PC tagged me to place my eight wishes for 2008, so without referring to his list (which I largely agree with), here they are:
1. The 2008 New Zealand elections see Labour unable to form a government, and Helen Clark being ousted by the caucus as leader. Rodney Hide waking up and giving National a run for its money based on a consistently liberal platform, NZ First passing away like so many of its voters, the people of Wigram and Ohariu booting their ex.Labour MP one man bands from Parliament, and the Nats having to form a government with a genuinely liberal ACT (it has to be its last chance) with Rodney Hide supplying the testicles to do at least what the Nats promised in 2005. I don't hope for a National win, but I expect it and understand it as the likely consequence of a Labour loss.
2. The media holding the Green and Maori Parties to account for their appeasement of those who advocate political violence in a modern liberal democracy, and both parties' strong support for state endorsed racism, interventionist government in much business and personal life, surrender of individual freedom to collectivist goals decided, of course, by them and their mates, and a general rejection of modern western civilisation. The Green Party failing to reach 5% as a result (the Maori Party will continue to get support as the education system has brainwashed enough voters in the apartheid seats ideologically in favour of them).
3. Acknowledgement by those who should know better, especially feminists and so called “civil liberties” advocates of the left, that the growth of Islamism is a clear and present threat to life and liberty across the globe. It cripples the lives of so many in Africa and Asia, particularly women, it is threatening mass murder of peace loving people in countries rich and poor, and it cannot be appeased. It is time to advocate separation of all churches from all states worldwide.
4. Rational analysis and debate about responses to “environmental issues” that challenges the quasi-religious mantra that “recycling is good”, “road building is bad”, “energy consumption is bad”, “global warming is bad and must be fixed by microeconomic intervention”. Taking what Hayek said about economics and applying it to the environment would be a start. There is no way that governments can make the right choices for everyone (the most recent example being concern about the tens of thousands who are allergic to light from low energy lightbulbs, of course no bureaucrat could ever have thought of that).
5. The removal of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Bashar al-Assad, Fidel Castro, Than Shwe, Alexander Lukashenko, Kim Jong Il and Islam Karimov as leaders of their respective countries. Almost without exception preferably by assassination. The residents of their countries should be a safer place without them, and besides they all have the blood of thousands on their hands. All are far too powerful in their regimes and far too disturbing, their successors may not be angels, but they are more likely to assist in a transition towards better government.
6. The US Presidential primaries produce a clear two horse race between Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Why? Obama is a charismatic flake, Hilary has less chance of winning, and Giuliani for his many many faults, is probably the candidate best placed to handle the foreign policy challenges around Iran and Islamism, and as a reasonably socially liberal Republican he can steer the party away from the religious conservatism that has kept too many in the dark ages. I hope the prospect of a Clinton win scares the "bejesus" out religious conservatives that they vote for Giuliani.
7. The British Conservative Party turns away from its environmentalist mantra, and pushes for major reform of education and welfare to lift standards and address the persistent underclass in UK society of virtually useless individuals destined at best to have sad lives with little hope, or at worst to be violent criminals who breed the same. It might even advocate that people generally know best how to run their lives, but I don't think they understand it.
8. Ken Livingstone to be ousted as Mayor of London. While I hesitate in fully endorsing Boris Johnson, Livingstone’s appeasement of Islamists, filthy deal with Hugo Chavez for cheap diesel for London buses, Stalinist empire building over housing and transport (he now controls the central government budget for public housing in London, and wants to renationalise all local train services) is a drain on London’s dynamism and is a complete embarrassment. At a time of recession London needs someone managing the till who isn’t trying to mould London in the style of Michael Foot.
11 January 2008
10 January 2008
John Minto – Marxist bully
John Minto, has written that property rights mean little to the poor. He says this because ideologically he is very keen on the state interfering with property rights in order to fit his own socialist agenda – you see he doesn’t really think you should own what you earn from non-coercive means. He wants to justify state sponsored theft without using the word, so he dismisses property rights as being “ there to benefit the wealthy and the middle class”.
The sneering nature of that comment speaks much about what he thinks about those who produce. By implication the wealthy don’t deserve wealth, presumably the fact that people have chosen to pay the wealthy what they own is irrelevant, Minto thinks that is unfair. The middle classes too, those ones who he especially despises (as they don’t ever vote for sufficiently left wing governments as they are too concerned with such disgusting activities as looking after themselves and their families so they don’t get into poverty), are not loved by Minto.
However, setting aside his own bigotry against those who have money (as if it has been dished out by a god), his own thesis that property rights are not important to the poor is complete nonsense.
He claims that because there are property rights in the US and New Zealand that it has done nothing for the poor in those countries – yet how dare he even compare poverty in the US to that of say Sudan or Bangladesh. To be poor in the likes of Sudan is to not have shelter, to not have food, to not have any access to education or healthcare of any kind. To be poor in the US typically does mean having shelter, it very rarely means starvation (and in plenty of cases quite the opposite), it does not mean lack of access to education and does not mean complete absence of healthcare.
Having property rights is fundamental to human survival – it is about owning what you produce, and keeping it. Whether it be land to live on or even farm, clothing, commodities or products to trade, it is the necessities of life. If there is no right to protect what you produce or earn, then you will be defined by poverty or at the will of a feudal lord, or dictator. Try owning land in many countries in Africa and protecting it from demands from corrupt officials or criminal gangs. The idea that property rights are not important to the poor only stands up if you believe the only way the poor should survive is from stealing from others – because, you see, Minto thinks everyone is owed a living from those who produce a living. Notice, of course, how he doesn’t live the life of a destitute to give more to others who haven’t earned it – socialists are like that - “everyone should, but me”.
