The Times has them today including:
Napoleon was short - he was 5ft 7, which was average, then.
Vikings had helmets with horns, no they were buried with helmets and drinking horns.
Edison invented the light bulb. No, Joseph Swan did.
Mice like cheese. No they prefer sugary food.
Humans evolved from apes. No, humans and apes have common ancestors.
Read the rest here.
28 October 2009
Lord Stern loses the plot - some more
Lord Stern is known for his report on climate change for the British Government. He claimed the benefits of intervening to prevent climate change exceeded the costs, a cost of 1% of GDP to save "up to 20% of GDP". The report was warmly embraced by the usual suspects and widely condemned by others. Bjorn Lomborg said the numbers were dodgy, there have been other critiques of the analysis. However, let's set this all aside for a moment.
Now he has come about with claims that would frighten some, make many environmentalists smile, but overall look rather ridiculous.
He claims "southern Europe is likely to be a desert; hundreds of millions of people will have to move. There will be severe global conflict". Scaremongering is it not?
Furthermore, he wants people to stop eating meat: "Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet"
Mind you he isn't a vegetarian himself.
Nile Gardiner in the Daily Telegraph welcomes it though:
"Still, Lord Stern has done us all a favour. His monumentally silly remarks about turning the planet vegetarian will only drive another nail into the credibility of the climate hysteria movement. I look forward to his next interview on why we should all stop driving cars and return to using horse and cart. With the exception of course of gilded grandees who need a limo to the next UN conference on global warming."
For me, until those who are concerned about climate change advocate, first, getting rid of the vast panoply of state interventions that INCREASE CO2 emissions, I'm going to be sceptical about whether they really do want to balance human beings with the environment. What sort of things do I mean?Now he has come about with claims that would frighten some, make many environmentalists smile, but overall look rather ridiculous.
He claims "southern Europe is likely to be a desert; hundreds of millions of people will have to move. There will be severe global conflict". Scaremongering is it not?
Furthermore, he wants people to stop eating meat: "Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet"
Mind you he isn't a vegetarian himself.
Nile Gardiner in the Daily Telegraph welcomes it though:
"Still, Lord Stern has done us all a favour. His monumentally silly remarks about turning the planet vegetarian will only drive another nail into the credibility of the climate hysteria movement. I look forward to his next interview on why we should all stop driving cars and return to using horse and cart. With the exception of course of gilded grandees who need a limo to the next UN conference on global warming."
- Price controls on energy including limits to the profits energy companies can make, and subsidies to consumers;
- Subsidies for any modes of motorised transport, including governments not demanding a real profit from their own transport assets;
- Subsidies for agriculture and trade restrictions on agricultural products that keep efficient producers (like New Zealand for dairy products and Thailand for rice) from supplying countries with inefficient producers (like the EU and Japan);
- Subsidies and protectionism for the motor vehicle industry, aircraft manufacturing sector, steel industry, indeed any industry at all that uses high amounts of electricity or fossil fuels;
- Welfare that rewards breeding;
- Subsidised waste disposal and landfills.
Karadzic planned eradication of Bosnian Muslims
The Times reports evidence at the The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic of phone taps when he said in 1991:
They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo.... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.
Charming.
The vile murderous vision of nationalist slaughter by this thug, his right hand brute Ratko Mladic and the late Slobodan Milosevic was put into practice, while the world watched.
Of course, it wasn't helped by the arms embargo which meant Bosnian Muslims could not readily acquire the means to defend themselves, whilst Bosnian Serbs had already taken control of most of the arms of the former Yugoslav National Army, which had been controlled from Belgrade. It wasn't helped by the UN declaring Srebrenica as a "safe haven" which Bosnian Muslim refugees fled to, only to be slaughtered (the men and the boys slaughtered, the women and girls raped, as part of a deliberate plan to fill Bosnia with "baby Serbs"). The mistakes were many in the international response to this conflict, but nothing beats the pure brutal evil of the likes of Karadzic, proving some Europeans still have the willingness to undertake atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazis.
Of course, no side was innocent of bloodshed inflicted on the innocent, but without a doubt the Bosnian Serb side was the blatant standard-bearer of "ethnic cleansing". The trial of Karadzic reminds us all of how xenophobic chauvinism remains a cancerous tumour that some politicians are only too willing to encourage, and all too many are willing to kill in the name of.
They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo.... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.
Charming.
The vile murderous vision of nationalist slaughter by this thug, his right hand brute Ratko Mladic and the late Slobodan Milosevic was put into practice, while the world watched.
Of course, it wasn't helped by the arms embargo which meant Bosnian Muslims could not readily acquire the means to defend themselves, whilst Bosnian Serbs had already taken control of most of the arms of the former Yugoslav National Army, which had been controlled from Belgrade. It wasn't helped by the UN declaring Srebrenica as a "safe haven" which Bosnian Muslim refugees fled to, only to be slaughtered (the men and the boys slaughtered, the women and girls raped, as part of a deliberate plan to fill Bosnia with "baby Serbs"). The mistakes were many in the international response to this conflict, but nothing beats the pure brutal evil of the likes of Karadzic, proving some Europeans still have the willingness to undertake atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazis.
Of course, no side was innocent of bloodshed inflicted on the innocent, but without a doubt the Bosnian Serb side was the blatant standard-bearer of "ethnic cleansing". The trial of Karadzic reminds us all of how xenophobic chauvinism remains a cancerous tumour that some politicians are only too willing to encourage, and all too many are willing to kill in the name of.
Roger Douglas damns Nats on ACC
ACC is a pyramid scheme. Who says? Sir Roger Douglas
He says of the government's ACC bill:
Nothing in this Bill deals with the fact that, from its inception, ACC was a flawed pyramid scheme. In the beginning, it operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. That meant that for many years, it seemed cheap, as the full cost was not apparent – all of those with long term injuries were not yet making claims. Unfortunately, those years of low cost also saw the entitlements expand – so that by the time the system had absorbed all those with long term injuries, and covered the expanded entitlements, it suddenly seemed to cost an awful lot.
These problems are set to get worse. We have an aging society. An aging society implies not only more payouts, but also a lower proportion of people paying levies to cover the Non-Work Account. Because it is a Ponzi scheme, it will require ever-expanding numbers of people working to pay the levies.
So you can see how it has gone wrong, as it progresses, more and more claim it, stay on it for extended periods, making it progressively more expensive. Concepts completely alien to the economically illiterate left.
He says Labour knew this, and sought ACC to become fully funded by 2014, but it also expanded "entitlements" effectively setting it up for bankruptcy. The nonsense spread by the left that ACC is in fine shape because it receives more than it pays out, ignores the unfunded liabilities it has:
If any private insurance company had the books that ACC has, they would be declared bankrupt. The only reason that ACC is still solvent is that it has the capacity to increase levies. In essence, it is solvent because it can force people to cover its costs.
In other words, it is solvent because it has a state monopoly - it is solvent because you are forced to pay for it.
He suggests competition "The only viable way to ensure that ACC delivers results for reasonable prices is if it is open to competition. If people can get cheaper rates elsewhere, they should be allowed to leave. If that means risky workplaces start paying higher premiums, so be it – it will encourage them to improve workplace safety"
He makes the same classic arguments about competition, including one I have repeated:
"Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.
He says of the government's ACC bill:
Nothing in this Bill deals with the fact that, from its inception, ACC was a flawed pyramid scheme. In the beginning, it operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. That meant that for many years, it seemed cheap, as the full cost was not apparent – all of those with long term injuries were not yet making claims. Unfortunately, those years of low cost also saw the entitlements expand – so that by the time the system had absorbed all those with long term injuries, and covered the expanded entitlements, it suddenly seemed to cost an awful lot.
These problems are set to get worse. We have an aging society. An aging society implies not only more payouts, but also a lower proportion of people paying levies to cover the Non-Work Account. Because it is a Ponzi scheme, it will require ever-expanding numbers of people working to pay the levies.
So you can see how it has gone wrong, as it progresses, more and more claim it, stay on it for extended periods, making it progressively more expensive. Concepts completely alien to the economically illiterate left.
He says Labour knew this, and sought ACC to become fully funded by 2014, but it also expanded "entitlements" effectively setting it up for bankruptcy. The nonsense spread by the left that ACC is in fine shape because it receives more than it pays out, ignores the unfunded liabilities it has:
If any private insurance company had the books that ACC has, they would be declared bankrupt. The only reason that ACC is still solvent is that it has the capacity to increase levies. In essence, it is solvent because it can force people to cover its costs.
In other words, it is solvent because it has a state monopoly - it is solvent because you are forced to pay for it.
He suggests competition "The only viable way to ensure that ACC delivers results for reasonable prices is if it is open to competition. If people can get cheaper rates elsewhere, they should be allowed to leave. If that means risky workplaces start paying higher premiums, so be it – it will encourage them to improve workplace safety"
He makes the same classic arguments about competition, including one I have repeated:
"Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.
By keeping ACC as a monopoly, and not properly allowing risk pricing to emerge, we are in fact increasing the number of workplace accidents. In the private market we have insurance excesses, we have no claims bonuses, we have risk-based premiums. The private market is all about mitigating risk. ACC, on the other hand, is about forcing the good employers to subsidise the bad ones."
The ACC monopoly is classic socialism - all employers pay for the collective risk, the good employers subsidise the bad ones, but who cares, it's all warm fuzzy shared and we all feel good about it, don't we?
After all you hear the left saying privately provided accident insurance will include a profit component, increasing costs, which of course implies that profit should be eliminated, and everything provided by the state, because profit increases costs. Classic Marxism.
All the lies of the left about "privatisation" completely ignore the real debate - why the state monopolises a compulsory accident insurance scheme that means the careful and prudent subsidise the reckless and imprudent? So now, of course, National cuts back ACC coverage to try to fit the budget - meaning all complain about the monopoly delivering less than what people want.
The advocates of state monopoly don't have very good arguments against competition, except use of a Labour commissioned PWC report that had terms of reference to effectively justify the status quo (a classic case of commissioning a study to tell you what you want to hear).
No other country runs this sort of pyramid monopoly scheme for accident cover, it is time to dismantle it and move on. Opening the whole damned lot up to competition is the FIRST step.
Then it's time to look at the next Ponzi scheme - National Superannuation.
Rudman's narrow thinking on drugs
Brian Rudman bemoans opiates as a "deadly scourge" effectively calling for the eradication of opium plants in Afghanistan. He doesn't have a suggestion as to what Afghan farmers should do instead, doesn't consider how this will shift production elsewhere, and doesn't even think that the criminalisation of opium creates many of the problems inherent in the trade. After all, opiates are used for medication, such as morphine.
He says "no one" is fighting it, which is patent nonsense, I guess he missed this. Although the futility of it is clear, since the Afghan government and so many in Afghanistan are reliant on the trade.
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which has a vested interest in retaining the status quo, is his main source of information, and of course it is going to play up the threat. Nowhere are the questions asked:
- Is the main reason it is so profitable because it is illegal?
- Are some of the reasons it is so deadly because it is illegal?
- Is the criminal involvement in the trade because it is illegal?
- Will the elimination of opium in Afghanistan end the trade and supply of heroin?
Where does Rudman get this "fact " from, for example "It is triggering the spread of HIV at an unprecedented rate"? Really? So are the reports that in Africa the location with the highest prevalence of HIV, it is about sexual transmission NOT opiate use just nonsense?
Or is it that he has a terribly old fashioned view on the war on drugs, in that the decades of continued failure have passed him by?
He says "no one" is fighting it, which is patent nonsense, I guess he missed this. Although the futility of it is clear, since the Afghan government and so many in Afghanistan are reliant on the trade.
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which has a vested interest in retaining the status quo, is his main source of information, and of course it is going to play up the threat. Nowhere are the questions asked:
- Is the main reason it is so profitable because it is illegal?
- Are some of the reasons it is so deadly because it is illegal?
- Is the criminal involvement in the trade because it is illegal?
- Will the elimination of opium in Afghanistan end the trade and supply of heroin?
Where does Rudman get this "fact " from, for example "It is triggering the spread of HIV at an unprecedented rate"? Really? So are the reports that in Africa the location with the highest prevalence of HIV, it is about sexual transmission NOT opiate use just nonsense?
Or is it that he has a terribly old fashioned view on the war on drugs, in that the decades of continued failure have passed him by?
27 October 2009
London's capitalist paper
I've quoted a few times from City AM. It is London's less well known morning free paper. It focuses on business and finance, so for many will have little appeal. For me it is the one paper in the UK that consistently, without fail, supports free markets and opposes government intervention to prop up failure.
So I recommend looking at the editorials by Allister Heath at least, even if you are uninterested in shares, banking and markets generally. For the philosophy expressed is a positive one. Indeed, Heath wrote last week just this:
"unlike others, we have refused to go down the road of demagogic class warfare and the politics of envy. City A.M is the only newspaper that stands up for City workers and believes in their values. We support a real free-market economy and oppose bailouts as well as crippling tax hikes; first and foremost, we are the paper for London’s capitalist classes. "
Now that's something work looking at for me. So read City AM, and to start how about this little piece on the financial crisis.
It's not libertarian, but it does seek to embrace the creation of wealth and decry those who destroy it. That in itself is a good thing.
So I recommend looking at the editorials by Allister Heath at least, even if you are uninterested in shares, banking and markets generally. For the philosophy expressed is a positive one. Indeed, Heath wrote last week just this:
"unlike others, we have refused to go down the road of demagogic class warfare and the politics of envy. City A.M is the only newspaper that stands up for City workers and believes in their values. We support a real free-market economy and oppose bailouts as well as crippling tax hikes; first and foremost, we are the paper for London’s capitalist classes. "
Now that's something work looking at for me. So read City AM, and to start how about this little piece on the financial crisis.
