear up Wellington streets, and not charging them for doing so (but charging diesel buses) would make Wellington Bus and its owner, Infratil, rather happy.
So Nick, giving trolley buses a free ride on the roads too now? How many more electric cars will be encouraged because they wont be paying 4.5c/km?
A politician who understands
Sir Roger Douglas is showing his value as an MP, by opposing the government's economic "package" in words, although he is unlikely to vote against supply in the House. At the very least he isn't following the sheeple Keynesians who think there is one solution, when that medicine may prove to simply delay the inevitable economic realignment.
Stuff reports Douglas saying:
Stuff reports Douglas saying:
"When international credit is particularly tight, the Government has announced plans to borrow and spend on infrastructure projects.
"We have now been put on notice that our credit rating may be downgraded."
Sir Roger said New Zealand needed lower spending and lower taxes.
Unless both measures are adopted our children will have to pay back the borrowed money, and interest, in the future, he said.
"The Government is now mortgaging our children for the next round of spending increases."
Citizens have become more concerned with "dividing the pie rather than growing it" and politicians "merely mirror the sentiment" of voters.
He's right of course, but then he shows Bill English up so easily.
Douglas has a far more useful solution than spending your childrens' taxes:
Douglas has a far more useful solution than spending your childrens' taxes:
He wants a tax system where an individual's first $30,000 would be tax-free, above that they would be taxed at a flat rate.
The flat rate, and company tax, would be reduced to 15 percent over the next 15 years.
Families with children would receive their first $50,000 tax-free with an increased tax-free threshold based on the number of children.
Families would be guaranteed a minimum income boosted by tax credits if they earned below the threshold.
The flip-side is that individuals would have to foot the bill for their own retirement, healthcare and insurance.
Yes amazing, low flat tax and you'd have to pay for healthcare and your retirement. Sadly though, most New Zealanders are too lazy, too scared and too much like children to want to actually be responsible for themselves.
The report shows a lack of understanding by the reporter, as Douglas says it would be optional to either go for his choice or pay taxes at the moment. THAT is where the real policy revolution should be.
Imagine that - pay the current taxes to access state health, education and promises of pensions OR opt out, get most of your income tax back and don't go crying to Nanny if you stuffed up.
You wont get it voting National.
The report shows a lack of understanding by the reporter, as Douglas says it would be optional to either go for his choice or pay taxes at the moment. THAT is where the real policy revolution should be.
Imagine that - pay the current taxes to access state health, education and promises of pensions OR opt out, get most of your income tax back and don't go crying to Nanny if you stuffed up.
You wont get it voting National.
Obama's big spendup
You’ll hear a lot about Obama’s print money package to stimulate the US economy by mortgaging on the taxes of people’s children. Curious how the left, which goes on endlessly about the suffering children and grandchildren will bear from the environment, doesn’t give a damn about subsidising the follies of imprudent borrowers and lenders with future taxes stolen from the unborn.
So what IS Obama offering? Well let’s start with the, apparent, good. Tax cuts. According to the Washington Post these are 22% of the package, although the Obama Administration claims it is 33%. Why the difference? Well because some of the cuts are tax credits given to people who pay no net taxes at all. That isn’t a tax cut, it’s welfare! I’ll be generous and say that the 22% is a good thing, it is good for the US Federal Government to take less money from people, but the rest? Well it is complicated, but who am I not to try to summarise it all:
The biggest lump is spending called “health, education and labor”. US$91.3 billion worth. It includes money to “renovate schools”, which I’d say the federal government shouldn’t own anyway. It also is money to the Department of Health and Human Services. This means subsidised healthcare, welfare programmes and a large number of other government “public health” initiatives. You might wonder how much of that is sucked into this huge bureaucracy, and indeed how much of the education spending isn’t just going to be absorbed by Obama’s unionised friends.
US$89.7 billion is boosting Medicaid temporarily, the socialised healthcare scheme for children of poor families, the disabled and other categories of low income people. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.
