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

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

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

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

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

Greens prefer tax cuts over roads

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

.

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

.

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

Gillian McKeith - so vile

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

Russel Norman, ecologically, economically vapid

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

.

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

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

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

"

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

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

.

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

Morrissey incites terrorism?

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

Cullen lost the plot, has Labour?

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

Nandor willing to consider Green support for National

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

.

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

.

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

The bitch wants to be CEO of Telecom

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

Air NZ big international expansion

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

.

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

- Auckland to Santiago (competing with LAN);

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

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

- Auckland to Beijing;

- Auckland to Mumbai.

.

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

.

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

.

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

The Independent recommends liberalising drug laws

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

.

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

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

.

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

Smart childcare

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

.

So:

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

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

Kedgley the food bully is rather dumb

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

.

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

Funding snub for Karori Wildlife Sanctuary

Ha ha ha ha... according to the Dominion Post local Labour MPs and the centreleft Mark Blumsky (well he's always advocating new state spending as far as I can see) are upset you are not being forced to pay through central government (not so lucky Wellington city ratepayers) to build a new visitor and education centre at the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary.

.

Good.

.

If you support the Sanctuary, support it - with your own money. Sponsor it, go visit it and pay for entry, give a donation. If Marian Hobbs and Mark Blumsky each contributed $30,000 (and let's face it, neither are short of a bob or two) it would be 1% of the funding for it. If 10,000 Wellingtonians contributed $60 each - the funding would be there.

.

Too hard? Well tough luck. You see the people whose money it is had to do something to get it, they had to convince someone to give it to them (setting aside politicians of course).

.

It's called fundraising - it's how a lot of community used assets were built, and it means convincing individuals to spend their money, not Cabinet to spend yours.

Annette Presley - fascist

I notice my friend Not PC has received legal threats from the self styled consumer champion, Annette Presley. That is because he called her a thief - for advocating the state control of Telecom's property rights so she could use it - it's actually conversion, like when you use someone else's car without their permission, but don't hold possession of it continuously. His point, albeit extreme - is correct. She advocates state use of force to take property in order to benefit herself. Looks like a duck...

.

and this is the woman who defames Telecom constantly, for providing services to consumers that she doesn't - or that customers don't choose to buy from here - or for not providing her access to its property on HER terms. She doesn't like Telecom because it is big and successful. She is small and successful, and only wants to help consumers out - or rather increase the profitability of her company. She has the same motive as Telecom - except she wants to use Telecom's property to do it - and now has the Government, the Greens and DPF supporting her. My comments on her are here, as she is the entrepreneurial second hander that Ayn Rand talked about. The Whig has also commented on her, so has Latitude 45 south.

.

Now, unaccustomed as I am to be abusive and insulting – I thought I’d use a song to simply say……..

.

Well... Annette's a bitch, she's a big fat bitch, she's the biggest bitch in the whole wide world, she's a stupid bitch if there ever was a bitch, she's a bitch to all the boys and girls.

.

Monday she's a bitch, on Tuesday she's a bitch, and Wednesday to Saturday she's a bitch, then on Sunday just to be different she's a super King Kamehameha be-atch.

.

Have you ever met Annette Presley, she's the biggest bitch in the whole wide world, she's a mean old bitch and she has stupid hair, she's a bitch bitch bitch

bitch bitch bitch bitch, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch cause-a she's a stupid bitch,

Annete's a bitch and she's just a dirty bitch, Annette is a bitch-ah.

.

I wouldn't use Slingshot if it were free (if I were local) - I urge anyone who thinks that a wealthy secondhand entrepreneur like Annette Presley shouldn't sue rather than responding with arguments and debate, to donate to Not PC's legal fund.

.

oh and why is Annette Presley a fascist? She advocates state control of private property - which is a form of fascism.

I wish she was a punk rocker...

Sandi Thom - is number 2 in the British charts with a song called "I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair". Now she can sing, and it's quite catchy. It's designed to be nostalgic, a sort of teen angst that there was a better time that she never lived through. But oh dear oh dear... how damned stupid the lyrics are:

.

"Oh I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair

In '77 and '69 revolution was in the air

I was born too late into a world that doesn't care

.

Oh I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair

When the head of state didn't play guitar

Not everybody drove a car

When music really mattered and when radio was king

When accountants didn't have control

And the media couldn't buy your soul

And computers were still scary and we didn't know everything[chorus]

.

When pop stars still remained a myth

And ignorance could still be bliss

And when God saved the Queen she turned a whiter shade of pale

My mom and dad were in their teens

And anarchy was still a dream

And the only way to stay in touch was a letter in the mail[chorus]

.