It's not libertarian, but it does seek to embrace the creation of wealth and decry those who destroy it. That in itself is a good thing.
George Osborne does not know banking
George Osborne is the Tory Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has never had a real job. He has a second class degree from Oxford and has spent almost his whole working life either as an MP or working for the Conservative Party. His own ample inherited wealth has protected him from risking his own money in business.
So for him to call for banks to limit bonuses to £2000 or hand them out in shares is stupid, stupid indeed, and shows him up for how incredibly shallow he is, and indeed how shallow the Conservatives are.
The Conservatives are going for the envy vote, knowing that those in the banking sector are small in number and will probably vote Conservative.
The Times quotes Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott:
“If state-owned banks such as RBS and Lloyds pay bonuses using shares, they would have to issue new equity, which would dilute the taxpayer’s holdings,” he said. “George Osborne clearly does not understand how shares work . . . His ignorance is toe-curling and he hasn’t a clue how markets and public companies operate.”
Osborne talks of retail banks, but it is investment banks that pay large bonuses. So he doesn't even have a cursory knowledge of the banking sector.
Allister Heath in the excellent City AM got it bang on:
"The Tories are persisting in their belief that there is a moral equivalence between RBS, which went bust and had to be nationalised, and HSBC, which didn’t take any money from any government. Talk of moral hazard: regardless of how well you do, you will still be hammered by the government."
This, you see, is the moral vacuum that those almost across the political spectrum fail to note. Politicians want to punish all banks, yet they rewarded the bad performers, so only the good performers truly lose out. Heath eviscerates Osborne in his editorial and concludes that the outlook is bleak if the Tories really do believe this nonsense:
"expect HSBC and Barclays to start working on their exit plans: no other country, including the US, is planning this sort of separation."
So for him to call for banks to limit bonuses to £2000 or hand them out in shares is stupid, stupid indeed, and shows him up for how incredibly shallow he is, and indeed how shallow the Conservatives are.
The Conservatives are going for the envy vote, knowing that those in the banking sector are small in number and will probably vote Conservative.
The Times quotes Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott:
“If state-owned banks such as RBS and Lloyds pay bonuses using shares, they would have to issue new equity, which would dilute the taxpayer’s holdings,” he said. “George Osborne clearly does not understand how shares work . . . His ignorance is toe-curling and he hasn’t a clue how markets and public companies operate.”
Osborne talks of retail banks, but it is investment banks that pay large bonuses. So he doesn't even have a cursory knowledge of the banking sector.
Allister Heath in the excellent City AM got it bang on:
"The Tories are persisting in their belief that there is a moral equivalence between RBS, which went bust and had to be nationalised, and HSBC, which didn’t take any money from any government. Talk of moral hazard: regardless of how well you do, you will still be hammered by the government."
This, you see, is the moral vacuum that those almost across the political spectrum fail to note. Politicians want to punish all banks, yet they rewarded the bad performers, so only the good performers truly lose out. Heath eviscerates Osborne in his editorial and concludes that the outlook is bleak if the Tories really do believe this nonsense:
"expect HSBC and Barclays to start working on their exit plans: no other country, including the US, is planning this sort of separation."
Snooping State drumming up business
(Warning - profanity in last paragraph)
I blogged recently about the Independent Safeguarding Authority - an Orwellian UK bureaucracy which exists to vet adults as to whether they are pedophiles, or more specifically, whether they might be on something like a balance of probabilities. That, of course, gives it the veneer of being judicial, when it is quasi-judicial. In essence, if you EVER arrange to look after children for longer than a few hours, who you are not related to, it is illegal to do so in the UK, unless the ISA vets you. Vetting you is not just a criminal check, it is to check to see if you've been charged, investigated or if someone lays evidence of "doubt", you might be blacklisted - you have the right to challenge it, but the ISA will rule as final (short of you taking it to court for defamation I suspect).
This vile organisation has been under pressure lately, with even the government that spawned it wanting to curb its powers. Childrens' Secretary Ed Balls announced a review. Nothing like government creating something then effectively admitting it got it wrong.
So you might ask why the hell is the ISA effectively seeking to drum up business by claiming that even people who rarely deal with children might want to get vetted.
The Daily Telegraph reports:
"Sir Roger Singleton, the chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, said the scope of the database could increase significantly because companies would fear losing business if they did not have their employees vetted."
He then describes how an electrician business might think it is a good idea, if bidding for work at schools, and that more generally it would be a competitive advantage.
In other words, he wants more and more people to be vetted, for his organisation to hold quasi-judicial judgments about whether people are perverts, and for it to become the norm so that NOT being vetted would make someone suspicious. Not ISA certified? Oh you must be a pervert then.
Sir Roger Singleton has good intentions, but he has paved the road to hell - a hell where every adult is assumed to have dubious intent towards children unless they are found innocent. Where society operates under a burden of proof not of all being innocent, but all being guilty.
It is a climate of mass distrust, a climate that I can only say is paralleled in countries with totalitarian governments - where nobody can trust who is or is not an informant.
The ISA should be disbanded. People should be able to request that others undertake criminal vetting for convictions, for anything less risks barring people who have done no wrong, or those who are victims of false accusations because they are "different".
Most of all, Sir Roger Singleton deserves to be blasted for promoting his little mini-Stasi.
He deserves to be told to get fucked by all those who look after kids without the slightest nefarious intent, how fucking DARE you run a system that implies that without your imprimatur, people are child molesters.
Why don't you and your joyless goons go to the more feral parts of our big cities and start seeing who really ARE the child abusers in this country, the ones who have unwanted children, who ignore and neglect them, leave them to be preyed upon by strangers, gangs, alcoholics and drug dealers? Or is dealing with this sort of thing a bit too frightfully difficult for the upper and middle classes?
I blogged recently about the Independent Safeguarding Authority - an Orwellian UK bureaucracy which exists to vet adults as to whether they are pedophiles, or more specifically, whether they might be on something like a balance of probabilities. That, of course, gives it the veneer of being judicial, when it is quasi-judicial. In essence, if you EVER arrange to look after children for longer than a few hours, who you are not related to, it is illegal to do so in the UK, unless the ISA vets you. Vetting you is not just a criminal check, it is to check to see if you've been charged, investigated or if someone lays evidence of "doubt", you might be blacklisted - you have the right to challenge it, but the ISA will rule as final (short of you taking it to court for defamation I suspect).
This vile organisation has been under pressure lately, with even the government that spawned it wanting to curb its powers. Childrens' Secretary Ed Balls announced a review. Nothing like government creating something then effectively admitting it got it wrong.
So you might ask why the hell is the ISA effectively seeking to drum up business by claiming that even people who rarely deal with children might want to get vetted.
The Daily Telegraph reports:
"Sir Roger Singleton, the chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, said the scope of the database could increase significantly because companies would fear losing business if they did not have their employees vetted."
He then describes how an electrician business might think it is a good idea, if bidding for work at schools, and that more generally it would be a competitive advantage.
In other words, he wants more and more people to be vetted, for his organisation to hold quasi-judicial judgments about whether people are perverts, and for it to become the norm so that NOT being vetted would make someone suspicious. Not ISA certified? Oh you must be a pervert then.
Sir Roger Singleton has good intentions, but he has paved the road to hell - a hell where every adult is assumed to have dubious intent towards children unless they are found innocent. Where society operates under a burden of proof not of all being innocent, but all being guilty.
It is a climate of mass distrust, a climate that I can only say is paralleled in countries with totalitarian governments - where nobody can trust who is or is not an informant.
The ISA should be disbanded. People should be able to request that others undertake criminal vetting for convictions, for anything less risks barring people who have done no wrong, or those who are victims of false accusations because they are "different".
Most of all, Sir Roger Singleton deserves to be blasted for promoting his little mini-Stasi.
He deserves to be told to get fucked by all those who look after kids without the slightest nefarious intent, how fucking DARE you run a system that implies that without your imprimatur, people are child molesters.
Why don't you and your joyless goons go to the more feral parts of our big cities and start seeing who really ARE the child abusers in this country, the ones who have unwanted children, who ignore and neglect them, leave them to be preyed upon by strangers, gangs, alcoholics and drug dealers? Or is dealing with this sort of thing a bit too frightfully difficult for the upper and middle classes?
Damien Hirst excoriated
Damien Hirst is perhaps one of the most well known post-modernist artists, who would have remained obscure had Charles Saatchi not bought his work. He's known for creations such as "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living", basically a shark in formaldehyde. He devised diamond encrusted skulls ("For the Love of God"), preserved and dissected a cow and calf and even commented on the 9/11 attack as such "You've got to hand it to them on some level because they've achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible, especially to a country as big as America. So on one level they kind of need congratulating" before apologising to the families and friends of the victims.
I find it all quite vile. Hirst appears to worship death, so perhaps the irony of his latest works is that they have lent themselves to the death of his career. Perhaps art critics were waiting for the day to excoriate Hirst, for having little more than imagination and the patronage of those with the aesthetic values of rats. Hirst handed them the day, and they went for it like sharks.
Jonathan Jones in the Guardian says it beautifully as follows:
"Hirst's exhibition is a stupefying admission of defeat, a self-obliterating homage, that reveals the most successful artist of our time to be a tiny talent, with less to offer than even the most obscure Victorian painter in the Wallace Collection"
You see Hirst has painted, it has been exhibited, and it shows he cannot paint. Many have said so in damning terms:
Peter Conrad in the Observer: "Bumptiously confronting Titian, Poussin and other venerable elders at the Wallace Collection, Hirst is enjoying his temporary ownership of the trampled, desecrated earth. But he's not a legitimate heir and the Wallace Collection is playing host to a jumped-up pretender."
Mark Hudson in the Daily Telegraph: "Hirst's presumption in comparison with the technical inadequacy of the work was simply unforgiveable. For once, chutzpah wasn't enough."
Tom Lubbock in The Independent: "Hirst, as a painter, is at about the level of a not-very-promising, first-year art student" and how about why there is attention at all given to Hirst? "A few quick questions. 1. Are these new paintings, painted by Damien Hirst himself, any good? No, not at all, they are not worth looking at. 2. So why are you writing about them at such length? Because he is very famous. 3. And why has the Wallace Collection decided to exhibit them? Because he is very famous. 4. And why did Damien Hirst even paint them in the first place? Because he is very famous."
The Times "The paintings are dreadful. Think Francis Bacon meets Adrian Mole."
Jones concludes that Hirst himself has now shown this age of art to be a fraud:
Hirst has said: I want to be compared directly with the old masters, on their own turf, in their own visual language. In his eyes, it would seem that all the readymades, all the vitrines – all the ideas that have made him rich – are not real art at all. They are substitutes for the art he wishes he could make. The one truly great art, in his eyes, is the high western tradition of oil painting.
He can't do that at all; can't paint his way out of a paper bag. But don't kid yourselves. It is not just Hirst who is implicated in this exposure. It is an entire idea of art that triumphed in the 1990s and still dominates our culture – an entire age of the readymade stands accused by its own creator of being a charade.
Ouch. So well deserved, may the charade be well and truly over. Do I see Tracey Emin hiding looking confused as to what to do next?
I find it all quite vile. Hirst appears to worship death, so perhaps the irony of his latest works is that they have lent themselves to the death of his career. Perhaps art critics were waiting for the day to excoriate Hirst, for having little more than imagination and the patronage of those with the aesthetic values of rats. Hirst handed them the day, and they went for it like sharks.
Jonathan Jones in the Guardian says it beautifully as follows:
"Hirst's exhibition is a stupefying admission of defeat, a self-obliterating homage, that reveals the most successful artist of our time to be a tiny talent, with less to offer than even the most obscure Victorian painter in the Wallace Collection"
You see Hirst has painted, it has been exhibited, and it shows he cannot paint. Many have said so in damning terms:
Peter Conrad in the Observer: "Bumptiously confronting Titian, Poussin and other venerable elders at the Wallace Collection, Hirst is enjoying his temporary ownership of the trampled, desecrated earth. But he's not a legitimate heir and the Wallace Collection is playing host to a jumped-up pretender."
Mark Hudson in the Daily Telegraph: "Hirst's presumption in comparison with the technical inadequacy of the work was simply unforgiveable. For once, chutzpah wasn't enough."
Tom Lubbock in The Independent: "Hirst, as a painter, is at about the level of a not-very-promising, first-year art student" and how about why there is attention at all given to Hirst? "A few quick questions. 1. Are these new paintings, painted by Damien Hirst himself, any good? No, not at all, they are not worth looking at. 2. So why are you writing about them at such length? Because he is very famous. 3. And why has the Wallace Collection decided to exhibit them? Because he is very famous. 4. And why did Damien Hirst even paint them in the first place? Because he is very famous."
The Times "The paintings are dreadful. Think Francis Bacon meets Adrian Mole."
Jones concludes that Hirst himself has now shown this age of art to be a fraud:
Hirst has said: I want to be compared directly with the old masters, on their own turf, in their own visual language. In his eyes, it would seem that all the readymades, all the vitrines – all the ideas that have made him rich – are not real art at all. They are substitutes for the art he wishes he could make. The one truly great art, in his eyes, is the high western tradition of oil painting.
He can't do that at all; can't paint his way out of a paper bag. But don't kid yourselves. It is not just Hirst who is implicated in this exposure. It is an entire idea of art that triumphed in the 1990s and still dominates our culture – an entire age of the readymade stands accused by its own creator of being a charade.
Ouch. So well deserved, may the charade be well and truly over. Do I see Tracey Emin hiding looking confused as to what to do next?