US$79 billion for the state fiscal stabilisation fund, essentially bails out states so they can keep spending money on education primarily. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.
US$62.3 billion for transportation, housing and urban development. Half is to build roads, but the US has an appalling system for deciding how to build roads. Politicians set priorities, so again this could be money down the plughole if unnecessary roads are built. The rest is public transport and housing assistance, again more money down the drain. The best housing assistance is the one provided by the deflating market.
US$48.9 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, including subsidising electricity infrastructure. You might think there would be more efforts by individuals at energy efficiency if they paid themselves for the cost of core electricity infrastructure. Again another fundamental failing in how the US does infrastructure.
US$45.7 billion Essentially a boost to unemployment benefits.
US$40.8 billion Welfare so the unemployed can buy health insurance (don’t laugh, they’ll get better care than New Zealand or UK unemployed people using socialised medicine).
US$26.9 billion. Agriculture, nutrition and rural. More money for foodstamps (welfare) and subsidising broadband to rural areas. US$4.1 billion included for “rural development” whatever that means.
The rest are smaller (!) sums for all sorts of pork like:
- Improving national parks
- Improving water infrastructure (couldn’t just privatise it or run it commercially so users pay? No this is the United Socialist States of America)
- Science and technology grants.
All in all, change? Hardly, it’s just throwing money at bureaucracies to spend money like they always have done. No confrontation of why the Federal government thinks it should pay for water or electricity or education. No change to how transport is funded, just throw money at the bureaucracies that spend money where politicians think, while bridges collapse because there aren’t votes in maintenance.
Oh and investment? Yep there will be jobs, bureaucratic unproductive ones. They wont be jobs that are better than those created by people spending that money themselves. They wont be better than setting free the government regulated (and in most cases owned) power, water and road systems, which are America’s tribute to socialism in how badly they are all run.
Obama is just trying to kick the recession into the future again. His soundbite moment of capping chief executive pay for subsidised banks will be popular, and understandable, but he's pouring money down the fat pig laden hides of congressmen and women, state governors and others who leech off of the productive, and by and large show little interest in changing the USA to fix the most badly run parts of the economy.
Never mind that he never had any great new ideas for reform, his personality cult lives.
So what IS Obama offering? Well let’s start with the, apparent, good. Tax cuts. According to the Washington Post these are 22% of the package, although the Obama Administration claims it is 33%. Why the difference? Well because some of the cuts are tax credits given to people who pay no net taxes at all. That isn’t a tax cut, it’s welfare! I’ll be generous and say that the 22% is a good thing, it is good for the US Federal Government to take less money from people, but the rest? Well it is complicated, but who am I not to try to summarise it all:
The biggest lump is spending called “health, education and labor”. US$91.3 billion worth. It includes money to “renovate schools”, which I’d say the federal government shouldn’t own anyway. It also is money to the Department of Health and Human Services. This means subsidised healthcare, welfare programmes and a large number of other government “public health” initiatives. You might wonder how much of that is sucked into this huge bureaucracy, and indeed how much of the education spending isn’t just going to be absorbed by Obama’s unionised friends.
US$89.7 billion is boosting Medicaid temporarily, the socialised healthcare scheme for children of poor families, the disabled and other categories of low income people. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.
US$79 billion for the state fiscal stabilisation fund, essentially bails out states so they can keep spending money on education primarily. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.
US$62.3 billion for transportation, housing and urban development. Half is to build roads, but the US has an appalling system for deciding how to build roads. Politicians set priorities, so again this could be money down the plughole if unnecessary roads are built. The rest is public transport and housing assistance, again more money down the drain. The best housing assistance is the one provided by the deflating market.
US$48.9 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, including subsidising electricity infrastructure. You might think there would be more efforts by individuals at energy efficiency if they paid themselves for the cost of core electricity infrastructure. Again another fundamental failing in how the US does infrastructure.
US$45.7 billion Essentially a boost to unemployment benefits.