When record shops were still on top

And vinyl was all that they stocked

And the super info highway was still drifting out in space

Kids were wearing hand me downs

And playing games meant kick arounds

And footballers still had long hair and dirt across their face[chorus]

.

I was born too late into a world that doesn't care

Oh I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair "

.

For starters, remember any punks that wore flowers in their hair? What stops her dressing punk and wearing flowers in her hair anyway? .

.

She proclaims “revolution was in the air” in 1977 and 1969. That was a good thing was it? Well 1969 is a bit odd, as I presume she means the Paris 1968 protests. The ones when students caused riots, when workers tried to take over their places of employment and demand higher wages and to overthrow the democratically elected government. A general strike occurred supported by the French Communist Party, those nice people who also supported the Soviet suppression of the Prague Spring that same year. Yeah, good one Sandi - so you want a revolution backed by people who ran the dullest most oppressive regimes in Europe?

.

1977? Does she mean the Sex Pistols? Hardly a focus for revolution, rather a carefully marketed trend. Does she mean the terrorist attacks and the umpteen hijackings that year? Does she mean Anwar Sadat visiting Jerusalem? Does she mean the murders carried out by the German Red Army faction? Who knows- I bet it was just a nice rhyme.

.

The real revolution in the UK started in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher starting taking Britain back from unions, bureaucrats and featherbedded protected businesses and rescued the country from the economic stagnation now besetting France and Italy - but Sandy wouldn’t think that was cool and interesting. She’d rather celebrate the drug fuelled banality of Sid Vicious.

.

So what else is annoying about this song?
“When accountants didn't have control, And the media couldn't buy your soul, And computers were still scary and we didn't know everything”
.
Well Sandi, you go on spending all the money you have and borrow and don’t save any – that’s right little girl. Go to Cuba and North Korea, they don’t have control there. The media of very few radio stations, and TV channels with far less choice – as opposed to today with many of both, and the internet, when it is cheaper than ever before to publish on paper, electronically or broadcast. Yes that’s right, the media in the days when BBC Radio 1 wouldn’t play the Sex Pistols – or before then, when only the state could broadcast unless you sailed in a ship off the coast. How about how carefully constructed some bands were then? The age of artificial bands predates your conception Sandi. Better to not know everything, but then who does Sandi? You certainly don’t know a lot.

.

“And anarchy was still a dream” Oh so let's abolish the state then - can I then steal your song and give it away to people Sandi? Take your royalties? Or was the cry for anarchy just a nihilistic catchphrase used by drug-dazed halfwits indulging in the latest trend and whatever sensory stimulation they could find without any care?
.
Well am I just a grumpy old bastard? No - there are some quaint things about the past, the lesser obsession with image, the greater politeness and courtesy and records were more works of art than MP3s. Sandi's signoff line in the song is "I was born too late to a world that doesn't care".
.
Well Sandi, your chance of getting a recording contract in the late 1960s would have been lower than today, you'd have done no podcasts and would have found it tough to get Radio 1 to play your song because it didn't exist. Also Sandi, if you think the world is more heartless now than the 1960s and 1970s, then ask people in eastern Europe - they wont get thrown in jail for listening to your song now.
.
Young people today - romantic about socialism...

Away

Sorry all, I have been in the US and then Yorkshire and working a bit too hard to blog - that has now been amended. So much to say as well...

I'm in the USA but that budget...

I've noticed the NZ budget... see you didn't get any of your money back, except the contracting industry which is having an ol' fashioned pork barrel building boom on roads. The state sector continues to grow, and organisations like NaZis on Air get more money to propagate their.. well propaganda. Read this unadulterated vomit from the Acting CEO of NZ On Air:

"Acting Chief Executive Bernard Duncan said seeing and hearing our own stories on television and radio and in our music was especially important to New Zealanders because of our size and geographic location.

.

What the hell are "our own stories"? Do your stories get put onto the radio or TV? Maybe you ring talkback and you can share your story? That doesn't get funding from the taxpayer. Apparently because NZ has a small population, or is it the land area of the UK, that means it is especially important to subsidise and prop up a bunch of self-obsessed wankers producing TV to make themselves feel better? Apparently construction workers, shopkeepers, farmers, restaurant workers all need to help pay those tossers to "share their fucking stories". It's not my fucking story Mr Duncan!

.

Then he says “Local content that tells our stories helps us to connect as a society, and to know who we are as a nation. It allows us to celebrate our culture and consider the things that set us apart from other countries,”

.