Green brainwashing knows no ends
Australia's Daily Telegraph writes "Tots as young as three have sent letters to Kevin Rudd about their passion for green living and asked companies to reduce their packaging"
At one time the secular left would damn Christians for frightening children with the awful scary stories from the Bible, teaching them that if they sinned they'd go to hell. Now small children are being taught the world is coming to an end, and one of their key responsibilities is to "do something" about it, not unlike the Leninist form of brainwashing of children at schools to support the socialist state and fight the "imperialists".
Young children should NOT be worrying about the world, their chief concerns should be their own life, about school, family, friends and their possessions. To get small children to write to a Prime Minister about the environment is grotesque propagandising.
Imagine if a school got young children to write to the Prime Minister demanding taxes be cut, or that the government expand the armed forces or cut spending so they don't face a huge debt when they start working. The green left would be outraged, but its own scaremongering and politics are treated as "fact".
The Green Party in NZ embraces this as its education policy explicitly states:
"Incorporate environmental education (including energy efficiency and conservation) into the core curriculum at all levels and ensure that teacher education and training programmes allocate significant time for environmental education." and
"# Establish permanent environmental education regional advisory positions and encourage the further development of national resources to develop ecological thinking across the curriculum.
# Expand ERO reporting to include environmental education."
At one time the secular left would damn Christians for frightening children with the awful scary stories from the Bible, teaching them that if they sinned they'd go to hell. Now small children are being taught the world is coming to an end, and one of their key responsibilities is to "do something" about it, not unlike the Leninist form of brainwashing of children at schools to support the socialist state and fight the "imperialists".
Young children should NOT be worrying about the world, their chief concerns should be their own life, about school, family, friends and their possessions. To get small children to write to a Prime Minister about the environment is grotesque propagandising.
Imagine if a school got young children to write to the Prime Minister demanding taxes be cut, or that the government expand the armed forces or cut spending so they don't face a huge debt when they start working. The green left would be outraged, but its own scaremongering and politics are treated as "fact".
The Green Party in NZ embraces this as its education policy explicitly states:
"Incorporate environmental education (including energy efficiency and conservation) into the core curriculum at all levels and ensure that teacher education and training programmes allocate significant time for environmental education." and
"# Establish permanent environmental education regional advisory positions and encourage the further development of national resources to develop ecological thinking across the curriculum.
# Expand ERO reporting to include environmental education."
Of course if you want your children to be taught about this, then good luck to you. I'd let schools teach as they see fit, but it should NOT be part of the curriculum of every school. I'd argue strongly it would be far preferable to teach children personal autonomy, so they respect each others' rights to control their property and bodies - something children should learn in relation to each other. Frightening little children to think the world is going to end serves only one purpose, and it isn't the interests of the children.
(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)
(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)
Helen Clark is still an MP!
So says the Labour Party website today
(I have a screenshot for when this is fixed)
Remember you trusted the leadership of this organisation to spend around half your money.
Of course given she is more popular than Phil Goff as leader, it might not be surprising.
(Hat Tip WhaleOil)
(I have a screenshot for when this is fixed)
Remember you trusted the leadership of this organisation to spend around half your money.
Of course given she is more popular than Phil Goff as leader, it might not be surprising.
National adopts Alliance local government policy
With the NZ Herald reporting Local Government Minister Rodney Hide unable to get National Party support to constrain the powers of local authorities, and unwilling to push it further, it seems like New Zealand is now stuck with a policy on local government driven by Sandra Lee when she was Minister of Local Government in 2001.
In the Local Government Act 2002, pushed by Lee and supported by Labour, local authorities were given the "power of general competence" to pursue the "economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being" of their communities. In other words, they not only could do whatever they wished, within the bounds of other laws, but they had a "duty" to consider those four "dimensions" of community development. It implied that councils not only could, but should be involved in economic development, promoting arts and culture and having a social welfare role of sorts.
National and ACT voted against this when it was in Parliament, but just to show "Plus ça change", it means nothing. The concerns expressed at the time have evaporated.
National has effectively adopted the local government policy promulgated by Labour and the Alliance. None of ACT's local government policy looks like coming to pass.
What does this mean for the supercity? Well my warnings that the supercity does not look constrained are right.
Auckland will have a mega city, with mega powers, and no constraints on its power. Even Rodney Hide now believes the majority can pillage the minority by saying:
"If a community want something and are prepared to pay for it, that's fine".
Rodney, if the community are so willing to pay for it, why the hell is the council making them pay? What does local government have to do with choice?
Mildly tinkering with transparency doesn't ratchet things back.
No. On local government the left has won, the ACT enthusiasts who think an Auckland mega city will vote to the "right" and constrain council spending (presumably with downtown railway tunnel enthusiast John Banks as Mayor), are deluding themselves. They have at least surrendered the rest of the country for their rose coloured view of the mega city. Frankly, it's a view that I could understand from National, which is as embedded in local government as the Labour Party, but that's it.
Rodney Hide and John Key are essentially adopting a legal framework and policy of the Alliance and Labour parties on local government.
Is this what you voted for?
In the Local Government Act 2002, pushed by Lee and supported by Labour, local authorities were given the "power of general competence" to pursue the "economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being" of their communities. In other words, they not only could do whatever they wished, within the bounds of other laws, but they had a "duty" to consider those four "dimensions" of community development. It implied that councils not only could, but should be involved in economic development, promoting arts and culture and having a social welfare role of sorts.
National and ACT voted against this when it was in Parliament, but just to show "Plus ça change", it means nothing. The concerns expressed at the time have evaporated.
National has effectively adopted the local government policy promulgated by Labour and the Alliance. None of ACT's local government policy looks like coming to pass.
What does this mean for the supercity? Well my warnings that the supercity does not look constrained are right.
Auckland will have a mega city, with mega powers, and no constraints on its power. Even Rodney Hide now believes the majority can pillage the minority by saying:
"If a community want something and are prepared to pay for it, that's fine".
Rodney, if the community are so willing to pay for it, why the hell is the council making them pay? What does local government have to do with choice?
Mildly tinkering with transparency doesn't ratchet things back.
No. On local government the left has won, the ACT enthusiasts who think an Auckland mega city will vote to the "right" and constrain council spending (presumably with downtown railway tunnel enthusiast John Banks as Mayor), are deluding themselves. They have at least surrendered the rest of the country for their rose coloured view of the mega city. Frankly, it's a view that I could understand from National, which is as embedded in local government as the Labour Party, but that's it.
Rodney Hide and John Key are essentially adopting a legal framework and policy of the Alliance and Labour parties on local government.
Is this what you voted for?
26 October 2009
British government funds Islamist schools
So whilst the Police chase up grandmothers who don't like gay pride marches, £113,411 was paid by taxpayers to an education foundation run by Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir according to the Sunday Telegraph.
Hizb ut-Tahrir believes democracy is corrupt, that Muslims should be separate from non-believers and promotes a global Islamist state. It presents several faces to the public. It condemned the July 2005 bombings, but has published anti-semitic literature, and been banned in Germany as a result.
The schools teach Arabic from age three, and promote a strictly Islamist view of history and education.
Whilst it is all very well promoting diversity in education, the Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation runs three schools and it is not exactly teaching respect for the constitutional arrangements or fundamental freedoms of British society:
"At least three of the four trustees are Hizb members or activists, including Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the "corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom".
On their website, the schools say their "ultimate goal" and "foremost work" is the creation of an "Islamic personality" in children The creation of an "Islamic personality" is a key tenet of Hizb's ideology."
The Centre for Social Cohesion is concerned, indeed whilst much attention is paid to the destructive nature of the BNP, Hizb ut-Tahrir should be at least as disconcerting. It is releasing a report next week outlining its concerns.
"Hizb is a fringe group but it is being given a public platform, legitimacy and funding by the very institutions it wishes to destroy," said Houriya Ahmed, one of the authors of the report.
Whilst most British Muslims do not align themselves with Hizb ut-Tahrir's views, this sort of direct state support for an organisation that is completely contrary to the British political system, effectively producing recruits to hate liberal democratic capitalist free society SHOULD frighten.
For it is exactly this sort of activity, and mainstream political absence of criticism, that leaves the BNP room for a constituency. Indeed, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not deserve their respective names if they wont raise questions about this.
Hizb ut-Tahrir believes democracy is corrupt, that Muslims should be separate from non-believers and promotes a global Islamist state. It presents several faces to the public. It condemned the July 2005 bombings, but has published anti-semitic literature, and been banned in Germany as a result.
The schools teach Arabic from age three, and promote a strictly Islamist view of history and education.
Whilst it is all very well promoting diversity in education, the Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation runs three schools and it is not exactly teaching respect for the constitutional arrangements or fundamental freedoms of British society:
"At least three of the four trustees are Hizb members or activists, including Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the "corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom".
On their website, the schools say their "ultimate goal" and "foremost work" is the creation of an "Islamic personality" in children The creation of an "Islamic personality" is a key tenet of Hizb's ideology."
The Centre for Social Cohesion is concerned, indeed whilst much attention is paid to the destructive nature of the BNP, Hizb ut-Tahrir should be at least as disconcerting. It is releasing a report next week outlining its concerns.
"Hizb is a fringe group but it is being given a public platform, legitimacy and funding by the very institutions it wishes to destroy," said Houriya Ahmed, one of the authors of the report.
Whilst most British Muslims do not align themselves with Hizb ut-Tahrir's views, this sort of direct state support for an organisation that is completely contrary to the British political system, effectively producing recruits to hate liberal democratic capitalist free society SHOULD frighten.
For it is exactly this sort of activity, and mainstream political absence of criticism, that leaves the BNP room for a constituency. Indeed, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not deserve their respective names if they wont raise questions about this.
Complain to council? Police come visit
Now I don't like Pauline Howe's opinions. I think they are quite vile. She thinks homosexuals are "sodomites" with "perverted sexual practices" who "spread sexually transmitted diseases" and can be blamed for the "downfall of every empire". She identifies herself as Christian, and obviously finds homosexual offensive. True to Voltaire of course I'll disagree with her, but agree with her right to express herself.
She objected, in writing, to Norwich City Council about a gay pride march. The response she got was twofold. Bridget Buttinger (let's call her "Norwich Chief Petty Fascist") replied warning her that she could face criminal charges for expressing such views. Buttinger says as a local authority it had an obligation to "eliminate discrimination of all kinds". Her letter was described as a "hate incident" because it was "motivated by prejudice or hatred".
No doubt it was such motivated. Mrs Howe was expressing an illegal opinion.
The letter concluded stating the matter had been passed to the police. Mrs Howe received a visit from two police officers to question her. Mrs Howe is a 67 year old grandmother, and understandably was quite shaken by the experience.
This is, of course, a total outrage. Mrs Howe should have the freedom of speech to be able to write to the council to complain about a gay pride march. It is her right as a citizen to hold her point of view and express it. She was not threatening ANYONE. She may herself hold views that means she supports the state initiating force, but then so does the entire Labour Party and indeed I bet most of the Conservative Party.
The Christian Institute, a campaign group, is investigating whether the council and police have breached her rights to free speech and religious freedom under the Human Rights Act.
Even Stonewall, a group campaigning for gay rights, believes the actions were disproportionate and are glad the police did not take things further.
She objected, in writing, to Norwich City Council about a gay pride march. The response she got was twofold. Bridget Buttinger (let's call her "Norwich Chief Petty Fascist") replied warning her that she could face criminal charges for expressing such views. Buttinger says as a local authority it had an obligation to "eliminate discrimination of all kinds". Her letter was described as a "hate incident" because it was "motivated by prejudice or hatred".
No doubt it was such motivated. Mrs Howe was expressing an illegal opinion.
The letter concluded stating the matter had been passed to the police. Mrs Howe received a visit from two police officers to question her. Mrs Howe is a 67 year old grandmother, and understandably was quite shaken by the experience.
This is, of course, a total outrage. Mrs Howe should have the freedom of speech to be able to write to the council to complain about a gay pride march. It is her right as a citizen to hold her point of view and express it. She was not threatening ANYONE. She may herself hold views that means she supports the state initiating force, but then so does the entire Labour Party and indeed I bet most of the Conservative Party.
The Christian Institute, a campaign group, is investigating whether the council and police have breached her rights to free speech and religious freedom under the Human Rights Act.
Even Stonewall, a group campaigning for gay rights, believes the actions were disproportionate and are glad the police did not take things further.
It's outrageous. Mrs Howe should have every right to complain as she sees fit, even though I'd regard her views with utter disdain, she does not deserve to be threatened or told that her views are to be "eliminated". She can be told she is wrong, she can be ignored, but not threatened and the waste of police time and effort chasing this up is contemptible.
Yet no major UK political party will confront this.
There is nothing liberal about this - and I do wonder, how often the police confront Islamic preachers about how often they express their anti-homosexual views?
(Full story, Sunday Telegraph)
Maldives stunt just lies on climate change
President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives created a widely reported publicity seeking moment on Saturday with images of him and his Cabinet holding an underwater meeting. The whole story was to highlight the alleged threat climate change would bring to the country he leads.
The report on CNN said:
Maldives is grappling with the very likely possibility that it will go under water if the current pace of climate change keeps raising sea levels. The Maldives is an archipelago of almost 1,200 coral islands south-southwest of India. Most of it lies just 4.9 feet (1.5 meters) above sea level.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change has forecast a rise in sea levels of at least 7.1 inches (18 cm) by the end of the century.
So take away 7.1 inches from 4.9 feet and you have, more than 4 feet left. The stunt was a grotesque hyperbole.
Christopher Brooker in the Sunday Telegraph notes that the President of the Maldives was sent an open letter from Dr Nils-Axel Morner, the former head of the international Inqua Commission on Sea Level Change. It says "that his commission had visited the Maldives six times in the years since 2000, and that he himself had led three month-long investigations in every part of the coral archipelago. Their exhaustive studies had shown that from 1790 to 1970 sea-levels round the islands had averaged 20 centimetres higher than today; that the level, having fallen, has since remained stable; and that there is not the slightest sign of any rise. The most cautious forecast based on proper science (rather than computer model guesswork) shows that any rise in the next 100 years will be "small to negligible"."