US$40.8 billion Welfare so the unemployed can buy health insurance (don’t laugh, they’ll get better care than New Zealand or UK unemployed people using socialised medicine).
US$26.9 billion. Agriculture, nutrition and rural. More money for foodstamps (welfare) and subsidising broadband to rural areas. US$4.1 billion included for “rural development” whatever that means.
The rest are smaller (!) sums for all sorts of pork like:
- Improving national parks
- Improving water infrastructure (couldn’t just privatise it or run it commercially so users pay? No this is the United Socialist States of America)
- Science and technology grants.
All in all, change? Hardly, it’s just throwing money at bureaucracies to spend money like they always have done. No confrontation of why the Federal government thinks it should pay for water or electricity or education. No change to how transport is funded, just throw money at the bureaucracies that spend money where politicians think, while bridges collapse because there aren’t votes in maintenance.
Oh and investment? Yep there will be jobs, bureaucratic unproductive ones. They wont be jobs that are better than those created by people spending that money themselves. They wont be better than setting free the government regulated (and in most cases owned) power, water and road systems, which are America’s tribute to socialism in how badly they are all run.
Obama is just trying to kick the recession into the future again. His soundbite moment of capping chief executive pay for subsidised banks will be popular, and understandable, but he's pouring money down the fat pig laden hides of congressmen and women, state governors and others who leech off of the productive, and by and large show little interest in changing the USA to fix the most badly run parts of the economy.
Never mind that he never had any great new ideas for reform, his personality cult lives.
10 February 2009
Prick of the week award goes to
Australian Environmaniac Bob Brown for claiming the deadly fires in Australia, partly because of arson are due to global warming, as reported by ABC Radio.
"Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more," he told Sky News. "It's a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change."
Way to help the victims Bob. Wouldn't be better to have as a priority catching arsonists, larger firebreaks, more responsive fire services? Nah, cycle to work instead of driving, it will really help the victims of the fires.
Notice the Australian Green Party website has a press release on the fires that doesn't express this viewpoint. You see, it didn't go down well to point score from other peoples' misery.
Of course the Guardian takes it all seriously, even though one expert it talks (Roger Stone, a climate expert at the University of Southern Queensland,) said: "It certainly fits the climate change models, but I have to add the proviso that it's very difficult, even with extreme conditions like this, to always attribute it to climate change." While also reporting the imminent blizzard conditions in the UK.
Don't let the facts get in a good story Bob, or you doing as much good for the victims of this disaster as pissing on the fire.
"Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more," he told Sky News. "It's a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change."
Way to help the victims Bob. Wouldn't be better to have as a priority catching arsonists, larger firebreaks, more responsive fire services? Nah, cycle to work instead of driving, it will really help the victims of the fires.
Notice the Australian Green Party website has a press release on the fires that doesn't express this viewpoint. You see, it didn't go down well to point score from other peoples' misery.
Of course the Guardian takes it all seriously, even though one expert it talks (Roger Stone, a climate expert at the University of Southern Queensland,) said: "It certainly fits the climate change models, but I have to add the proviso that it's very difficult, even with extreme conditions like this, to always attribute it to climate change." While also reporting the imminent blizzard conditions in the UK.
Don't let the facts get in a good story Bob, or you doing as much good for the victims of this disaster as pissing on the fire.
Maiden Speech 2: Rahui Katene: Te Tai Tonga
In order to give balance to reviewing the maiden speeches, I figured I'd try to alternate between opposition and government MPs. In this case, Rahui Katene is the Maori Party's new MP in 2008, taking Te Tai Tonga from Mahara Okeroa of Labour.
Her speech is here on Scoop in full.
Early in the speech is a statement that effectively says she is a Mormon ("That life of service to, and love of, others is a lesson well learnt as a member of my whanau, hapu and iwi, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."). Of course she can believe what she wants, but frankly someone believing in a church founded by a relatively modern day fraudster deserves some ridicule (Christopher Hitchens has a short summary of the bizarre story behind this ridiculous church).