He advocates “true democracy”, defined as decision making in all parts of people’s lives. Interesting choice of words of course. I don’t know what decisions Minto doesn’t think he has in his life, who forces him to live where he is, who forces him to eat what he eats, who forces him to get out of bed in the morning? What, on the surface, he advocates for is individual freedom. It isn’t democracy, unless he wants the decision making to be collective. Get it? So everyone gets to make decisions about all parts of people’s lives – so your neighbour might vote as to whether you should have a new car, or a holiday in Australia, or eat fish and chips, or buy incandescent light bulbs, or what sort of education your children get, or what newspapers should publish, or what programmes should be on TV, or whether you should cut that tree down on yOUR land, or whether you should have that heart bypass operation, or whether everyone should burn the US flag in protest for it harassing the peace loving Iranian regime.
I have a vision of what Minto sees as “true democracy”, it means once a week you and others in your community (he’ll define that as being those who live near each other) meet and discuss community issues, like what you do with the street, the park, the hospital, the school, what shops open and for what hours, what they sell, what the prices should be, whether more people should be hired by the local light engineering workshop, what times the buses should run, what newspapers should be sold at the newsagent, what movies should show in the cinema, what anti-social activities others in the community have done, what campaigns the kids at school are getting animated about. Of course under this, if you are outvoted you can’t complain – it is “true democracy”, the majority rules, so if the majority say your kids should learn Marxist economics and can only go to the local school, you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that because you are “middle class” you should allow a poor family to use one of the rooms in your house, then you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that advertising should be banned in newspapers sold locally, then… you get the picture. What happens if you campaign AGAINST the decisions of local democracy? Well, how could you? You’re a traitor at best, insane at worst – how can you go against the will of the people, the will of the majority? Why aren’t you working with your community, instead of pursuing greedy self interest?
Minto has a vision about how to achieve this when he says disturbingly “It's worth remembering that democratic rights, to the extent we have them, were never granted freely to anyone. People have only gained civil and political rights after bitter, violent struggles.”
Nevermind, there is a country that echoes Minto’s vision of virtually no property rights, and the sort of true democracy I was talking about – its capital is Pyongyang. Global Peace and Justice is the euphemism for Global Revolution and Socialism.
The sneering nature of that comment speaks much about what he thinks about those who produce. By implication the wealthy don’t deserve wealth, presumably the fact that people have chosen to pay the wealthy what they own is irrelevant, Minto thinks that is unfair. The middle classes too, those ones who he especially despises (as they don’t ever vote for sufficiently left wing governments as they are too concerned with such disgusting activities as looking after themselves and their families so they don’t get into poverty), are not loved by Minto.
However, setting aside his own bigotry against those who have money (as if it has been dished out by a god), his own thesis that property rights are not important to the poor is complete nonsense.
He claims that because there are property rights in the US and New Zealand that it has done nothing for the poor in those countries – yet how dare he even compare poverty in the US to that of say Sudan or Bangladesh. To be poor in the likes of Sudan is to not have shelter, to not have food, to not have any access to education or healthcare of any kind. To be poor in the US typically does mean having shelter, it very rarely means starvation (and in plenty of cases quite the opposite), it does not mean lack of access to education and does not mean complete absence of healthcare.
Having property rights is fundamental to human survival – it is about owning what you produce, and keeping it. Whether it be land to live on or even farm, clothing, commodities or products to trade, it is the necessities of life. If there is no right to protect what you produce or earn, then you will be defined by poverty or at the will of a feudal lord, or dictator. Try owning land in many countries in Africa and protecting it from demands from corrupt officials or criminal gangs. The idea that property rights are not important to the poor only stands up if you believe the only way the poor should survive is from stealing from others – because, you see, Minto thinks everyone is owed a living from those who produce a living. Notice, of course, how he doesn’t live the life of a destitute to give more to others who haven’t earned it – socialists are like that - “everyone should, but me”.
He advocates “true democracy”, defined as decision making in all parts of people’s lives. Interesting choice of words of course. I don’t know what decisions Minto doesn’t think he has in his life, who forces him to live where he is, who forces him to eat what he eats, who forces him to get out of bed in the morning? What, on the surface, he advocates for is individual freedom. It isn’t democracy, unless he wants the decision making to be collective. Get it? So everyone gets to make decisions about all parts of people’s lives – so your neighbour might vote as to whether you should have a new car, or a holiday in Australia, or eat fish and chips, or buy incandescent light bulbs, or what sort of education your children get, or what newspapers should publish, or what programmes should be on TV, or whether you should cut that tree down on yOUR land, or whether you should have that heart bypass operation, or whether everyone should burn the US flag in protest for it harassing the peace loving Iranian regime.
I have a vision of what Minto sees as “true democracy”, it means once a week you and others in your community (he’ll define that as being those who live near each other) meet and discuss community issues, like what you do with the street, the park, the hospital, the school, what shops open and for what hours, what they sell, what the prices should be, whether more people should be hired by the local light engineering workshop, what times the buses should run, what newspapers should be sold at the newsagent, what movies should show in the cinema, what anti-social activities others in the community have done, what campaigns the kids at school are getting animated about. Of course under this, if you are outvoted you can’t complain – it is “true democracy”, the majority rules, so if the majority say your kids should learn Marxist economics and can only go to the local school, you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that because you are “middle class” you should allow a poor family to use one of the rooms in your house, then you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that advertising should be banned in newspapers sold locally, then… you get the picture. What happens if you campaign AGAINST the decisions of local democracy? Well, how could you? You’re a traitor at best, insane at worst – how can you go against the will of the people, the will of the majority? Why aren’t you working with your community, instead of pursuing greedy self interest?