So it is a monumental fraud to scare the world into thinking the Maldives will be swamped.
Furthermore, Dr Morner has sought to reassure the people of the Maldives, but its government isn't interested:
Professor Morner offered to explain his team's findings on the local TV station, to reassure viewers that their homes were not about to disappear underwater as they had been told. The government refused to allow his film to be shown. Egged on by climate alarmists, successive Maldivan leaders since the 1980s have pleaded for vast sums of international aid to save them from rising sea levels.
Brooker concludes rightly:
"If President Nasheed really believed his own propaganda, he would of course immediately ban all flights into his country and turn off the lights in all its hotels. But since this would put an end to the international tourism which is almost his country's only source of income, he would rather carry on staging his publicity stunts, while holding out the begging bowl which he hopes gullible world leaders such as Gordon Brown will soon fill with large quantities of Western taxpayers' cash."
Nasheed is a fraudster, perpetuating his fraud to whoever will listen, enjoying the tourism from environmentalists that it generates ("last chance to visit Maldives") and with the begging bowl out ("it's not our fault, but come fly to see us").
Of course the Guardian swallowed it like the true believers they are claiming the Maldives would be the first nation submerged.
The report on CNN said:
Maldives is grappling with the very likely possibility that it will go under water if the current pace of climate change keeps raising sea levels. The Maldives is an archipelago of almost 1,200 coral islands south-southwest of India. Most of it lies just 4.9 feet (1.5 meters) above sea level.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change has forecast a rise in sea levels of at least 7.1 inches (18 cm) by the end of the century.
So take away 7.1 inches from 4.9 feet and you have, more than 4 feet left. The stunt was a grotesque hyperbole.
Christopher Brooker in the Sunday Telegraph notes that the President of the Maldives was sent an open letter from Dr Nils-Axel Morner, the former head of the international Inqua Commission on Sea Level Change. It says "that his commission had visited the Maldives six times in the years since 2000, and that he himself had led three month-long investigations in every part of the coral archipelago. Their exhaustive studies had shown that from 1790 to 1970 sea-levels round the islands had averaged 20 centimetres higher than today; that the level, having fallen, has since remained stable; and that there is not the slightest sign of any rise. The most cautious forecast based on proper science (rather than computer model guesswork) shows that any rise in the next 100 years will be "small to negligible"."
So it is a monumental fraud to scare the world into thinking the Maldives will be swamped.
Furthermore, Dr Morner has sought to reassure the people of the Maldives, but its government isn't interested:
Professor Morner offered to explain his team's findings on the local TV station, to reassure viewers that their homes were not about to disappear underwater as they had been told. The government refused to allow his film to be shown. Egged on by climate alarmists, successive Maldivan leaders since the 1980s have pleaded for vast sums of international aid to save them from rising sea levels.
Brooker concludes rightly:
"If President Nasheed really believed his own propaganda, he would of course immediately ban all flights into his country and turn off the lights in all its hotels. But since this would put an end to the international tourism which is almost his country's only source of income, he would rather carry on staging his publicity stunts, while holding out the begging bowl which he hopes gullible world leaders such as Gordon Brown will soon fill with large quantities of Western taxpayers' cash."
Nasheed is a fraudster, perpetuating his fraud to whoever will listen, enjoying the tourism from environmentalists that it generates ("last chance to visit Maldives") and with the begging bowl out ("it's not our fault, but come fly to see us").
Of course the Guardian swallowed it like the true believers they are claiming the Maldives would be the first nation submerged.
UKIP may go bankrupt
The UK Independence Party has one key policy - withdrawal from the European Union. A policy that was popular enough for it to come SECOND in the European Parliament elections earlier this year, behind the Conservatives.
It now faces bankruptcy. Why? Because one of its major donors was not on the electoral roll for the year the donation was given. He had been on the roll for years. The Court of Appeal demanded UKIP should be fined, and all up faces a bill of £750,000 including legal fees.
The Liberal Democrats received a major donation from a gentleman found guilty on a £10 million fraud charge, and has been excused.
The whole story is on BBC reporter Michael Crick's blog, with Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph also expressing concern that if UKIP is forced under, it will only benefit the Tories and the BNP (the latter becoming the next possible location for some anti-EU votes to go).
I don't have much time for UKIP, as it is no pro-freedom party, but it does provide an outlet for an important point of view - that the UK's EU membership is largely a one-way street of benefits. It would be rather scandalous if UKIP is shut down months out from a general election.
It now faces bankruptcy. Why? Because one of its major donors was not on the electoral roll for the year the donation was given. He had been on the roll for years. The Court of Appeal demanded UKIP should be fined, and all up faces a bill of £750,000 including legal fees.
The Liberal Democrats received a major donation from a gentleman found guilty on a £10 million fraud charge, and has been excused.
The whole story is on BBC reporter Michael Crick's blog, with Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph also expressing concern that if UKIP is forced under, it will only benefit the Tories and the BNP (the latter becoming the next possible location for some anti-EU votes to go).
I don't have much time for UKIP, as it is no pro-freedom party, but it does provide an outlet for an important point of view - that the UK's EU membership is largely a one-way street of benefits. It would be rather scandalous if UKIP is shut down months out from a general election.
23 October 2009
Delahunty scared of education freedom
To say Catherine Delahunty has said something crazy is to state the bleedingly obvious.
So here we go again. On Frogblog she said:
"It wasn’t much fun waking up this morning to the news that the Ministry of Education will no longer be providing advice to primary schools on arts, science, technology, or physical education – nothing in fact, except the “three Rs”: reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. This latest assault on the public education system by the National Government is just plain stupid.
It also heralds the undoing of a robust curriculum. There is no educational justification for such a narrow focus, when all the evidence points to the importance of a holistic educational experience at primary school level"
Horror of horrors no more ADVICE to schools on certain subjects. What will they do? How will they cope? How can anyone teach anything without advice from the Ministry of Education?
What this means is that central government will no longer be directing how arts, science, technology and PE will be taught. It is a devolution of power to schools to make their OWN decisions. They wont get central government assistance on those subjects, they will need to figure it out for themselves or get together with other schools (or whoever they wish).
It is clear that the subjects will NOT stop being taught. Principals claim it might make those subjects a lower priority, which of course should be up to each school.
This move is a GOOD thing.
It is only a BAD thing if you believe education should be centrally dictated, that all schools should teach the same and use the same techniques. Schools MIGHT take it as a chance to be innovative, to think for themselves and deliver education in those subjects for what parents want.
Delahunty is spinning it as being the end of education in those subjects, which is nonsense.
In fact, the more central government abandons directing schools the better. Schools should be driven by parents, NOT bureaucrats, as to how and what they teach.
However, I can see why the Greens really are upset:
"Through this same cut, we have now lost all the Sustainability Advisors"
In other words, propagandists for the Green perspective on science, philosophy and history. No more taxpayer funded brainwashing of children to suit one certain agenda.
Another step forward would be for all schools to simply be funded on a per pupil basis and let the school innovate, decide what to teach and how, and then parents choose what school to send their children too. No centrally dictated curriculum (but schools could collaborate and share information and develop their own ones).
Now that really would frighten those who fear education being driven by what suppliers think consumers (parents) would like. Including, of course, the National Party.
So here we go again. On Frogblog she said:
"It wasn’t much fun waking up this morning to the news that the Ministry of Education will no longer be providing advice to primary schools on arts, science, technology, or physical education – nothing in fact, except the “three Rs”: reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. This latest assault on the public education system by the National Government is just plain stupid.
It also heralds the undoing of a robust curriculum. There is no educational justification for such a narrow focus, when all the evidence points to the importance of a holistic educational experience at primary school level"
Horror of horrors no more ADVICE to schools on certain subjects. What will they do? How will they cope? How can anyone teach anything without advice from the Ministry of Education?
What this means is that central government will no longer be directing how arts, science, technology and PE will be taught. It is a devolution of power to schools to make their OWN decisions. They wont get central government assistance on those subjects, they will need to figure it out for themselves or get together with other schools (or whoever they wish).
It is clear that the subjects will NOT stop being taught. Principals claim it might make those subjects a lower priority, which of course should be up to each school.
This move is a GOOD thing.
It is only a BAD thing if you believe education should be centrally dictated, that all schools should teach the same and use the same techniques. Schools MIGHT take it as a chance to be innovative, to think for themselves and deliver education in those subjects for what parents want.
Delahunty is spinning it as being the end of education in those subjects, which is nonsense.
In fact, the more central government abandons directing schools the better. Schools should be driven by parents, NOT bureaucrats, as to how and what they teach.
However, I can see why the Greens really are upset:
"Through this same cut, we have now lost all the Sustainability Advisors"
In other words, propagandists for the Green perspective on science, philosophy and history. No more taxpayer funded brainwashing of children to suit one certain agenda.
Another step forward would be for all schools to simply be funded on a per pupil basis and let the school innovate, decide what to teach and how, and then parents choose what school to send their children too. No centrally dictated curriculum (but schools could collaborate and share information and develop their own ones).
Now that really would frighten those who fear education being driven by what suppliers think consumers (parents) would like. Including, of course, the National Party.
BNP on Question Time?
Probably a mild win for the BNP - unprecedented platform for publicity. Nick Griffin came across as defensive, but relatively moderate, claimed he had transformed the BNP from being racist and fascist to being a party for indigenous British people to defend their rights.
He would have solidified his own supporters, except the profoundly racist who might think he's a sellout. However, who knows what other side the BNP shows in private.
For the rest of Britons? He probably gained support for his views on Islam and immigration generally, but every single non-white person who confronted him, he said he was happy letting them stay in Britain.
So in conclusion? Well done BBC - you probably gave the BNP more than it lost.
TV licence fee payers will be thrilled you gave them this oxygen of publicity, paid for by them.
He would have solidified his own supporters, except the profoundly racist who might think he's a sellout. However, who knows what other side the BNP shows in private.
For the rest of Britons? He probably gained support for his views on Islam and immigration generally, but every single non-white person who confronted him, he said he was happy letting them stay in Britain.
So in conclusion? Well done BBC - you probably gave the BNP more than it lost.
TV licence fee payers will be thrilled you gave them this oxygen of publicity, paid for by them.
Don't sing in the shower says Chavez
He's calling on Venezuelans to wash quickly and not sing because it wastes water and electricity, according to the Daily Telegraph.
He called jacuzzi's "anti-communist" (so he is a communist then), and his solution to electricity shortages? Create a Ministry. He also demanded all government departments cut energy consumption by 20%.
Why is there a problem? Chronic underinvestment in new electricity generation.
Of course it should hardly be a surprise that with socialism, shortages appear, and the solution to the shortages is not to allow entrepreneurship, market prices and let private individuals find solutions, but to tell people to use less.
Who does that remind you of?
He called jacuzzi's "anti-communist" (so he is a communist then), and his solution to electricity shortages? Create a Ministry. He also demanded all government departments cut energy consumption by 20%.
Why is there a problem? Chronic underinvestment in new electricity generation.
Of course it should hardly be a surprise that with socialism, shortages appear, and the solution to the shortages is not to allow entrepreneurship, market prices and let private individuals find solutions, but to tell people to use less.
Who does that remind you of?
Britain's race problem
The imminent appearance of BNP Leader Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time tonight indicates a growth in interest in the racist nationalist socialist party. Why? Well besides obvious disillusionment from many who would associate themselves with a more leftwing Labour Party, there is a race problem in Britain. It's a problem that incidents like this one provide fertile ground for the BNP to attract membership.
The Daily Mail reports how a 15yo schoolboy was involved in scuffles with a group of young south Asian boys, how he was attacked with a hammer that fractured his skull, and a knife, yet he feared being suspended - because of racism. Now the injured one wasn't completely innocent, but a culture appearing of young Asian youths feeling "untouchable" and able to use claims of racism as part of their armoury against white youths is utterly outrageous. It demonstrates how out of touch multiculturalist teachers are, and how easy it is for the BNP to call this racism against white Britons.
The Labour Party wont confront it because it is part of the problem. It encourages the "racism only runs one way" victim based context to consider race in the UK. It has demonstrably shown it will promote based on race to attract votes and sympathy with certain communities, the likes of Baroness Uddin demonstrating how low Labour's standards can go.
The Conservative Party wont confront it because it is scared of being branded "racist" given its recent makeover to look more inclusive. The Conservatives have long had a history of perhaps being more sceptical of ethnic minority candidates, and are now trying to outdo Labour on this front to attract voters who would otherwise never have thought of the Conservatives.
The Liberal Democrats are invisible.
So who is left? The party that actively tells young white Britons to be proud and says it "understands".
Until others start to recognise racism can go in all directions, and treat it all as inexcusable, then the BNP will have a policy that is difficult for many white Britons to disagree with. You can't start to accuse the BNP of racism without being called a hypocrite if you also close your eyes to racism instigated by those of non-British descent.
Racism is irrational and wrong - always. Whoever claims racial or national superiority based on birth place or ethnicity is being mindlessly stupid. Yet if the two mainstream parties pander to playing race cards, is it any surprise a minor one will get traction?
The Daily Mail reports how a 15yo schoolboy was involved in scuffles with a group of young south Asian boys, how he was attacked with a hammer that fractured his skull, and a knife, yet he feared being suspended - because of racism. Now the injured one wasn't completely innocent, but a culture appearing of young Asian youths feeling "untouchable" and able to use claims of racism as part of their armoury against white youths is utterly outrageous. It demonstrates how out of touch multiculturalist teachers are, and how easy it is for the BNP to call this racism against white Britons.