Beyond that most of the speech is about her family. Dad protested at Raglan, Bastion Point and at the Springbok tour. Mum went with the New Labour Party. Great stuff! Red flows in her veins in more ways than one. A minor error saying "as a University student I protested against the Springbok tour in 1986" which was the Cavaliers's tour of South Africa.
Unsurprisingly she is big on genetic identity "My politics have always been defined by my upbringing and my experiences as a Maori, a Maori woman and a mother of Maori children." Because, she understands the experience of not being one?? Of course most of the rest of her speech is about how she became a lawyer and part of the Treaty of Waitangi industry. Again, hardly surprising, but nothing outstanding out of this, beyond the strong alignment between who she is, and ethnicity.
Verdict? Well she has hardly a wide range of experience or exposure to different ideas of philosophies. She has been brought up by socialists, and matured in an environment of ethnically based nationalism. She believes in collective responsibility and " Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly".
You wont find an advocate of individual freedom here, you'll find socialism, nationalism, stirred with the mysticism of a loony church, but be grateful - she's not Kennedy Graham!
Her speech is here on Scoop in full.
Early in the speech is a statement that effectively says she is a Mormon ("That life of service to, and love of, others is a lesson well learnt as a member of my whanau, hapu and iwi, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."). Of course she can believe what she wants, but frankly someone believing in a church founded by a relatively modern day fraudster deserves some ridicule (Christopher Hitchens has a short summary of the bizarre story behind this ridiculous church).
Beyond that most of the speech is about her family. Dad protested at Raglan, Bastion Point and at the Springbok tour. Mum went with the New Labour Party. Great stuff! Red flows in her veins in more ways than one. A minor error saying "as a University student I protested against the Springbok tour in 1986" which was the Cavaliers's tour of South Africa.
Unsurprisingly she is big on genetic identity "My politics have always been defined by my upbringing and my experiences as a Maori, a Maori woman and a mother of Maori children." Because, she understands the experience of not being one?? Of course most of the rest of her speech is about how she became a lawyer and part of the Treaty of Waitangi industry. Again, hardly surprising, but nothing outstanding out of this, beyond the strong alignment between who she is, and ethnicity.
Verdict? Well she has hardly a wide range of experience or exposure to different ideas of philosophies. She has been brought up by socialists, and matured in an environment of ethnically based nationalism. She believes in collective responsibility and " Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly".
You wont find an advocate of individual freedom here, you'll find socialism, nationalism, stirred with the mysticism of a loony church, but be grateful - she's not Kennedy Graham!
Maiden speech reviews: Kennedy Graham: control freak
Yep, I'm a bit late on these, so thought I'd better catch up. Starting with the far left of the House with Kennedy Graham, brother of ex. Cabinet Minister Doug Graham. However, whereas Doug went with the Nats (and had his proudest moment after the 1987 election when he admittedly wholeheartedly that National should have embraced the free market years ago) , Kennedy is a Green socialist.
Sadly reason isn't one of his fortes. Take this part of his speech:
"For ours is the first generation to confront problems of a planetary scale – daunting in their complexity, seemingly intractable in nature."
World War Two? Risk of nuclear annihilation? Those were past generations. Give up the dramatics.
"- As our human numbers increase, our earth-share diminishes."
A new piece of GreenNewSpeak. "Our earth share diminishes". Sounds like voluntary human extinction could help out.
"- As our materialistic lifestyle expands, our ecological footprint grows ever larger."
alone with our lifespan, our time for leisure, and opportunities for happiness, but fuck that right?
"Humankind today, casting precaution to the wind, is recording an ecological overshoot beyond the planet’s carrying capacity, anthropogenically inducing climate change of unprecedented magnitude and alarming danger."
Utter bollocks of course, since there has been far more dramatic climate change in human history than is even forecasts by the most pessimistic of major climate scientists.