Minto has a vision about how to achieve this when he says disturbingly “It's worth remembering that democratic rights, to the extent we have them, were never granted freely to anyone. People have only gained civil and political rights after bitter, violent struggles.”
Nevermind, there is a country that echoes Minto’s vision of virtually no property rights, and the sort of true democracy I was talking about – its capital is Pyongyang. Global Peace and Justice is the euphemism for Global Revolution and Socialism.
09 January 2008
Changeling for what?
Yes well Happy New Year, I've been travelling mostly, but had a very sore neck for the last 2 weeks so could hardly concentrate to do an end of year/new year post. Nevertheless, given today is the New Hampshire primaries I just had to write what has been concerning me about the US Presidential elections for the last year or so - it is Barack Obama.
Yes I'm a libertarian, and any Democratic Party candidate is about as inspiring as TV3 News, but is there ANYTHING behind this man, other than the fawning almost uncritical worshipping of him by the media? Do you ever see anyone substantively criticising him, besides Hilary Clinton?
Once you have a drink, calm down and stop cheering that he bet Hilary Clinton (yes yes, she's cold calculated and an evil statist), you find the vacuous nothing that represents what he is about. It's not even that being black is why he is popular, he is popular because he sounds charismatic even though he is saying next to nothing. Ignoring the specious irrelevancies about having the middle name Hussein and spending four years as a child in Indonesia (where he went to a Muslim school), what really disturbs me is that his campaign is about "real change".
What the hell is that about?
I could come to your home and say "give me the right to run your life and finances for three years and I'll show you real change". I could make your life better, or make you bankrupt, or just make it different, but it means nothing. So for the want of any information about what the hell he believes in, I went to wikipedia.
He says nothing interesting on economic policy, but rejects individual social security accounts - hmmm so he's a bit of a leftie. He promoted a law requiring companies to hold non binding votes on executive pay (so he like fiddling with businesses he doesn't own). He opposes education vouchers, clearly preferring the state monopoly on compulsorily funded education. He supports subsidising biofuels, and import tariffs on foreign biofuels - so he is as much a porkbarrel protectionist as any senator. He supports universal healthcare, although it is unclear how he would achieve this without regulation or higher taxes - nothing new there.
On foreign policy he is all over the place, wanting a bigger army and more presence in Afghanistan, but withdrawal from Iraq and the right to bomb Pakistan if it doesnt confront Al Qaeda. He didn't support the vote for Al Quds of Iran to be classified as a terrorist organisation - even though it trains terrorists.
So change. Really? He isn't some sort of hardcore socialist, he'll try to do something with healthcare but fail - a bit like Bill Clinton. He wont raise taxes, he wont cut spending, he wont deregulate or significantly regulate. In short he wont change anything substantial.
but here's another test, how does he fair against the three biggest philosophical threats to modern Western civilisation today? These are:
1. Islamist terrorism.
2. Environmentalism.
3. Christian fundamentalism.
On Islamist terror, he is mixed. He would cut and run from Iraq, but do more in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This sounds like policy on the fly frankly, so not a lot of great thinking there. Maybe gets a 3 out of 10 for showing some interest, but not a lot of depth.
On environmentalism, he believes in action on climate change including international commitments. He picks solutions like biofuels, although is also not opposed to nuclear power. However, in short there is little evidence he is willing to confront environmental issues rationally. He could be worse, he's not Jeanette Fitzsimons, but a bit like most issues it is hard to know what he really thinks. I'll give him 2 out of 10 for this too, because he isn't opposed to nuclear power and gets a point for not saying too much that is stupid - but then, he's not saying much at all.
On Christian fundamentalism, well he isn't one of those - which you should usually take for granted as a Democrat. He supports gay civil unions, wont ban abortion and the like, so he can get 7 out of 10 for that. However, as Huckabee and Romney are both unlikely to be the Republican candidates, this doesn't matter much.
So Obama at best will do very little, might maintain the war on terror, surrender a little of the US to the climate change agenda and fiddle at the edges. At the worst he will wimp out on the war on terror, signs up the US to subsidising and regulating all the latest environmental fetishes and continue the growth of the federal government.
In short, the change he promises is show business - a charismatic speaker who is less negative than Hilary, less calculating, but more vacuous.
Don't get me wrong, I would loathe a Hilary Clinton presidency. She not only is a statist collectivist through and through, but she quite clearly is willing to sacrifice her own dignity and self respect for the prospect of power over others - why else explain the tolerance of loose willie as her husband?
As for the Republicans? Huckabee has had his day, and John McCain is no great shrinker of the state - but he will fight Islamist terror. However the real primary battle has yet to occur. Remember those who cheer Obama because he beats Hilary - the truth is he is more likely to beat a Republican than Hilary is. While none of them are inspiring, be careful for what you wish for.
Yes I'm a libertarian, and any Democratic Party candidate is about as inspiring as TV3 News, but is there ANYTHING behind this man, other than the fawning almost uncritical worshipping of him by the media? Do you ever see anyone substantively criticising him, besides Hilary Clinton?