The Labour Party wont confront it because it is part of the problem. It encourages the "racism only runs one way" victim based context to consider race in the UK. It has demonstrably shown it will promote based on race to attract votes and sympathy with certain communities, the likes of Baroness Uddin demonstrating how low Labour's standards can go.
The Conservative Party wont confront it because it is scared of being branded "racist" given its recent makeover to look more inclusive. The Conservatives have long had a history of perhaps being more sceptical of ethnic minority candidates, and are now trying to outdo Labour on this front to attract voters who would otherwise never have thought of the Conservatives.
The Liberal Democrats are invisible.
So who is left? The party that actively tells young white Britons to be proud and says it "understands".
Until others start to recognise racism can go in all directions, and treat it all as inexcusable, then the BNP will have a policy that is difficult for many white Britons to disagree with. You can't start to accuse the BNP of racism without being called a hypocrite if you also close your eyes to racism instigated by those of non-British descent.
Racism is irrational and wrong - always. Whoever claims racial or national superiority based on birth place or ethnicity is being mindlessly stupid. Yet if the two mainstream parties pander to playing race cards, is it any surprise a minor one will get traction?
BNP on BBC
There is so much hype and talk about the BNP Leader Nick Griffin being invited onto the BBC TV show Question Time tonight, you'd think it was a commercial channel.
Which does beg the question.
The BBC is state owned, compulsorily funded by those who own TV sets. It feels obliged to give "everyone a fair say" and since the BNP gained around 900,000 votes at the last MEP and local government elections, it is seen as a political party of sufficient standing to deserve a say.
Tonight's Question Time will have a record audience of course, but the BBC is commercial free, so wont financially benefit. Yet if there were commercials, would it risk it?
Would a privately owned commercial TV channel, dependent on advertisers, like ITV or Channel 5, risk putting Griffin on when advertisers may regard buying time during the programme as taking advantage of the BNP's presence?
I simply don't know. If I was buying TV advertising, I might think there could be a big audience, but buying advertising endorses the broadcasting of the programme, and some may say Griffin's presence. I may be risking a significant amount of criticism, and maybe even boycotts by people.
Gordon Brown claims it will expose the BNP for what it is. I'm not so sure. Nick Griffin is a vile little man, but he does know how to manipulate coverage. He will deny all that is thrown at him, will throw dirt at the main parties for their own feeding at the trough of taxpayers, he will point out the hypocrisy of banning Gert Wilders, but not Islamists promoting tyranny, and will be seen as mainstream - unless someone can land a serious punch his way.
James Dray at the Guardian suggests ways to break Griffin down.
The Guardian also notes a similar TV appearance made a big positive difference for Jean -Marie Le Pen of France's fascist Front National.
So is the BBC going to destroy Griffin, or give him the best free publicity he could dream of?
The middle ground is hard to imagine, for if he just appears as a politician - like everyone else - it will be a huge win for the BNP.
What's galling is TV licence fee payers are forced to pay for this gamble.
UPDATE: Violent trespassing protests have started at the BBC television centre against the BNP. What fools like this fail to realise is that being violent plays into the BNP's hands. Oh I don't see the same protestors confronting Islamists who say "death to freedom" or call for violence against non-Muslims. Again, playing into the BNP's hands.
Which does beg the question.
The BBC is state owned, compulsorily funded by those who own TV sets. It feels obliged to give "everyone a fair say" and since the BNP gained around 900,000 votes at the last MEP and local government elections, it is seen as a political party of sufficient standing to deserve a say.
Tonight's Question Time will have a record audience of course, but the BBC is commercial free, so wont financially benefit. Yet if there were commercials, would it risk it?
Would a privately owned commercial TV channel, dependent on advertisers, like ITV or Channel 5, risk putting Griffin on when advertisers may regard buying time during the programme as taking advantage of the BNP's presence?
I simply don't know. If I was buying TV advertising, I might think there could be a big audience, but buying advertising endorses the broadcasting of the programme, and some may say Griffin's presence. I may be risking a significant amount of criticism, and maybe even boycotts by people.
Gordon Brown claims it will expose the BNP for what it is. I'm not so sure. Nick Griffin is a vile little man, but he does know how to manipulate coverage. He will deny all that is thrown at him, will throw dirt at the main parties for their own feeding at the trough of taxpayers, he will point out the hypocrisy of banning Gert Wilders, but not Islamists promoting tyranny, and will be seen as mainstream - unless someone can land a serious punch his way.
James Dray at the Guardian suggests ways to break Griffin down.
The Guardian also notes a similar TV appearance made a big positive difference for Jean -Marie Le Pen of France's fascist Front National.
So is the BBC going to destroy Griffin, or give him the best free publicity he could dream of?
The middle ground is hard to imagine, for if he just appears as a politician - like everyone else - it will be a huge win for the BNP.
What's galling is TV licence fee payers are forced to pay for this gamble.
UPDATE: Violent trespassing protests have started at the BBC television centre against the BNP. What fools like this fail to realise is that being violent plays into the BNP's hands. Oh I don't see the same protestors confronting Islamists who say "death to freedom" or call for violence against non-Muslims. Again, playing into the BNP's hands.
22 October 2009
Freedom of speech may have caused the Holocaust
Who said that?
A member of the House of Lords. A member of the British Labour Party.
Baroness Uddin said this on BBC Radio 4, when interviewed on the 5pm news on 16 October 2009. You can hear her say this at 38 minutes into the one hour programme, (perhaps only if you are located in the UK), until Friday 23 October (when week old programmes get removed).
What did she say?
"I think when we say that freedom of speech is important and I will support to the death the freedom to speak but we have to remember that maybe what gave rise to the mass genocide of the Jews in Germany was freedom to speak”
Baroness Uddin was lauded for being the first Muslim woman member of the House of Lords. She has already faced scandals of claiming for a second home in Kent, that she doesn't live in, while she lives in London, in a "housing association" home - in other words, public housing which exists for the poor, with rents a fraction of the private sector market rates. Prima facie there is evidence of her pilfering the public purse for her own benefit.
A member of the House of Lords. A member of the British Labour Party.
Baroness Uddin said this on BBC Radio 4, when interviewed on the 5pm news on 16 October 2009. You can hear her say this at 38 minutes into the one hour programme, (perhaps only if you are located in the UK), until Friday 23 October (when week old programmes get removed).
What did she say?
"I think when we say that freedom of speech is important and I will support to the death the freedom to speak but we have to remember that maybe what gave rise to the mass genocide of the Jews in Germany was freedom to speak”
Baroness Uddin was lauded for being the first Muslim woman member of the House of Lords. She has already faced scandals of claiming for a second home in Kent, that she doesn't live in, while she lives in London, in a "housing association" home - in other words, public housing which exists for the poor, with rents a fraction of the private sector market rates. Prima facie there is evidence of her pilfering the public purse for her own benefit.
She is a new Labour pinup, her list of achievements are:
- Diploma of Social Work;
- Labour councillor in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
- failed to gain candidate selection to stand for Parliament for the 1997 election.
So New Labour put her in Parliament anyway, in the House of Lords.
A woman who thinks freedom of speech is equated with Nazism.
Why is she not being pilloried by the British media, unless this wasn't picked up? (Notice the BBC didn't challenge her on this outrageous claim).
I'm gobsmacked.
(Hat Tip: Old Holborn who is righteously furious about this and far from speechless)
Manipulation of language
This post is NOT about the merits of deregulating and privatising ACC - you can take it for granted, I'd fully support full competition for all ACC coverage and privatising ACC itself. It is a debate about language used in politics, to manipulate public opinion. It is not a manipulation confined to those I am accusing in this post either.
In the debate about ACC, those on the left consistently refer to the policy of opening ACC up to competition as "privatisation".
Yet these are two very different things. A government owned entity can remain state owned and face private sector competition without it being privatised.
How? Let's take some of the major deregulations in recent years.
- Until 1982, trucks were banned from hauling freight further than 150km (with some exceptions), with rail having a monopoly. Was opening up long haul freight to competition the privatisation of New Zealand Railways?
- Until 1983, Air New Zealand had a statutory monopoly on domestic airline routes, in that competitors were only allowed by and large if Air New Zealand granted permission. Was the removal of this monopoly the privatisation of Air New Zealand?
- Until 1989, TVNZ had a monopoly on television broadcasting, and in 1991 the television market was fully opened to anyone who wished to purchase frequencies, satellite capacity or lay cable. Was this the privatisation of TVNZ?
- Until 1998, it was illegal for anyone other than NZ Post to deliver mail for less than 80c. Was opening up the postal market the privatisation of New Zealand Post?
So why talk about opening up the ACC market to competition as privatisation?
It's simple - it is the manipulation of language for political effect.
You see most people would not disagree with allowing competition. Prohibiting competition seems to be a bad thing, as it means a monopoly can take advantage of you, can underperform, and you have no choice. It doesn't even have to expect the threat of potential competition.
The left cannot attack ACC reform based on the word "competition", because most people will go "So what? I like competition, I don't like monopolies."
Privatisation is a bogey word. It brings up images of an "asset" being sold for less than it "might be worth", of control transferring to those horned devils called "foreigners" (spit) and it not "being our's anymore", even though people complained about it when it was.
So that is why they lie, explicitly, about the proposal. To have people think it is about selling ACC - which, sadly, would not happen in this term of the government, rather than opening it up to competition, which might.
So it should be challenged, repeatedly. NZ Post has NOT been privatised, neither has TVNZ, just because both are fully exposed to competition. Why should ACC be described as privatised if it is also subject to competition?
UPDATE: Both Frog Blog and the Standard repeat the lie, blatantly.
UPDATE 2: The Standard doesn't like being challenged. Take this nasty little remark about "learning my lesson".
In the debate about ACC, those on the left consistently refer to the policy of opening ACC up to competition as "privatisation".
Yet these are two very different things. A government owned entity can remain state owned and face private sector competition without it being privatised.
How? Let's take some of the major deregulations in recent years.
- Until 1982, trucks were banned from hauling freight further than 150km (with some exceptions), with rail having a monopoly. Was opening up long haul freight to competition the privatisation of New Zealand Railways?
- Until 1983, Air New Zealand had a statutory monopoly on domestic airline routes, in that competitors were only allowed by and large if Air New Zealand granted permission. Was the removal of this monopoly the privatisation of Air New Zealand?
- Until 1989, TVNZ had a monopoly on television broadcasting, and in 1991 the television market was fully opened to anyone who wished to purchase frequencies, satellite capacity or lay cable. Was this the privatisation of TVNZ?
- Until 1998, it was illegal for anyone other than NZ Post to deliver mail for less than 80c. Was opening up the postal market the privatisation of New Zealand Post?
So why talk about opening up the ACC market to competition as privatisation?
It's simple - it is the manipulation of language for political effect.
You see most people would not disagree with allowing competition. Prohibiting competition seems to be a bad thing, as it means a monopoly can take advantage of you, can underperform, and you have no choice. It doesn't even have to expect the threat of potential competition.
The left cannot attack ACC reform based on the word "competition", because most people will go "So what? I like competition, I don't like monopolies."
Privatisation is a bogey word. It brings up images of an "asset" being sold for less than it "might be worth", of control transferring to those horned devils called "foreigners" (spit) and it not "being our's anymore", even though people complained about it when it was.
So that is why they lie, explicitly, about the proposal. To have people think it is about selling ACC - which, sadly, would not happen in this term of the government, rather than opening it up to competition, which might.
So it should be challenged, repeatedly. NZ Post has NOT been privatised, neither has TVNZ, just because both are fully exposed to competition. Why should ACC be described as privatised if it is also subject to competition?
UPDATE: Both Frog Blog and the Standard repeat the lie, blatantly.
UPDATE 2: The Standard doesn't like being challenged. Take this nasty little remark about "learning my lesson".
Tennessee ouch
(WARNING - CONTENT BELOW AND THE LINK MAY SERIOUSLY OFFEND)
This article is already popular.
However it does beg some curious questions...
In Tennessee, bestiality was apparently legal until recently, the crime committed being trespass (quite right to prosecute for that), but this just makes me go "ow":
Tait was also identified in court papers four years ago as being part of a horse sex 'party' in Washington state that led to the death of a man from internal injuries
I don't think the horse was quite the victim, given this statement "there wasn't enough evidence to suggest animals had been injured".
This article is already popular.
However it does beg some curious questions...
In Tennessee, bestiality was apparently legal until recently, the crime committed being trespass (quite right to prosecute for that), but this just makes me go "ow":
Tait was also identified in court papers four years ago as being part of a horse sex 'party' in Washington state that led to the death of a man from internal injuries
I don't think the horse was quite the victim, given this statement "there wasn't enough evidence to suggest animals had been injured".
BNP kiwis so what about communists?
The NZ Herald has used the leaked list of BNP members to call on New Zealanders belonging to the party to "explain themselves".
The BNP is odious, but quite why people should be contacted and harangued by a journalist is questionable. Any cursory look at white supremacist forums will find New Zealanders posting on them, and the same with communist forums, or indeed most political persuasions.
However, would the New Zealand Herald do the same if it found New Zealand members of the far-left RESPECT Coalition, led by the odious George Galloway (who misses the Soviet Union and has publicly approved of both Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad)?
Would it seek to find out if there are New Zealand members of the pro North Korean Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist?)
How about New Zealand's own Communist Workers' Party?
If not, why not? Isn't it the same issue Not PC pointed out here?
The BNP is odious, but quite why people should be contacted and harangued by a journalist is questionable. Any cursory look at white supremacist forums will find New Zealanders posting on them, and the same with communist forums, or indeed most political persuasions.
However, would the New Zealand Herald do the same if it found New Zealand members of the far-left RESPECT Coalition, led by the odious George Galloway (who misses the Soviet Union and has publicly approved of both Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad)?