"We are drawing down on Earth’s natural resources, borrowing forward on the human heritage, irretrievably encroaching on our children’s right to inherit the Earth in a natural and sustainable state. It is the uniquely dubious fate of our generation to have broken the eternal promise of inter-generational justice. "
Ah, "we" and "our", the words of the collectivist. The eternal promise of inter-generational justice? More Green NewSpeak, what the hell is he on about?
"We in New Zealand are part of the problem, not yet of the solution. Our ecological footprint is three times higher than the global average, our carbon emissions five times higher."
Dodging a definition, I assume he means per capita. Probably explained by this being a developed country Kennedy, of low density and high agricultural output. You could try North Korea which is almost certainly below average, or Equatorial Guinea, or how about Sudan? Yep they get up every morning glad they are your heroes.
" It is time we measured national success, not through mindless material growth but through genuine progress in human well-being"
It is time individuals measured their own success. Mindless material growth is it? So you tell people wanting to earn more that it is mindless? Ah genuine well-being, well go tell a trade union that they should give up material growth for their members.
"It is time we relinquished our feverish ranking within the OECD, and began contributing to the true advancement of the emerging global society"
Yeah man, let's drop down like Argentina once did, for the "emerging global society".
Vapid onanism par excellence so far. However, he's not just silly, he's downright dangerous. His speech took a far more ominous tone when he talks about individual freedom (emphasis added below)
"Sustainability is the supreme political value of the 21st century. It is not a concept of passing political expediency – a clip-on word for post-economic environmental damage. It is now the categorical imperative of personal behaviour. Individual freedoms are no longer unlicensed, but henceforth subordinate to the twin principles of survival and sustainable living. The political rights we enjoy today are to be calibrated by the responsibility we carry for tomorrow."
Get it? The categorical imperative of personal behaviour is NOT "do no harm to others", it is not "obey the law", it is not "respect the bodies and property of others", it is "sustainability". Furthermore individual freedom is subordinate to the "twin principle of survival and sustainable living". Think how much freedom you can lose by this idiot pursuing "sustainable living" because he thinks this is more important than your political rights. Not a libertarian, possibly not even a democrat.
He waffles on about international commitments, worrying about tomorrow's children (sacrifice you and your current children though), and respecting all civilisations and faiths with due humility (yep the Taliban, the North Koreans, respect them all!).
He misquotes the UN Charter saying "Today, armed force may no longer be used by Member States save in the common interest". Bollocks, as every member state can use armed force for self defence, and the UN Security Council can authorise it against threats to international peace and security (and has done so). He wants it to be illegal for New Zealanders to commit aggression. By that he means war, which undoubtedly includes mercenaries. He doesn't mean himself and other politicians against New Zealanders, although the state is by its very nature aggressively initiating force every day. He undoubtedly wouldn't like mercenaries from New Zealand trying to overthrow any dictatorships, as he probably sees them as civilisations to respect.
So he's a fool and has the inklings of a fascist in his willingness to sacrifice freedom for "sustainability". He says "Generations gone before have sacrificed for our cherished freedoms – freedom of speech and association, freedom to practise our religions, freedom from want and freedom from fear" yet he is willing to sacrifice freedom for his religion of "sustainability", using fear of Nanny State to practice it.
For a man with several degrees, he has foolishly bought into the Green hysteria, the moral relativism of post-modern political philosophy, and is happy to sacrifice individual freedom for the new religion of environmentalism.
If he was just an airy-fairy hippie with silly optimism about the world he'd be harmless, but he worships sustainability over individual rights. He is, in other words, a rather dangerous man.
Sadly reason isn't one of his fortes. Take this part of his speech:
"For ours is the first generation to confront problems of a planetary scale – daunting in their complexity, seemingly intractable in nature."
World War Two? Risk of nuclear annihilation? Those were past generations. Give up the dramatics.
"- As our human numbers increase, our earth-share diminishes."
A new piece of GreenNewSpeak. "Our earth share diminishes". Sounds like voluntary human extinction could help out.
"- As our materialistic lifestyle expands, our ecological footprint grows ever larger."
alone with our lifespan, our time for leisure, and opportunities for happiness, but fuck that right?