Once you have a drink, calm down and stop cheering that he bet Hilary Clinton (yes yes, she's cold calculated and an evil statist), you find the vacuous nothing that represents what he is about. It's not even that being black is why he is popular, he is popular because he sounds charismatic even though he is saying next to nothing. Ignoring the specious irrelevancies about having the middle name Hussein and spending four years as a child in Indonesia (where he went to a Muslim school), what really disturbs me is that his campaign is about "real change".
What the hell is that about?
I could come to your home and say "give me the right to run your life and finances for three years and I'll show you real change". I could make your life better, or make you bankrupt, or just make it different, but it means nothing. So for the want of any information about what the hell he believes in, I went to wikipedia.
He says nothing interesting on economic policy, but rejects individual social security accounts - hmmm so he's a bit of a leftie. He promoted a law requiring companies to hold non binding votes on executive pay (so he like fiddling with businesses he doesn't own). He opposes education vouchers, clearly preferring the state monopoly on compulsorily funded education. He supports subsidising biofuels, and import tariffs on foreign biofuels - so he is as much a porkbarrel protectionist as any senator. He supports universal healthcare, although it is unclear how he would achieve this without regulation or higher taxes - nothing new there.
On foreign policy he is all over the place, wanting a bigger army and more presence in Afghanistan, but withdrawal from Iraq and the right to bomb Pakistan if it doesnt confront Al Qaeda. He didn't support the vote for Al Quds of Iran to be classified as a terrorist organisation - even though it trains terrorists.
So change. Really? He isn't some sort of hardcore socialist, he'll try to do something with healthcare but fail - a bit like Bill Clinton. He wont raise taxes, he wont cut spending, he wont deregulate or significantly regulate. In short he wont change anything substantial.
but here's another test, how does he fair against the three biggest philosophical threats to modern Western civilisation today? These are:
1. Islamist terrorism.
2. Environmentalism.
3. Christian fundamentalism.
On Islamist terror, he is mixed. He would cut and run from Iraq, but do more in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This sounds like policy on the fly frankly, so not a lot of great thinking there. Maybe gets a 3 out of 10 for showing some interest, but not a lot of depth.
On environmentalism, he believes in action on climate change including international commitments. He picks solutions like biofuels, although is also not opposed to nuclear power. However, in short there is little evidence he is willing to confront environmental issues rationally. He could be worse, he's not Jeanette Fitzsimons, but a bit like most issues it is hard to know what he really thinks. I'll give him 2 out of 10 for this too, because he isn't opposed to nuclear power and gets a point for not saying too much that is stupid - but then, he's not saying much at all.
On Christian fundamentalism, well he isn't one of those - which you should usually take for granted as a Democrat. He supports gay civil unions, wont ban abortion and the like, so he can get 7 out of 10 for that. However, as Huckabee and Romney are both unlikely to be the Republican candidates, this doesn't matter much.
So Obama at best will do very little, might maintain the war on terror, surrender a little of the US to the climate change agenda and fiddle at the edges. At the worst he will wimp out on the war on terror, signs up the US to subsidising and regulating all the latest environmental fetishes and continue the growth of the federal government.
In short, the change he promises is show business - a charismatic speaker who is less negative than Hilary, less calculating, but more vacuous.
Don't get me wrong, I would loathe a Hilary Clinton presidency. She not only is a statist collectivist through and through, but she quite clearly is willing to sacrifice her own dignity and self respect for the prospect of power over others - why else explain the tolerance of loose willie as her husband?
As for the Republicans? Huckabee has had his day, and John McCain is no great shrinker of the state - but he will fight Islamist terror. However the real primary battle has yet to occur. Remember those who cheer Obama because he beats Hilary - the truth is he is more likely to beat a Republican than Hilary is. While none of them are inspiring, be careful for what you wish for.
15 December 2007
Lessons about Sydney
1. Ask the taxi driver at the airport BEFORE he drives anywhere if he knows the SUBURB you want to go to, if he doesn't, leave him there.
2. If you forget rule 1, then make sure you have some idea where you are going and when you know he has it wrong demand he stop, turn off the meter and give him directions until you get there. Refuse to pay more.
3. Don't go to the cafe on Curl Curl beach, it is mediocre and overpriced (try being told you can't buy a sandwich to eat in because "these are for our takeaway customers, what else would I sell them", although Curl Curl is a nice beach. You're far better off going to Dee Why or Manly.
4. Try not to be so drunk that your boyfriend is helping you walk along the beach at 6am whilst the rest of us are having a walk or jog - it's really quite sad.
5. Look at the price for business class airtickets, not just economy. The economy ticket for my flight was over $100 MORE than business class. Then you don't need to look at me in envy when while you're all in a snaking queue to checkin at 3 counters, I walk straight up to a free counter, get fastrack security and immigration, and get fed properly. e.g. it can be cheaper to fly LAN from Auckland to Sydney in business class than flying economy class on Air NZ or Qantas, depending on time/day.
Now I'm off to NZ to see family/friends for Christmas, sitting in the Air NZ lounge at Sydney on the most gorgeous Saturday morning, wondering why the hell any of us from this part of the world would want to be in London this time of year (other than if I keep doing it for a few years I could afford to get a place in Manly).
08 December 2007
Blog lite
Well it's been a very busy week and I'm flying down under tomorrow - spending a week in Sydney to visit my other half who is there at the present, and then to NZ for Christmas, then Hong Kong for New Years, before shooting back to the mother country. So it will be blog lite for me for the coming weeks. I hope you all, wherever you may be and whoever you may be with (or without) that you take time to enjoy yourselves and have fun over the holiday season.