Would it seek to find out if there are New Zealand members of the pro North Korean Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist?)
How about New Zealand's own Communist Workers' Party?
If not, why not? Isn't it the same issue Not PC pointed out here?
Do the Greens care what the public want?
No. The Greens want to use force.
Russel Norman is complaining that Foodstuffs will restore free plastic bags in the South Island because of "customer feedback".
Russel. Are you saying if people want a plastic bag, and a private company is prepared to pay to supply them, they shouldn't get it?
Russel Norman is complaining that Foodstuffs will restore free plastic bags in the South Island because of "customer feedback".
Russel. Are you saying if people want a plastic bag, and a private company is prepared to pay to supply them, they shouldn't get it?
The only part of the issue regarding plastic bags is rubbish disposal. Privatise that, ensure people pay for rubbish collection and then that cost is internalised. Let's face it, New Zealand does not lack landfill space, but if recycling can be profitable then so be it.
However, the Greens want less plastic bags, and they'll make you pay the government (not the provider) for them, and the money will be used to....
Because, you see, you shouldn't want plastic bags - you're a bad person for wanting them - so you should be punished for doing so.
By contrast, in the UK, some supermarkets charges for them, some don't. Many people bring their own bags because they support less use of plastic bags.
How was this achieved?
Persuasion.
It would be nice if Russel Norman and the Green Party believed a little more in convincing people of the merits of their arguments, and accepting, that when some people disagree, it doesn't give a good reason to use force.
Any investigative journalists in New Zealand?
David Farrar raises an issue which only state radio has yet confronted, but which has not been picked up by newspapers or television.
The Leninist way Helen Clark is controlling media access to UNDP.
It sounds scandalous. No press conferences involving Clark as head of UNDP since she arrived. Absolutely no progress at all or reports or responses to a number of scandals, which were bubbling when she arrived. It doesn't help that the UNDP does not have transparent audited accounts.
I wrote on how the NZ media treated Helen Clark at the UNDP like a Womens' Weekly story, with no scrutiny at all of the serious issues surrounding the organisation. It is like Helen is "one of us" "doing good overseas" and "we should all be proud", and have no interest at all in the issues she confronts and, more importantly whether or how she confronts them.
There are major issues regarding nepotism and the UNDP's North Korean operations, which are being renewed, that aren't being answered.
This isn't an issue about the Labour Party, or the New Zealand government, but the reputation of New Zealand in putting forward Clark for this high profile role. If she hides from the media, if she wont openly declare her position on issues, if she wont confront them, it will be a damning indictment on New Zealand, and its chances to gain ANY traction at transparency and accountability at international organisations.
If Helen Clark is no better than any other UN bureaucrat, spending large amounts of money with accountability that is better suited to Malabo than New York, then she is an embarrassment.
An embarrassment the Key Government can only bear its fair share of blame for, in supporting her candidacy.
However, perhaps equally so, is the almost universal braindead silence of the sycophantic New Zealand media. With the notable exception of Radio New Zealand, none of the rest have shown any interest in serious issues surrounding Helen Clark's appointment as head of the UNDP.
The Leninist way Helen Clark is controlling media access to UNDP.
It sounds scandalous. No press conferences involving Clark as head of UNDP since she arrived. Absolutely no progress at all or reports or responses to a number of scandals, which were bubbling when she arrived. It doesn't help that the UNDP does not have transparent audited accounts.
I wrote on how the NZ media treated Helen Clark at the UNDP like a Womens' Weekly story, with no scrutiny at all of the serious issues surrounding the organisation. It is like Helen is "one of us" "doing good overseas" and "we should all be proud", and have no interest at all in the issues she confronts and, more importantly whether or how she confronts them.
There are major issues regarding nepotism and the UNDP's North Korean operations, which are being renewed, that aren't being answered.
This isn't an issue about the Labour Party, or the New Zealand government, but the reputation of New Zealand in putting forward Clark for this high profile role. If she hides from the media, if she wont openly declare her position on issues, if she wont confront them, it will be a damning indictment on New Zealand, and its chances to gain ANY traction at transparency and accountability at international organisations.
If Helen Clark is no better than any other UN bureaucrat, spending large amounts of money with accountability that is better suited to Malabo than New York, then she is an embarrassment.
An embarrassment the Key Government can only bear its fair share of blame for, in supporting her candidacy.
However, perhaps equally so, is the almost universal braindead silence of the sycophantic New Zealand media. With the notable exception of Radio New Zealand, none of the rest have shown any interest in serious issues surrounding Helen Clark's appointment as head of the UNDP.
Is it not time that some actually went to New York to find out why the former Prime Minister wont answer questions about the organisation she leads on a salary, paid by global taxpayers, of US$500,000 per annum, tax free?
UPDATE: David Cohen at the NBR essentially repeats what David Farrar and Radio NZ said, adding his small comment about his experience with Clark. Gee, newspapers in New Zealand are really at the cutting edge of journalism aren't they? Well done Mr. Cohen, given your "cutting criticism" of the blogosphere, you're really showing us up.
21 October 2009
Obama Administration does something small but good
CNN reports that the US Justice Department has told federal prosecutors to pursue drug traffickers but NOT patients and caregivers in the 14 states that have legalised medical marijuana.
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana," said Attorney General Eric Holder.
Furthermore
The Justice Department guidance said it would not be a wise use of federal resources to go after "individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law."
Of course, indeed it is the only humane approach.
Besides recognising the competency of states in deciding this sort of thing, it is a slight lessening of the rabid war on drugs that every previous administration, for decades has fought unsuccessfully.
The states where medical marijuana use is legal are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana," said Attorney General Eric Holder.
Furthermore
The Justice Department guidance said it would not be a wise use of federal resources to go after "individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law."
Of course, indeed it is the only humane approach.
Besides recognising the competency of states in deciding this sort of thing, it is a slight lessening of the rabid war on drugs that every previous administration, for decades has fought unsuccessfully.
The states where medical marijuana use is legal are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Let's be clear this is not legalisation, or decriminalisation, and drug users in those states wont be immune from Federal criminal action, but it does mean attention is withdrawn from a segment that simply comprises sick people using marijuana for relief. By what measure does the Federal Government have any right to interfere with this?
So dare I say it, a step for freedom from the Obama Administration.
Royal Mail's needs to be on a level playing field
Dr Madsen Pirie writes in the Daily Telegraph that the best way to handle the Royal Mail strike and poor performance is competition, except this is limited by the Royal Mail being VAT exempt.
Its competitors are not, so must face a 15% surcharge on their prices, making provision of anything other than high volume bulk mail difficult.
The answer is simple - extend the VAT exemption to all mail.
I wont hold my breath for the Tories to say this though.
Its competitors are not, so must face a 15% surcharge on their prices, making provision of anything other than high volume bulk mail difficult.
The answer is simple - extend the VAT exemption to all mail.
I wont hold my breath for the Tories to say this though.
EU Wankers
While Britain has a burgeoning budget deficit, it is borrowing from future taxpayers to prop up part of the biggest group of welfare recipients in Europe.
According to the Daily Mail, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel asked the ministers to approve an emergency grant of about £250 million in next year's EU budget to prop up the dairy sector.
The appropriate response is to tell her to where to stick the request.
However, do you see anger in the streets at these failed businesspeople, who have lived off of the back of taxpayers for years now, compared to bankers?
According to the Daily Mail, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel asked the ministers to approve an emergency grant of about £250 million in next year's EU budget to prop up the dairy sector.
The appropriate response is to tell her to where to stick the request.
However, do you see anger in the streets at these failed businesspeople, who have lived off of the back of taxpayers for years now, compared to bankers?
Fortunately the British government is not completely rolling over, but Britain should claw back cutbacks in spending to the EU - it should force the EU to slash its budget.
I remember the suffering and pain that New Zealand farmers went through when economic reality hit them in the 1990s, it's about time that European farmers, who have adequate warning of change, were given a small number of years to see subsidies eliminated.
20 October 2009
Taxpayer and TV rights
The NZ Herald says "The cost to the taxpayer of the bid for Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights will be "considerably" less than the $5 million speculated, Prime Minister John Key says."
So give one good reason why it shouldn't be nil?
This is a very popular event that many will want to watch, it presumably has some commercial viability for a broadcaster, New Zealand has four different free to air nationwide TV network operators that could do so (TVNZ, TV3, Prime and MTS), so for what conceivable reason should taxpayers be forced to pay to buy the rights to a sports event to be broadcast?
Oh, and doesn't this make the claim that National is about less government interference in your life rather vacuous?
Go on, look at your TV listings and find the long list of sports events and other events on free to air television that DIDN'T have you being forced to pay for it.
This whole issue has been a complete debacle, a waste of time and your money. The government should have had no more to do with this than it has had with other sports broadcasting rights over many years.
Yet the majority of you trust this lot to buy your healthcare, your kids' education and a retirement.
Why?
So give one good reason why it shouldn't be nil?
This is a very popular event that many will want to watch, it presumably has some commercial viability for a broadcaster, New Zealand has four different free to air nationwide TV network operators that could do so (TVNZ, TV3, Prime and MTS), so for what conceivable reason should taxpayers be forced to pay to buy the rights to a sports event to be broadcast?
Oh, and doesn't this make the claim that National is about less government interference in your life rather vacuous?
Go on, look at your TV listings and find the long list of sports events and other events on free to air television that DIDN'T have you being forced to pay for it.
This whole issue has been a complete debacle, a waste of time and your money. The government should have had no more to do with this than it has had with other sports broadcasting rights over many years.
Yet the majority of you trust this lot to buy your healthcare, your kids' education and a retirement.
Why?
Scab = person who wants job more than you
Idiot Savant is upset that the Royal Mail is hiring additional temporary staff to cover for the unionised labour that is going on strike in coming months. He says it is because of privatisation. He's wrong, the word is never mentioned. He puts modernisation in quotation marks, as if it isn't real. Yet it is - the Royal Mail is a dinosaur of the postal world, using automatic sorting less than its equivalents in France and Germany. NZ Post by contrast is seen as an example of best practice. Idiot Savant would always side with a militant union though, it's a tribal thing.
The left calls such people scabs - a vile term that helps justify doing violence to them and threatening their families, a not unknown tactic in some industrial disputes.
The truth is such people are workers, people who want to do the job the unionised workforce is less interested in doing. Let's be clear here, postal workers do not exactly have jobs involving deep levels of training or skills. It is easily substitutable. The choice is between those who want to work, and those who don't. Why should people who want jobs have any "solidarity" with those who have them but don't want to change to save their employer from ongoing losses of money and business?
Idiot Savant thinks because the temporary workers are being hired with full support of the Labour government it shows how "out of touch" Labour is. He's wrong. In fact it shows how desperate Labour is for Britain not to be brought to its knees at Christmas by a greedy union in the midst of a recession unwilling to let the Royal Mail being seriously restructured from practices that date back to the 1970s.
As the Royal Mail loses business to competitors (no doubt Idiot Savant hates the idea that other people might be employed in competing companies to deliver mail - a sacred duty of the state), this union action cripples it more, threatening more jobs, whilst Billy Hayes, the head of the Communication Workers' Union is on a six figure salary.
Nice to be supporting the proletariat isn't it?
The left calls such people scabs - a vile term that helps justify doing violence to them and threatening their families, a not unknown tactic in some industrial disputes.
The truth is such people are workers, people who want to do the job the unionised workforce is less interested in doing. Let's be clear here, postal workers do not exactly have jobs involving deep levels of training or skills. It is easily substitutable. The choice is between those who want to work, and those who don't. Why should people who want jobs have any "solidarity" with those who have them but don't want to change to save their employer from ongoing losses of money and business?
Idiot Savant thinks because the temporary workers are being hired with full support of the Labour government it shows how "out of touch" Labour is. He's wrong. In fact it shows how desperate Labour is for Britain not to be brought to its knees at Christmas by a greedy union in the midst of a recession unwilling to let the Royal Mail being seriously restructured from practices that date back to the 1970s.
As the Royal Mail loses business to competitors (no doubt Idiot Savant hates the idea that other people might be employed in competing companies to deliver mail - a sacred duty of the state), this union action cripples it more, threatening more jobs, whilst Billy Hayes, the head of the Communication Workers' Union is on a six figure salary.
Nice to be supporting the proletariat isn't it?
Protect certain ghost worshippers from insult
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in The Independent says:
"Muslims, Asians and Black people are human, too – experiencing the pain of gratuitous invective piled on us, day after day, by toffs like Martin Amis and Wilder and racists like the BNP. Words do violence to humans, more sometimes than sticks and stones. They can disable you to the point of insanity"
Of course she's right about racism and the BNP. However, Martin Amis and Wilder have not expressed racist views, as far as I am aware. Race is not something one can choose, and racism is demonstrably irrational and abominable.
However, Amis and Wilder have both condemned Islam. Islam is a choice, or rather it should be (the "crime" of apostasy makes it anything but a choice in some countries), so criticising it should be like criticising Christianity, or Hinduism, or Shintoism or indeed any non-religious based philosophy. Objectivists and supporters of capitalism know this too well, but indeed so do socialists, conservatives or environmentalists. When you decide a particular philosophy is for you, you will inevitably encounter criticism from some, and derision from others. It is part of being in a free society.
Now I don't believe in gratuitously seeking to insult people for the sake of it, but I do believe that people should take direct criticism about their chosen philosophy. If you want to do violence to those who criticise it, it demonstrates your own lack of self control and your own inability to justify your position through persuasion.
However while Alibhai-Brown decries the condemnation of Islam, she also says "Only libertarian fools and fanatics would give set-piece answers" to issues of free speech. Whether she refers to all libertarians as fools or just the ones who are fools is unclear, but it certainly looks offensive to me.