"Humankind today, casting precaution to the wind, is recording an ecological overshoot beyond the planet’s carrying capacity, anthropogenically inducing climate change of unprecedented magnitude and alarming danger."
Utter bollocks of course, since there has been far more dramatic climate change in human history than is even forecasts by the most pessimistic of major climate scientists.
"We are drawing down on Earth’s natural resources, borrowing forward on the human heritage, irretrievably encroaching on our children’s right to inherit the Earth in a natural and sustainable state. It is the uniquely dubious fate of our generation to have broken the eternal promise of inter-generational justice. "
Ah, "we" and "our", the words of the collectivist. The eternal promise of inter-generational justice? More Green NewSpeak, what the hell is he on about?
"We in New Zealand are part of the problem, not yet of the solution. Our ecological footprint is three times higher than the global average, our carbon emissions five times higher."
Dodging a definition, I assume he means per capita. Probably explained by this being a developed country Kennedy, of low density and high agricultural output. You could try North Korea which is almost certainly below average, or Equatorial Guinea, or how about Sudan? Yep they get up every morning glad they are your heroes.
" It is time we measured national success, not through mindless material growth but through genuine progress in human well-being"
It is time individuals measured their own success. Mindless material growth is it? So you tell people wanting to earn more that it is mindless? Ah genuine well-being, well go tell a trade union that they should give up material growth for their members.
"It is time we relinquished our feverish ranking within the OECD, and began contributing to the true advancement of the emerging global society"
Yeah man, let's drop down like Argentina once did, for the "emerging global society".
Vapid onanism par excellence so far. However, he's not just silly, he's downright dangerous. His speech took a far more ominous tone when he talks about individual freedom (emphasis added below)
"Sustainability is the supreme political value of the 21st century. It is not a concept of passing political expediency – a clip-on word for post-economic environmental damage. It is now the categorical imperative of personal behaviour. Individual freedoms are no longer unlicensed, but henceforth subordinate to the twin principles of survival and sustainable living. The political rights we enjoy today are to be calibrated by the responsibility we carry for tomorrow."
Get it? The categorical imperative of personal behaviour is NOT "do no harm to others", it is not "obey the law", it is not "respect the bodies and property of others", it is "sustainability". Furthermore individual freedom is subordinate to the "twin principle of survival and sustainable living". Think how much freedom you can lose by this idiot pursuing "sustainable living" because he thinks this is more important than your political rights. Not a libertarian, possibly not even a democrat.
He waffles on about international commitments, worrying about tomorrow's children (sacrifice you and your current children though), and respecting all civilisations and faiths with due humility (yep the Taliban, the North Koreans, respect them all!).
He misquotes the UN Charter saying "Today, armed force may no longer be used by Member States save in the common interest". Bollocks, as every member state can use armed force for self defence, and the UN Security Council can authorise it against threats to international peace and security (and has done so). He wants it to be illegal for New Zealanders to commit aggression. By that he means war, which undoubtedly includes mercenaries. He doesn't mean himself and other politicians against New Zealanders, although the state is by its very nature aggressively initiating force every day. He undoubtedly wouldn't like mercenaries from New Zealand trying to overthrow any dictatorships, as he probably sees them as civilisations to respect.
So he's a fool and has the inklings of a fascist in his willingness to sacrifice freedom for "sustainability". He says "Generations gone before have sacrificed for our cherished freedoms – freedom of speech and association, freedom to practise our religions, freedom from want and freedom from fear" yet he is willing to sacrifice freedom for his religion of "sustainability", using fear of Nanny State to practice it.
For a man with several degrees, he has foolishly bought into the Green hysteria, the moral relativism of post-modern political philosophy, and is happy to sacrifice individual freedom for the new religion of environmentalism.
If he was just an airy-fairy hippie with silly optimism about the world he'd be harmless, but he worships sustainability over individual rights. He is, in other words, a rather dangerous man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)