04 December 2007
Visitor from Pakistan
Well from Mardan, North-West Frontier, Pakistan.
Yes you. IP address 203.135.44.133 at 1.48.08pm on 1 December.
Look for your criminal interests elsewhere, I guess Paknet limited doesn't care much about that. Leave those kids alone ok?
I'm no prude, but I don't tolerate violence ok, just because the value of life is cheap where you come from, especially that of women, and especially young girl, doesn't mean you'll find it here.
Yes you. IP address 203.135.44.133 at 1.48.08pm on 1 December.
Look for your criminal interests elsewhere, I guess Paknet limited doesn't care much about that. Leave those kids alone ok?
I'm no prude, but I don't tolerate violence ok, just because the value of life is cheap where you come from, especially that of women, and especially young girl, doesn't mean you'll find it here.
Two barely democracies
Venezuela
So Chavez lost his referendum, fortunately. It took 51% of the population to ensure that 100% retained some freedoms. However he has gloated according to the Daily Telegraph ""From this moment on, let’s be calm," ... "There is no dictatorship here.""
One could argue the result is conveniently close, but with only 56% turnout it does show Chavez doesn't run a Stalinist state. It also shows that a significant minority is uninterested in his "revolution", which is both good and bad. As the Telegraph also outlines, the Venezuelan economic success is likely to be shortlived, with inflation at 20%, plenty of shortages and declining oil production - this experiment with socialism may fail sooner rather than later, and hopefully will see little blood spilt as a result.
Russia
Around 63% of the vote for United Russia. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe have said ""The State Duma election ... was not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections,".
In second place came the Communists at 12%, the fascist Liberal Democratic party and the socialist Fair Russia party (barely to the right of the communists) also seem to have crossed the 7% threshold.
So Russians vote for the corporatist bully, and some pine for the Stalinists or support other fascists. That's what a long tradition of being governed by strongmen has done, and is the legacy of 70 years of brutal Marxism-Leninism. You know, the type that George Galloway and Chris Trotter both miss.
Rail nationalisation?
So Dr Cullen is thinking about buying the entire railway business of Toll NZ, as there is disenchantment with the "network nationalisation" model that the Greens were cheerleading some years ago.
Let's recall what has happened in the last seven or eight years:
- In 2000/2001 Tranz Rail brought on board a new chief executive, Michael Beard, to try to arrest an ongoing decline in profits, share price and a mounting legacy of infrastructure and rolling stock that would need hefty investment. In short, the company was not making a return on capital that was worth investing further in it - what that means is simple, the average investor was better off putting money in bank deposits than in Tranz Rail. Michael Beard announced a new focus on freight businesses by commodity, and that a whole raft of lines looked like they should be closed, with much publicity surrounding the Napier to Gisborne line - an expensive to run line, with barely enough freight to keep a train a day going. He also announced Tranz Rail would sell off its passenger businesses.
- Government leaped, various Ministers declared this plan was unacceptable and negotiations began on saving various parts of the network/system with subsidies. Auckland local authorities sought to spend $120 million of ratepayers' money to buy the entire Auckland metropolitan rail network to meet aspirations for a massive upgrade of commuter rail services. Central government did it instead, spending $81 million to buy back the Auckland rail network, despite Treasury valuations at the time, of it being worth no more than a quarter of that. Meanwhile Tranz Scenic was sold, and Tranz Rail agreed to not close any lines while it continued negotiations with government on rail policy.
- Tranz Rail's shareholders were keen to bail out, and a deal was struck whereby Toll Holdings would buy the company, in exchange for the government taking over the rest of the railway network for $1. The government would own and maintain the rail network, while Toll would have a monopoly on rail freight services as long as it maintained a minimal level of service on each line. Toll was meant to pay adequate track access charges to keep the network maintained, while the government agreed to put $200 million taxpayers' money into the network.
- The railway network has been transferred to Ontrack - a Crown company - which is meant to negotiate track access charges with Toll Rail. These negotiations have failed, and an independent arbitrator has decided on charges that Toll claim are unacceptable.
So. What now?
Simple. The government should, at the very least, call Toll's bluff. It should insist on Toll either paying the track access charges or buying the network off it. Arguably the government should ask for what it has put into it, minus track access charges, but let's face it - it's a dud investment. Something socialists are good at finding. Either Toll will pay up and make a profit, or buy the network and do so, or buy it and run much of it into the ground, or sell up the business to a coalition of rail freight users (you know, the ones who claim it is "so essential", but wont pay enough to pay the cost of running it).
The clear answer is this - the government is not best placed to know whether the rail network is economically efficient or not. However, some think it is.
Idiot Savant for one, is cheerleading this, based on a number of strawmen:
- Rail services are vital infrastructure: Wrong, countries can exist and thrive without railways. About the only section that can be seen as "vital" is the Wellington commuter rail network, and even then only because the alternative (expensive road widening) is not as cheap as keeping the rail network. Rail services have never made a good return on capital for decades, road transport, by contrast, has been privately run for a long time, and the road network generates a substantial surplus from road user charges that is reinvested in that network. Rail cannot even generate enough revenue to maintain what its got. I don't doubt that some of the rail network could be sustained, but clearly less that what there is.