So is she saying if I am an atheist believer in a small state she can call me a fool, but if I believe in a ghost and the words of a long dead prophet who had sex with a preteen child, I should be protected from insult?
No she is a fool. She doesn't understand that free speech means the state getting out of the way, and allowing people to express themselves as they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the right of others to do the same, or result in infringement of private property rights (including the rights of crime victims and the right to one's reputation).
Indeed, she cannot even accurately describe the events around the Wilders visit saying "I was proud Muslims responded with good sense". Not all, surely?
"Muslims, Asians and Black people are human, too – experiencing the pain of gratuitous invective piled on us, day after day, by toffs like Martin Amis and Wilder and racists like the BNP. Words do violence to humans, more sometimes than sticks and stones. They can disable you to the point of insanity"
Of course she's right about racism and the BNP. However, Martin Amis and Wilder have not expressed racist views, as far as I am aware. Race is not something one can choose, and racism is demonstrably irrational and abominable.
However, Amis and Wilder have both condemned Islam. Islam is a choice, or rather it should be (the "crime" of apostasy makes it anything but a choice in some countries), so criticising it should be like criticising Christianity, or Hinduism, or Shintoism or indeed any non-religious based philosophy. Objectivists and supporters of capitalism know this too well, but indeed so do socialists, conservatives or environmentalists. When you decide a particular philosophy is for you, you will inevitably encounter criticism from some, and derision from others. It is part of being in a free society.
Now I don't believe in gratuitously seeking to insult people for the sake of it, but I do believe that people should take direct criticism about their chosen philosophy. If you want to do violence to those who criticise it, it demonstrates your own lack of self control and your own inability to justify your position through persuasion.
However while Alibhai-Brown decries the condemnation of Islam, she also says "Only libertarian fools and fanatics would give set-piece answers" to issues of free speech. Whether she refers to all libertarians as fools or just the ones who are fools is unclear, but it certainly looks offensive to me.
So is she saying if I am an atheist believer in a small state she can call me a fool, but if I believe in a ghost and the words of a long dead prophet who had sex with a preteen child, I should be protected from insult?
No she is a fool. She doesn't understand that free speech means the state getting out of the way, and allowing people to express themselves as they see fit, as long as it does not interfere with the right of others to do the same, or result in infringement of private property rights (including the rights of crime victims and the right to one's reputation).
Indeed, she cannot even accurately describe the events around the Wilders visit saying "I was proud Muslims responded with good sense". Not all, surely?
Nazi murders vs communist murderers
Given the all too appropriate anger at this story, can anyone explain why similar worshipping of a hammer and sickle, or image of Marx, Lenin, or Stalin, or Che Guevara, or Castro would not cause any outrage at all?
How many brainless gits do you see every day walking around with pictures of Che Guevara on their chests, or Marx or the like?
Oh and you might get the standard Marxist reply "oh that wasn't really Marxism", because the USSR got it wrong. However, it wasn't just the USSR was it? It was also:
- Mongolia
- China
- Afghanistan
- Cuba
- Albania
- Yugoslavia
- Romania
- Bulgaria
- Czechoslovakia
- Poland
- East Germany
- Vietnam
- Laos
- Cambodia
- North Korea
- Angola
- Benin
- Congo (Brazzaville)
- Ethiopia
- Hungary
- Grenada
- Mozambique
- Somalia
- Yemen
- Burma
Imagine if a school had a communism party? Would the media bother saying this is an outrage to everyone who suffered under such tyranny?
You might think the 60 or so million Mao killed directly or by starvation using insane economic policies, and the 30 million Stalin killed directly or through war or starvation, might give as much reason to be offended.
How many brainless gits do you see every day walking around with pictures of Che Guevara on their chests, or Marx or the like?
Oh and you might get the standard Marxist reply "oh that wasn't really Marxism", because the USSR got it wrong. However, it wasn't just the USSR was it? It was also:
- Mongolia
- China
- Afghanistan
- Cuba
- Albania
- Yugoslavia
- Romania
- Bulgaria
- Czechoslovakia
- Poland
- East Germany
- Vietnam
- Laos
- Cambodia
- North Korea
- Angola
- Benin
- Congo (Brazzaville)
- Ethiopia
- Hungary
- Grenada
- Mozambique
- Somalia
- Yemen
- Burma
Imagine if a school had a communism party? Would the media bother saying this is an outrage to everyone who suffered under such tyranny?
You might think the 60 or so million Mao killed directly or by starvation using insane economic policies, and the 30 million Stalin killed directly or through war or starvation, might give as much reason to be offended.
It should be a crime!
Take this ridiculous statement reported by the BBC today:
Kathryn Szrodecki, who campaigns on behalf of overweight people, said that in the UK fat people were stared at, pointed at, talked about and attacked.... "This is a very common event - someone being beaten up should be a crime."
Oh it isn't? Woo hoo, let's go out and drat some brathchny tonight droogs, tolchock his yarbles and it will be a horrorshow raz.
Campaigners in the UK want a new law to ban discrimination on the basis of weight, so that people cannot be refused employment, housing or even be told by their doctor to lose weight, like a law in San Francisco.
So on the one hand, the state spends money telling people how to eat and to exercise, and wants to restrict advertising of unhealthy food, and use various tools of coercion to change eating and lifestyle habits, on the other hand there are people wanting the state to make it a crime to refuse services to people if they are overweight.
The report continues "Another campaigner, Marsha Coupe, said: "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train."
All of which are criminal offences. People who aren't fat face being attacked too, why is it more severe because of your weight (or indeed anything else)? Is Marsha simply not reporting the offences to the Police?
Yes it is true that people who are overweight do suffer cruel jokes, and the like. That is simply rude, and I am not endorsing such childish behaviour. However, is this a reason to pass a law against it? What next? No discrimination on the grounds of hair colour because blondes find it harder to be taken seriously and redheads are refused work because people fear they'll lose their temper?
Enough.
You do not have a right to not be offended. People will judge others for numerous reasons, from hair colour to eye colour to facial hair to weight, body shape, height and clothing. If overweight people want to campaign or boycott companies for being rude to them, then let them be - but this is not a matter for the law.
Kathryn Szrodecki, who campaigns on behalf of overweight people, said that in the UK fat people were stared at, pointed at, talked about and attacked.... "This is a very common event - someone being beaten up should be a crime."
Oh it isn't? Woo hoo, let's go out and drat some brathchny tonight droogs, tolchock his yarbles and it will be a horrorshow raz.
Campaigners in the UK want a new law to ban discrimination on the basis of weight, so that people cannot be refused employment, housing or even be told by their doctor to lose weight, like a law in San Francisco.
So on the one hand, the state spends money telling people how to eat and to exercise, and wants to restrict advertising of unhealthy food, and use various tools of coercion to change eating and lifestyle habits, on the other hand there are people wanting the state to make it a crime to refuse services to people if they are overweight.
The report continues "Another campaigner, Marsha Coupe, said: "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train."
All of which are criminal offences. People who aren't fat face being attacked too, why is it more severe because of your weight (or indeed anything else)? Is Marsha simply not reporting the offences to the Police?
Yes it is true that people who are overweight do suffer cruel jokes, and the like. That is simply rude, and I am not endorsing such childish behaviour. However, is this a reason to pass a law against it? What next? No discrimination on the grounds of hair colour because blondes find it harder to be taken seriously and redheads are refused work because people fear they'll lose their temper?
Enough.
You do not have a right to not be offended. People will judge others for numerous reasons, from hair colour to eye colour to facial hair to weight, body shape, height and clothing. If overweight people want to campaign or boycott companies for being rude to them, then let them be - but this is not a matter for the law.
18 October 2009
Fun Police: #2 Don't let them eat cake
Olivia Morris turned 9. Her great grandma baked her a cake to take to school. It was put on display at morning assembly, and everyone sang "Happy Birthday", then she blew out the candles.
Then the cake was left to be.
Why?
Because it doesn't comply with the school's new healthy eating rules.
Her school is Rockingham Junior and Infant School in Rotherham, England. It is well known, if only because it is the school Jamie Oliver launched his campaign for healthier eating at schools.
Head Teacher Heather Green said it would be a "mixed message" if cakes were brought in whilst the school promotes healthy eating. Joyless bint.
The story is in the Daily Telegraph.
Of course this silly little do-gooder forgets that denying children ANY "unhealthy" food simply raises the desire to have it, it makes it forbidden, which of course makes anything far more attractive and interesting. Kids are more likely to secretly covet such food, binge on it, and then show themselves as healthy openly.
Olivia and her friends didn't miss out though. You see AFTER school she took the cake, and celebrated her birthday with her friends outside school, where they shared cake - away from the tentacles of Heather Green and zee Rockingham Junior Re-Edukation Kamp. Just to show how distant education gets from the needs of parents when it is bureaucrats and schools doing what they see is best, not those who pay for it.
Olivia doesn't YET live in a world where such puritanical nonsense is compulsory everywhere.
Then the cake was left to be.
Why?
Because it doesn't comply with the school's new healthy eating rules.
Her school is Rockingham Junior and Infant School in Rotherham, England. It is well known, if only because it is the school Jamie Oliver launched his campaign for healthier eating at schools.
Head Teacher Heather Green said it would be a "mixed message" if cakes were brought in whilst the school promotes healthy eating. Joyless bint.
The story is in the Daily Telegraph.
Of course this silly little do-gooder forgets that denying children ANY "unhealthy" food simply raises the desire to have it, it makes it forbidden, which of course makes anything far more attractive and interesting. Kids are more likely to secretly covet such food, binge on it, and then show themselves as healthy openly.
Olivia and her friends didn't miss out though. You see AFTER school she took the cake, and celebrated her birthday with her friends outside school, where they shared cake - away from the tentacles of Heather Green and zee Rockingham Junior Re-Edukation Kamp. Just to show how distant education gets from the needs of parents when it is bureaucrats and schools doing what they see is best, not those who pay for it.
Olivia doesn't YET live in a world where such puritanical nonsense is compulsory everywhere.
Zimbabwe's government becoming unstuck
The Times reports that Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has announced that the MDF will "disengage" from the unity government of Zimbabwe citing Zanu-PF as being dishonest and unreliable.
This of course is like discovering that the sun appears every morning, but give Tsvangirai his due, he tried. Whilst South Africa should have facilitated the overthrow, trial and impeachment of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF mafia, it co-ordinated a shameful compromise, which has largely failed.
The issue is Roy Bennett, a MDF MP who has been arrested after his farm was confiscated by Mugabe's goons. Zanu-PF itself is not concerned.
In essence, the issue has not gone away. The only sane solution for Zimbabwe appears to involve force - to overthrow Zanu-PF's power base, arrest Mugabe and take this sad country back from the criminal gang that has run it for so long.
Sadly, the lesson of Africa is that collectively, only a minority of African leaders have any conscience for the suffering of Africans, they are more often that not, gangsters themselves running their countries like feudal lords, granting favours, profiting exhorbitantly, and not showing the slightest interest in being accountable.
This of course is like discovering that the sun appears every morning, but give Tsvangirai his due, he tried. Whilst South Africa should have facilitated the overthrow, trial and impeachment of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF mafia, it co-ordinated a shameful compromise, which has largely failed.
The issue is Roy Bennett, a MDF MP who has been arrested after his farm was confiscated by Mugabe's goons. Zanu-PF itself is not concerned.
In essence, the issue has not gone away. The only sane solution for Zimbabwe appears to involve force - to overthrow Zanu-PF's power base, arrest Mugabe and take this sad country back from the criminal gang that has run it for so long.
Sadly, the lesson of Africa is that collectively, only a minority of African leaders have any conscience for the suffering of Africans, they are more often that not, gangsters themselves running their countries like feudal lords, granting favours, profiting exhorbitantly, and not showing the slightest interest in being accountable.
Venezuela inches further towards dictatorship
Nobody is surprised that the latest pinup of the far left - Hugo Chavez - is continuing to prove himself to be a thieving mobster. Anyone with delusions that he is some benevolent strongman helping the poor does need to reconsider this view.
Now he is seizing golf courses, because golf is a bourgeoisie sport.
Only a week ago he seized the Hilton Hotel on Margarita Island because of "the need to boost tourism", although Hilton had a concession to use it, it did not own the hotel.
It's becoming clear Venezuela is not a place where foreigners owning land can feel safe from theft. Previous nationalisations have been at taxpayer expense, spending a set price to buy the telecommunications and electricity sectors. Last year he took over the cement and steel sectors as well.
Now he is seizing golf courses, because golf is a bourgeoisie sport.
Only a week ago he seized the Hilton Hotel on Margarita Island because of "the need to boost tourism", although Hilton had a concession to use it, it did not own the hotel.
It's becoming clear Venezuela is not a place where foreigners owning land can feel safe from theft. Previous nationalisations have been at taxpayer expense, spending a set price to buy the telecommunications and electricity sectors. Last year he took over the cement and steel sectors as well.
The inevitable outcome will be more poverty, and the ever creeping control over the media, as Chavez refuses to tolerate debate or dissension.
Fun Police: #1 BOGOF
You might not know what BOGOF means - it is Buy One Get One Free in the UK.
Great, you may say. Effectively half price for two items, particularly welcome for families or for goods that can be frozen or readily stored. I have used BOGOF many times, for everything from yoghurt to chips to chocolate to fresh fruit.
Oh no, say the food police, it encourages you to buy more than you otherwise would, making you fat and unhealthy, and that costs taxpayers. So the wagging finger of the "do as we say" crowd want it to end. I can just imagine Sue Kedgley jumping on this in a moment, insisting that for "unhealthy food" 2 for 1 is just morally wrong. Others say it encourages "food waste" as people buy 2 for 1 and don't use 2, so throw it away. Oh the outrage, maybe there are kids in Africa who'd love what is being thrown away?