Connect as a society? You mean we all sit at home playing with ourselves and don't interact without having Mr Duncan take his cut of the loot Dr Cullen takes from our regular earnings to put some actors on TV? So New Zealand didn't connect as a society before TV came along in the 1960s??? Mr Duncan, New Zealanders meet each other socially in real life, they "connect" as you call it, without you propping up the careers and businesses of people doing something they "love". New Zealanders use bars, sport, clubs, churches, workplaces, families, the internet to connect - TV is the least connecting medium of all, it is passive and keeps people at home. The thing that sets New Zealand apart from other countries is not you funding TV programmes, New Zealanders overseas don't identify (or even remember) NZ made TV programmes most of the time - it is something else - and the state doesn't replicate or represent it.

.

Now I've vented my spleen on NaZis on Air, the roads...

.

Fortunately, most of the projects in the road spendup are quite good - though Labour's list of projects includes umpteen that are already underway and already funded, like the long delayed and much needed Mt Roskill Extension of SH20 in Auckland. Unfortunately, some are poor quality and the huge increase in spending in a short time has fueled massive inflation in the road building sector. At least you can no longer say your petrol tax isn't being spent on roads, now it is - although not guaranteed for more than 5 years.

.

So now if you want even more roads, you'll have to pay tolls, more tax or not build the inefficient ones. Don't expect to hear Labour or National talk about roads that are being built that probably shouldn't be... you see flab in the roading sector is growing year on year. Maybe NZ could take a leaf out of the Bush Administration, which has a Democrat Transport Secretary Norman Mineta saying that some highways can be privatised:

.

"we will encourage more states to find ways to open up their transportation infrastructure to private investment opportunities. State budgets are stretched thin, while gasoline taxes are becoming increasingly untenable as long-term sources of funding.At the same time, major financial institutions and their clients are expressing increasing willingness to invest billions of dollars in roads and airports."

My budget wishlist

With Dr Cullen ruling out tax cuts according to the NZ Herald, I thought I'd have a go at a budget wishlist. It wont happen, yet, but it covers a few key topics that were worth mentioning. It is more modest than a Libertarianz budget, but bolder than an ACT one I think:

.

1. Cut income tax immediately by abolishing the 39% income tax rate, cut the 33% rate to 30% and the 21% rate to 20% and introduce a $5000 tax free threshold. Cut company tax to 30% immediately. Announce further tax cuts, including abolishing the top rate (introducing flat tax of 20%) next year, with a corresponding cut in company tax to 20%, and introduction of a $10,000 tax free threshold in the following year (and abolition of the low income tax rebate). By 2008 company and income tax at a flat 20% with first $10,000 tax free.

.

2. Cut GST to 10% (simplifies it and gives some inflationary relief);

.

3. Implement the first stage of welfare reform by:
.
- Capping money provided to existing beneficiaries by granting no additional payments for having additional children while on benefits;
- Ending inflation adjustment of benefits including accommodation supplement (excluding war veterans and national superannuation);
- Ending DBP payments for parents where the youngest child is 5 or older, replaced with unemployment benefit. Additional children will not make parent eligible for DBP again;
- Introduce one-year maximum term for claiming unemployment benefit, after one year the benefit ceases. Unemployment benefit cannot be claimed again until recipient has at least paid in income tax what had been previously received in benefits;
- Abolish unemployment benefit for under 20 year olds at home and abolish the independent youth benefit, raises minimum age for all benefits to 18;

- Abolish schemes for benefits for artists;
- Abolishing Working for Families package of tax credits (replaced with tax cuts);
- Sell all empty state housing stock (current and as it becomes available), cease funding new state housing stock (sell any currently under construction).

Abolishing Labour's welfare profligacy and tightening up on current beneficiaries

.

Announce the second stage of welfare reform by:
.
- Abolition of new claims for widow’s benefit, domestic purposes benefit, accommodation supplement, sickness and unemployment benefit when the tax free threshold is raised to $10,000 (to give people time to acquire life insurance, income protection insurance and enter into contractual agreements in the event of family separation). This effectively gives the population two years to make plans for predictable eventualities (unemployment, death, sickness). Ceases the entrance of new beneficiaries into the system so that it erodes over time as current beneficiaries are weaned off;

.

4. Announce comprehensive reform of ACC by immediately opening it up to competition for its employer and motor vehicle accounts. 75% of motor vehicle licensing fees to be abolished, replaced with private motor vehicle accident insurance. Competition for non-work/road injury cover to be introduced within three years, followed by privatisation of ACC;

.

5. Recommence privatisation programme, selling SOEs subject to competition on the open market, with proceeds used to accelerate debt repayment, some SOEs to have shares partly allocated to the public (e.g. Radio NZ) so that public ownership is genuine public ownership;

.

6. Require all government departments, Crown entities and Crown agents to prepare a report of no more than 20 pages as to why they should still exist rather than their functions either be abolished, or operated in the private sector and publish it for public comment. Departments with inadequate reports will be abolished, others will be scaled back or privatised subject to passage of necessary legislation. Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Human Rights Commission, Children’s Commissioner, Health and Disability Commissioner, Families Commission, NZ on Air, Electricity Commission and Ministry of Women’s Affairs abolished regardless;

.