- the key problem of private ownership - the tendency of private owners to cut back on maintenance spending and run down the infrastructure: Actually this reflects an economic fact, it was not profitable to maintain the infrastructure to do more. For example, when you can only sustain one freight train a day on a segment of around 40km (Rotorua), and a high level of maintenance makes that unprofitable then what should be done? Should non-customers pay for something they don't use? By the way, have you noticed how run down truck fleets and bus fleets are, not? Most long haul trucks in New Zealand are an average of around seven years old, and most major bus companies don't keep buses beyond 15-20 years. There is not a long haul locomotive on New Zealand tracks that is younger than 20 (or a diesel younger than 28) (and yes I know they have a longer service life, but engine technology has moved on a lot since the 1970s!).
- (renationalisation will) allow us to have a properly planned rail network and services again: I wonder when he last thought this happened? In 1990 and 1993 it collectively had NZ$1.3 billion (in 1993 values!) wiped, this happened before in 1982 when around NZ$100 million in debt was wiped (it collected this debt while it had a statutory monopoly on long haul freight). Is this the proper planning that saw investment in new goods sheds that were shut a few years later, or the manufacture of its own rivets at several times the cost of buying them off the shelf?
However he makes one correct point "we're effectively subsidising them, and paying for their profits, by maintaining the infrastructure they depend on to run". Indeed, but the answer to that isn't to pay for the business, after all if YOU were Toll Holdings, wouldn't you ask a good bit of money for the business if the government wanted to buy you out? Labour might threaten to pass legislation to force nationalisation, but wouldn't that look a bit Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez - and in election year too.
So, I'm expecting this to drag on. Toll Holdings knows though that its best deal is almost certainly under a Labour government rather than a National one, so it will want to strike a deal - Labour also knows it wants to be the government that "saved rail" for whatever reason. In addition, the Greens will demand it as one of their "faith based initiatives". So you might find another wad of taxpayers' money being thrown into the rail network to prop it up a bit more, otherwise I dare all those who want the government to force New Zealand taxpayers to save rail to do something...
save rail yourself. Get like minded people to come together and offer Toll Holdings a price. You might need to get the rail freight customers like Fonterra, Solid Energy and the like to join you, but make the effort. If you're not so inclined, then buy a train ticket on one of the few long distance passenger services left - at least you can say you've used it, since your taxes have paid for the lines!
Freedom from the pre-modern Islamists
Gillian Gibbons' has received a Presidential pardon in Sudan, which is a tremendous relief - but for it to come to this is an indictment on the Sudanese legal system. She has also said she wants to go back to teaching in Sudan and "I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone and I am sorry if I caused any distress". Her choice of course, although whilst still in Sudan and having had her freedom achieved by Muslim peers means, at the very least, she is hardly going to say anything else while she is still there. She has nothing to apologise for, and her respect for Islam is misplaced. Of course it may be unlikely she has been shown the extend of local calls for her execution!
^
Neverthelessm what this shows is what happens in an Islamist state. It has a legal system that besides having laws against blasphemy (don't forget blasphemy is still a crime in NZ, and the last English prosecution for it was 1977, although it would be fair to say as a law its time is nearly up), doesn't even apply actus reus or mens rea to the crime. At worst she was negligent, she not only had no intent, she didn't DO anything.
^
Pity the Sudanese we never hear of who ever get accused of such a "crime". With mobs of thugs who regard execution as a legitimate punishment for blasphemy, something not seen in England since the 18th century, locals who inadvertently let children do something like - name a teddy bear - wont have the British Government or British Muslim peers on their side. The state of Sudan is just another instrument of initiated violence, and has the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands because of Darfur.
^
Sudan needs to go through the renaissance, throw off the shackles of Islamist violence and have a state that protects citizens from each other, not turn on them because some offend others.
^
Of course, it's easy to throw stones when Western liberal democracies still have, largely nascent, laws against blasphemy. These should go, forthwith, there is NO excuse. A handful from the religious dark ages will come out and preach censorship, but they should be ignored.
^
By the way, the US Supreme Court decided in 1952 that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures" overturning the New York state blasphemy law. New Zealand and those European countries with such laws could do worst than to follow this example.
03 December 2007
Have I got news for you
Damned thing wont post but there is buckets of this show on youtube.
Start with Boris Johnson hosting here from two years ago, this is absolutely magic. The man IS the best chance Londoners have of unseating Red Ken Livingstone - frankly, if as Mayor of London he spends more time hosting this show, I think we'll all be winners!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBxkrBaK8vk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaLbBmrS8dw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGKiGz4-Dy0
Is there political satire in NZ on TV yet? Can you imagine any MPs participating?
Start with Boris Johnson hosting here from two years ago, this is absolutely magic. The man IS the best chance Londoners have of unseating Red Ken Livingstone - frankly, if as Mayor of London he spends more time hosting this show, I think we'll all be winners!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBxkrBaK8vk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaLbBmrS8dw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGKiGz4-Dy0
Is there political satire in NZ on TV yet? Can you imagine any MPs participating?
02 December 2007
Russia's barely democracy
It has been clear in the years since Vladimir Putin became President, that Russia is slipping back to authoritarianism. It isn't quite the totalitarian terror of Marxism-Leninism, but something halfway - whereby there is some free speech, there is some private sphere but you daren't think about seriously threatening the incumbents.
^
Putin has been variously sabre rattling, being friendly with bullies to the east and south, and been trying to flex Russia's muscles, largely fueled by the high prices of oil and gas. Many Russians have benefited from this, from the wealthy to a growing middle class.