Sarah Vine in the Times takes on such people saying:
One of the great follies of our age is that there are a lot of people who abhor the idea of affordable food. They think that poor people are fat because the food that they eat is too cheap and too plentiful. If everyone paid a bit more and ate a bit less, they reason, we’d all be a lot healther and happier.
They are the people who prefer to go to shops which harp on about the quality of their products, and who think local shops (you know the ones that are overpriced with a poor range, until a supermarket comes near) are just a glorious example of what is great. The most successful supermarkets are most loathed, as she says
Of the supe(r)markets, Tesco is the one most commonly despised by the hug-your-cow-before-you-put-a- bullet-through-its-head snobs. Quite why this should be is not clear, as Tesco sells exactly the same produce as its rivals.
Great, you may say. Effectively half price for two items, particularly welcome for families or for goods that can be frozen or readily stored. I have used BOGOF many times, for everything from yoghurt to chips to chocolate to fresh fruit.
Oh no, say the food police, it encourages you to buy more than you otherwise would, making you fat and unhealthy, and that costs taxpayers. So the wagging finger of the "do as we say" crowd want it to end. I can just imagine Sue Kedgley jumping on this in a moment, insisting that for "unhealthy food" 2 for 1 is just morally wrong. Others say it encourages "food waste" as people buy 2 for 1 and don't use 2, so throw it away. Oh the outrage, maybe there are kids in Africa who'd love what is being thrown away?
Sarah Vine in the Times takes on such people saying:
One of the great follies of our age is that there are a lot of people who abhor the idea of affordable food. They think that poor people are fat because the food that they eat is too cheap and too plentiful. If everyone paid a bit more and ate a bit less, they reason, we’d all be a lot healther and happier.
They are the people who prefer to go to shops which harp on about the quality of their products, and who think local shops (you know the ones that are overpriced with a poor range, until a supermarket comes near) are just a glorious example of what is great. The most successful supermarkets are most loathed, as she says
Of the supe(r)markets, Tesco is the one most commonly despised by the hug-your-cow-before-you-put-a- bullet-through-its-head snobs. Quite why this should be is not clear, as Tesco sells exactly the same produce as its rivals.
Sadly Tesco is succumbing to the Stasi like attitude so many have of giving a damn about what other people buy or eat.
If you don't like a BOGOF deal then don't buy it. Some people love it, some people don't, it is a way of managing inventory through price and gives consumers a great deal if they need more than one. If people waste food, it is their money, the food biodegrades, it isn't your business.
It's just sad this culture of control is now so ingrained with government than the private sector succumbs to lobbying by people who want to control what people buy, because they think they know better than others.
I'd just tell them to BOGOF, sanctimonious little petty fascists as they are.
Miners' Strike repeat?
You probably haven't heard of Billy Hayes. He heads the Communication Workers Union which is in charge of the rolling strike action at Royal Mail. He's digging his heels in saying "I'm stronger than Arthur Scargill" according to an interview in The Times.
He says this is because he does have a balloted mandate for the strike (unlike Scargill who opposed secret ballots so standover tactics could be used to intimidate miners who wanted to work), and while coal can be stockpiled and sourced elsewhere, mail delivery is more difficult to replicate.
However, it is not impossible. Royal Mail is financially on its knees, partly due to the recession, but mostly because it remains in the dark ages with technology and work practices, and competition in the postal market has seen the private sector take a good chunk of the business mail market. Meanwhile, online communications eats into the private individual market for letters.
My own experience of the Royal Mail has rarely been inspiring. The postman who wouldn't bother to ring the bell to deliver a parcel, but rather place a card in the box so you have to go to the central delivery office to pick it up - presumably because he was too lazy to carry parcels. How about the one who wouldn't enter the premises to go upstairs because "he wasn't insured" to climb stairs. Funnily enough neither am I, and there is a lift, but he was having none of it.
This sort of communist-bloc attitude to service is helping kill it off.
A union led by a man on a salary that is anything but working class.
The response, I suspect, is that Royal Mail's competitors will have even more of a bumper time. The main gap in the market is the more difficult service for the general public, not helped by the unnecessary layers of regulation for the "deregulated" postal market.
Anyone should simply be able to collect mail, establish post boxes and deliver as they see fit. Removing as many barriers as possible to this sort of competition would help drive a thriving postal sector, bring benefits to entrepreneurs, prospective employees and consumers, and give more reason to privatise the Royal Mail.
However, the likelihood this moribund Labour Government could offer any inspiration to take on the CWU is little beyond zero.
He says this is because he does have a balloted mandate for the strike (unlike Scargill who opposed secret ballots so standover tactics could be used to intimidate miners who wanted to work), and while coal can be stockpiled and sourced elsewhere, mail delivery is more difficult to replicate.
However, it is not impossible. Royal Mail is financially on its knees, partly due to the recession, but mostly because it remains in the dark ages with technology and work practices, and competition in the postal market has seen the private sector take a good chunk of the business mail market. Meanwhile, online communications eats into the private individual market for letters.
My own experience of the Royal Mail has rarely been inspiring. The postman who wouldn't bother to ring the bell to deliver a parcel, but rather place a card in the box so you have to go to the central delivery office to pick it up - presumably because he was too lazy to carry parcels. How about the one who wouldn't enter the premises to go upstairs because "he wasn't insured" to climb stairs. Funnily enough neither am I, and there is a lift, but he was having none of it.
This sort of communist-bloc attitude to service is helping kill it off.
A union led by a man on a salary that is anything but working class.
The response, I suspect, is that Royal Mail's competitors will have even more of a bumper time. The main gap in the market is the more difficult service for the general public, not helped by the unnecessary layers of regulation for the "deregulated" postal market.
Anyone should simply be able to collect mail, establish post boxes and deliver as they see fit. Removing as many barriers as possible to this sort of competition would help drive a thriving postal sector, bring benefits to entrepreneurs, prospective employees and consumers, and give more reason to privatise the Royal Mail.
However, the likelihood this moribund Labour Government could offer any inspiration to take on the CWU is little beyond zero.
17 October 2009
Islamists threaten Dutch MP
Geert Wilders entered the UK today, finally permitted to do so thanks as described earlier by myself.
What does he encounter? The very thing he describes. Militant freedom hating Muslims.
According to The Times:
"around thirty male activists from a group called Islam for UK began chanting, "Wilders burn in hell" and "Sharia for UK""
"Brandishing banners saying, “Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell” and “Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment”, the protesters were held back by about fifty policemen."
These lowlifes hate Britain, they hate the values of free speech, freedom of religion and individual rights, and they seek to destroy it. They, not Wilders, should be the focus of the government.
No. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary is seeking to protect these flowers of hatred from being offended because Wilders "would threaten community security and therefore public security".
No. The Islamists threaten me, they threaten most residents of the UK who live here because it offers the freedoms available to practice the religion you wish (including none), free speech, and live your life by and large as you see fit (notwithstanding the Nanny State around many activities).
Make it fundamentally clear, the vision these Islamists have for the UK would make New Labour's Nanny State look like a holiday in comparison.
Wilders expressed his opinion “I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get.”. He's right of course, given the separation of religion and state is rare indeed in Muslim majority countries (only Turkey, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania have this). He justified comments that Islam is retarded by saying that in some Islamic dominated countries "homosexuals are beaten up and killed. Journalists are jailed. That action is retarded."
In response, a spokesman from "Islam for UK" said "because there is a war on Muslims he gets an easy ride". No, the war is on Islamists. Your misuse of language shows you're uninterested in confronting the Islamist threat. He continued "When Muslims defend their faith, they are seen as extremists." No, it is HOW you defend your faith. Calling for violence against those who disagree with you is the problem. Calling to overthrow the constitutional structure and fundamental values of British society, is the problem.
Mr Wilders is NOT like the BNP. However, the BNP rides on the wave of snivelling pussy footing around Islamists that is seen in the likes of the attempt to ban Mr Wilders. Wilders supports individual freedom, the BNP supports a big intrusive fascist state.
The UK government has for far too long been concerned about "offending Muslims", when in fact the freedom and right to offend whoever you wish is fundamental to British society. It is not racism, it is criticism of a philosophy, a point of view. Being Muslim is not something you have that is inate, it is, or should be, a conscious choice. If you say "freedom go to hell" then I say "to hell with you and your ideas". You are then the enemy.
If you cannot stand a society that criticises your strongly held beliefs and allows debate and derision of them, if you would rather threaten and use force to stop others offending you, then there is a better answer that should make you happier, and would make most Britons happier...
leave.
What does he encounter? The very thing he describes. Militant freedom hating Muslims.
According to The Times:
"around thirty male activists from a group called Islam for UK began chanting, "Wilders burn in hell" and "Sharia for UK""
"Brandishing banners saying, “Sharia is the solution, freedom go to hell” and “Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment”, the protesters were held back by about fifty policemen."
These lowlifes hate Britain, they hate the values of free speech, freedom of religion and individual rights, and they seek to destroy it. They, not Wilders, should be the focus of the government.
No. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary is seeking to protect these flowers of hatred from being offended because Wilders "would threaten community security and therefore public security".
No. The Islamists threaten me, they threaten most residents of the UK who live here because it offers the freedoms available to practice the religion you wish (including none), free speech, and live your life by and large as you see fit (notwithstanding the Nanny State around many activities).
Make it fundamentally clear, the vision these Islamists have for the UK would make New Labour's Nanny State look like a holiday in comparison.
Wilders expressed his opinion “I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I feel that the more Islam that we get in our societies the less freedom that we get.”. He's right of course, given the separation of religion and state is rare indeed in Muslim majority countries (only Turkey, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania have this). He justified comments that Islam is retarded by saying that in some Islamic dominated countries "homosexuals are beaten up and killed. Journalists are jailed. That action is retarded."
In response, a spokesman from "Islam for UK" said "because there is a war on Muslims he gets an easy ride". No, the war is on Islamists. Your misuse of language shows you're uninterested in confronting the Islamist threat. He continued "When Muslims defend their faith, they are seen as extremists." No, it is HOW you defend your faith. Calling for violence against those who disagree with you is the problem. Calling to overthrow the constitutional structure and fundamental values of British society, is the problem.
Mr Wilders is NOT like the BNP. However, the BNP rides on the wave of snivelling pussy footing around Islamists that is seen in the likes of the attempt to ban Mr Wilders. Wilders supports individual freedom, the BNP supports a big intrusive fascist state.
The UK government has for far too long been concerned about "offending Muslims", when in fact the freedom and right to offend whoever you wish is fundamental to British society. It is not racism, it is criticism of a philosophy, a point of view. Being Muslim is not something you have that is inate, it is, or should be, a conscious choice. If you say "freedom go to hell" then I say "to hell with you and your ideas". You are then the enemy.
If you cannot stand a society that criticises your strongly held beliefs and allows debate and derision of them, if you would rather threaten and use force to stop others offending you, then there is a better answer that should make you happier, and would make most Britons happier...
leave.
Italians bribe Taliban to not attack
.
The Times is reporting:
"A Taleban commander and two senior Afghan officials confirmed yesterday that Italian forces paid protection money to prevent attacks on their troops.
After furious denials in Rome of a Times report that the Italian authorities had paid the bribes, the Afghans gave further details of the practice. Mohammed Ishmayel, a Taleban commander, said that a deal was struck last year so that Italian forces in the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, were not attacked by local insurgents.
The payment of protection money was revealed after the death of ten French soldiers in August 2008 at the hands of large Taleban force in Sarobi. French forces had taken over the district from Italian troops, but were unaware of secret Italian payments to local commanders to stop attacks on their forces and consequently misjudged local threat levels."
Words fail me.
When the Italian government was asked, the Defence Minister explained "that a benevolent attitude toward the Italians who serve in Afghanistan had nothing to do with alleged bribes, but was due, instead, to “the behaviour of our military, which is very different compared to that of other contingents”. "
Not attacking the Taliban and giving them money is "very different".
So we will see what comes of this report. It paints a picture of the Italian forces which is far from flattering, rather like the image above from 'Allo 'Allo.
UPDATE: You can't make this up "Meanwhile, a Taliban group also sent two letters to the Lahore Press Club – one on October 12 and the other on October 14 – warning that if the media “does not stop portraying us as terrorists ... we will blow up offices of journalists and media organisations”. from the Daily Times in Pakistan.
The Times is reporting:
"A Taleban commander and two senior Afghan officials confirmed yesterday that Italian forces paid protection money to prevent attacks on their troops.
After furious denials in Rome of a Times report that the Italian authorities had paid the bribes, the Afghans gave further details of the practice. Mohammed Ishmayel, a Taleban commander, said that a deal was struck last year so that Italian forces in the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, were not attacked by local insurgents.
The payment of protection money was revealed after the death of ten French soldiers in August 2008 at the hands of large Taleban force in Sarobi. French forces had taken over the district from Italian troops, but were unaware of secret Italian payments to local commanders to stop attacks on their forces and consequently misjudged local threat levels."
Words fail me.
When the Italian government was asked, the Defence Minister explained "that a benevolent attitude toward the Italians who serve in Afghanistan had nothing to do with alleged bribes, but was due, instead, to “the behaviour of our military, which is very different compared to that of other contingents”. "
Not attacking the Taliban and giving them money is "very different".
So we will see what comes of this report. It paints a picture of the Italian forces which is far from flattering, rather like the image above from 'Allo 'Allo.
UPDATE: You can't make this up "Meanwhile, a Taliban group also sent two letters to the Lahore Press Club – one on October 12 and the other on October 14 – warning that if the media “does not stop portraying us as terrorists ... we will blow up offices of journalists and media organisations”. from the Daily Times in Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)