7. Cease funding of the arts, sport and broadcast media, including NZ On Air and TVNZ. Radio NZ funding to be abolished when privatisation complete;

.

8. Cease contributions to the Cullen fund, replaced with debt repayments (which will better secure the long term future). Announce first stage of reform of national superannuation that will see contributions to the Cullen fund privatised and placed in the name of all current citizens not receiving National Superannuation. Citizens will be able to continue contributing, cease contributing or remove contributions to reinvest elsewhere;

.

9. Abolish import tariffs;

.

10. Cease direct Crown funding of roads, replace with full dedication of petrol tax to National Land Transport Fund - announce Transit NZ to become SOE and be privatised by issuing of shares to all citizens.

.

See modest really - just phasing out welfare, flat tax and hardly touching health and education beyond given the state run providers independence. It would be too long for this blog to mention all that, and besides, the biggest leap forward would be to cut welfare dependency. Is this too much to ask for if there is a Brash/Hide government?

Nanny teaches you about spending your own money

Now I hope all you boys and girls are listening ok? Good. Now I know you’ve been complaining about the price of petrol, because those big bad men in those evil overseas oil companies (class go booooooo!!) have been putting up the prices so you can’t drive so cheaply anymore. Now I know that’s so not fair, so what we have done – Nanny State – is take a little more money off you all to pay for a website to teach you how to use less petrol when you drive. You see, no consumer based organisation would do this when we can use your money to pay for it.

.
So class go here

.

Click the pretty hybrid car, yes those expensive ones that use half the petrol of conventional petrol cars and you can look up your own car and see the average fuel consumption. Something you could get from the manufacturer, but we put them all in one convenient place just for you.
.
Now click the distance, and you’ll see the more you drive, the more fuel you use. Bet you didn’t know that did you? The more you drive in town or at residential street speeds the more fuel per kilometre, and the more you drive on the open road, the less.
.
Now click habits, this is where I really come in. Do you have your car tuned? Do you have your tyres correctly inflated? Do you drive moderate and smooth or fast? Do you use air conditioning or open the window? Well you should know the right answers to those – and you’re naughty if you use air conditioning too much (see here) or drive at 110 km/h…. you bad bad bad driver you, using up more fuel and killing children by the day.
.
So, go to Nanny’s website, it only covers new cars and Japanese used imports – so most of you will find it useless unless your buying one of them or own one – and see how you could spend less on a commodity you buy.
.
Nanny next will do this for shoes, shirts, electricity, fruit, bread, eggs and all the other things you don’t know how to spend your money on properly. You see Nanny takes a lot of your money to tell you how incompetent you are at spending the rest. (question: why does Nanny tax petrol so much?) Detention! Don't be so rude as to question the need to penalise your addiction to petroleum, haven't you had your environmental lesson today? It is one thing your petrol societal fee pays for. (question: Why doesn't Nanny make more petrol for us so the price can come down?) Nanny doesn't make petrol, Nanny makes websites and documents and laws to tell you to better yourself. Don't be so stupid. (question: Where does petrol come from?) Those evil big companies, it's all because of them that you can run cars, that addiction you all need weaning off of. Thing were better when you walked everywhere (loads of hands go up) No more questions!

.

(waking up kicking nanny out of the way) As for me, I thought I’d check out a good car, not a pissy child racer one - the Aston Martin DB9, and it would use 16.6 litres per 100km – bargain for such a beautiful machine, don't ask the price because if you care, you can't afford it. It's a V12, so if 3 pathetic little 4 cylinder car owning Labour voters can get on buses or trains, then me driving it is carbon neutral :) and there would be less congestion.

Nanny State tries to tell Scots to eat well

Scotland has a problem – most of the population eat like they did half a century ago. If it’s deep fried, involves meat and potatoes, or pastry – it’s good. Fruit and vegetables are for English poofters. As a result, half of them are dead by 60, or near abouts.
.
NannyKnowsBest blogs on a proposal by the Scottish Executive to requires pubs, as a condition of their liquor licences, promote “sensible eating”. What this means is unclear, on the one hand it could mean that pub food starts to disappear as the locals go to the fish and chip shop first, it could also mean that lardy pies are sold with side salad as compulsory. If it means telling a corpulent Glaswegian lad he ought to have a green salad and apple, instead of a pork pie and deep fried mars bar, it would be an interesting scene “Ah you sayin’ I’m fat laddie, I’ll geyya a smack in the chops ya cheeky sod, gimme ma pie and mars bar ya feckin
.
Just don’t tell the NZ Health fascists, they don’t believe anyone should be responsible for their own failure to look after themselves.