^
However, Russia has moved from the substantial freedom of the late 1980s and most of the 1990s, to controlled speech and media. In the last parliamentary elections in 2003, the party of Putin- United Russia - gained a plurality with around 37.6% of the vote. With 70 seats out of the 450 largely held by independents loyal to Putin, United Russia commanded a clear majority.
^
This time, the entire system has moved to proportional representation - because, you see, it clears out lots of small parties. The threshold for entering the Duma will be 7%, given only 4 parties crossed that in 2003, you can see what's going on. In 2003, the two main opposition parties to United Russia were the Communists and the Liberal Democratic Party - the latter being a fascist nationalist party (remember Vladimir Zhirinovsky?). The most promising ones (by any measure of support for Western values) - Yabloko and Union of Right Forces - only won 4 and 3 seats respectively last time.
^
So this time the contest looks like a foregone conclusion. State TV is overwhelmingly biased in favour of Putin and United Russia, and Gary Kasparov - who led a coalition of parties of left and right against Putin - is now in prison for leading an illegal march. Because, of course, he would have been allowed had he applied for permission! United Russia refuses to participate in TV debates with other parties
^
The Daily Telegraph reports "there are widespread stories of intimidation and planned ballot rigging. University professors, factory bosses and teachers claim to have been forced to vote for or join the party or face dismissal. Students claim to have been threatened with expulsion if they do not do the same. Regional governors not trusted to secure a sufficient share of the vote for United Russia have been removed."
^
Although it also reports that even in a free and fair election, United Russia may still win. However, it is aiming for more than that. It wants 70% of the vote, so it can change the Constitution, allowing Putin to remain President, although he is at the top of the United Russia party list so he could become Premier as well.
^
So should we fear Russia? Probably not. For now, almost all of its economy is based on fossil fuels - when prices slide back down, then there is little else left. Technology, services and manufacturing remain at a low level. It could well be the mine for China, but it is an expensive mine to operate given the climate, territory and infrastructure. Secondly, its population is in steady decline, falling at around 0.5% per annum. 15 years ago it had the 8th largest economy in the world, now it is 11th. Its rusty armed forces cannot project far, although it still has nuclear capabilities these probably have a serviceable life of about another 10 years at best - realistically speaking Russia will be confined to defending its borders within a generation. So no, it is unlikely to be a threat over the longer term, but this is sad
^
Meanwhile, pity Russians who had their taste of freedom and largely don't want it anymore. Unfortunately, the whole country is generations behind western Europe in having relatively low corruption, transparent politics and bureaucracy - the best hope to change that remains the examples on its borders. Sadly, with the exceptions of Finland, Poland and the Baltic States none are much of an example, and plenty are the opposite (Belarus, Kazakhstan).
^
So on Sunday hope that enough Russians will vote in enough number to ensure the gerrymandering doesn't give United Russia an overwhelming majority. While you're at it, buy a lotto ticket - you might have better odds.
Chavez threatens to not sell oil to the USA
Go on you Marxist thug.
Given CNN reports "United States is Venezuela's biggest oil customer and one of the few countries that can refine its low-quality crude. Venezuela accounts for up to 15 percent of U.S. crude imports". I think it's fine for a socialist to say he's not going to sell to his biggest customer, especially since his product is hardly that well sought after.
He's looking to remove term limits and put the Central Bank under his control, as well as reduce working weeks (given that the work ethic there isn't high according to some reports that wont help). Nice little recipe for more authoritarianism, and more wasting of money following a grand vision for "the people".
Keep watching political science students and economic students - learn how a country can be wrecked by socialism, and pity the average Venezuelan, the welfare state that has been built is unsustainable.
Trotter vs Minto
Chris Trotter is a funny political beast, he is firmly on the left and most of the time I find him quite despicable. After all I recently pulled to bits his bizarre Marxist view of democratic politics being "them" vs "us", the "moneyed" vs the "workers". I remember many years ago a bizarre column of his claiming that when Air NZ introduced business class on domestic flights (which has been gone now for 6 years but will be back in a different form from next year) it was a sign of a change in New Zealand - the class in front was "them" while "us" sat in the back. Sheer nonsense of course as mostly "them" were politicians. He has said that "we pay a toll for our comfortable lives" in that other people's kids get abused. He sung praises for Wolfgang Rosenberg, a supporter of Stalinist East Germany.
However this time he is on the side of freedom, or at least against those who were advocating fomenting violent revolution. His open letter to John Minto in the Sunday Star Times some weeks ago spoke volumes, he nailed his colours to the mast of liberal democracy. His closing statement made a fundamental point:
"Because in the course of the past month, John, I have heard you make many accusations, seen you point many fingers and hurl many fistfuls of abuse. But I have not heard one word from you about the right of a democratic society, such as ours, to be protected from people who think it's OK to run around the bush with semi-automatics and Molotov cocktails. People who think it's OK to train young Maori men to be bodyguards for the Americans in Baghdad. People who think it's OK to reach a level of preparation for organised political violence so alarming that New Zealand's most liberal police commissioner, ever, felt he had no choice but to launch "Operation Eight". Because it's NOT OK, John. Political violence in a functioning democracy is NEVER OK. And I want to hear you say it. "
See that? Political violence in a functioning democracy is never ok. So does John Minto reply yes or no? No, of course not. This self proclaimed champion of human rights, who blames the West for how Robert Mugabe (no doubt one of his pinups) is treating Zimbabwe, who also blames everyone but the perpetrators for torturing their own kids, likes political violence. Indeed he is an apologist for violence committed by anyone he sees as a victim - nice chap.
Minto's response starts by claiming, so innocuously that "groups involved in working for social change saw the long shadow of the state loom over them". Oh "working for social change", which in his world doesn't include libertarians, Christian conservatives or the Business Roundtable, no it is code for socialist Marxist groups. Minto only supports those wanting statist collectivist solutions. He trots out again the excuse that evidence was leaked, of course all of the evidence is now publicly available thanks to the internet - and it IS damning. So he ignores it, he prefers to attack the anti-terror legislation - he doesn't even respond to Trotter's comment. He doesn't condemn the ideas expressed by those accused - because Minto, like too many in the so called "peace" movement have no interest in peace, or non-violence. You see "peace" means surrender.
Minto, rightly, would argue that peace under apartheid was impossible, so it was legitimate to fight to overthrow it. However, he would also argue the same about any other conflict, according to the side he supports. He wouldn't support Palestinians ceasing hostilities in the West Bank and Gaza unconditionally - though he would support them waging war against Israel and overrunning it. He wouldn't support the USA destroying an Iranian nuclear weapon's facility, but he would support the USA abolishing its own while Iran does nothing.
^
Minto is a revolutionary, he cares little for rule of law under liberal democracy. Indeed, his sympathy for Robert Mugabe tells you much about where he comes from - he opposes capitalism, Western liberal democracy (unless it doesn't mean his side wins and gets what he wants) and supports political violence. If the evidence found by the Police proved to be substantial, Minto would say acts of terrorism committed by those with such views were "justified" or "understandable". He's no friend of freedom, he is a sympathiser of thuggery and brutality as long as it is for Marxists. His well known anti-apartheid views were correct, but he was, again, supporting Marxists against a brutal regime - he doesn't criticise the ANC now despite its rampant corruption and intolerance for criticism. However, it is clear what side he is on - the peace he argues for is AFTER the revolution.
However this time he is on the side of freedom, or at least against those who were advocating fomenting violent revolution. His open letter to John Minto in the Sunday Star Times some weeks ago spoke volumes, he nailed his colours to the mast of liberal democracy. His closing statement made a fundamental point:
"Because in the course of the past month, John, I have heard you make many accusations, seen you point many fingers and hurl many fistfuls of abuse. But I have not heard one word from you about the right of a democratic society, such as ours, to be protected from people who think it's OK to run around the bush with semi-automatics and Molotov cocktails. People who think it's OK to train young Maori men to be bodyguards for the Americans in Baghdad. People who think it's OK to reach a level of preparation for organised political violence so alarming that New Zealand's most liberal police commissioner, ever, felt he had no choice but to launch "Operation Eight". Because it's NOT OK, John. Political violence in a functioning democracy is NEVER OK. And I want to hear you say it. "
See that? Political violence in a functioning democracy is never ok. So does John Minto reply yes or no? No, of course not. This self proclaimed champion of human rights, who blames the West for how Robert Mugabe (no doubt one of his pinups) is treating Zimbabwe, who also blames everyone but the perpetrators for torturing their own kids, likes political violence. Indeed he is an apologist for violence committed by anyone he sees as a victim - nice chap.
Minto's response starts by claiming, so innocuously that "groups involved in working for social change saw the long shadow of the state loom over them". Oh "working for social change", which in his world doesn't include libertarians, Christian conservatives or the Business Roundtable, no it is code for socialist Marxist groups. Minto only supports those wanting statist collectivist solutions. He trots out again the excuse that evidence was leaked, of course all of the evidence is now publicly available thanks to the internet - and it IS damning. So he ignores it, he prefers to attack the anti-terror legislation - he doesn't even respond to Trotter's comment. He doesn't condemn the ideas expressed by those accused - because Minto, like too many in the so called "peace" movement have no interest in peace, or non-violence. You see "peace" means surrender.
Minto, rightly, would argue that peace under apartheid was impossible, so it was legitimate to fight to overthrow it. However, he would also argue the same about any other conflict, according to the side he supports. He wouldn't support Palestinians ceasing hostilities in the West Bank and Gaza unconditionally - though he would support them waging war against Israel and overrunning it. He wouldn't support the USA destroying an Iranian nuclear weapon's facility, but he would support the USA abolishing its own while Iran does nothing.
^
Minto is a revolutionary, he cares little for rule of law under liberal democracy. Indeed, his sympathy for Robert Mugabe tells you much about where he comes from - he opposes capitalism, Western liberal democracy (unless it doesn't mean his side wins and gets what he wants) and supports political violence. If the evidence found by the Police proved to be substantial, Minto would say acts of terrorism committed by those with such views were "justified" or "understandable". He's no friend of freedom, he is a sympathiser of thuggery and brutality as long as it is for Marxists. His well known anti-apartheid views were correct, but he was, again, supporting Marxists against a brutal regime - he doesn't criticise the ANC now despite its rampant corruption and intolerance for criticism. However, it is clear what side he is on - the peace he argues for is AFTER the revolution.
01 December 2007
A jump to the left
So Stephen Franks is seeking to be the National candidate for Wellington Central.
He always was a rather conservative ACT MP, not warm towards civil unions or legalisation of prostitution. He has a good legal mind, but does this say more about Stephen Franks or ACT? I am sure ACT will be sad to lose him, but if National seeks someone to talk about the Treaty of Waitangi he would be a good man for that role - he's certainly head and shoulders above many of the National caucus.
He always was a rather conservative ACT MP, not warm towards civil unions or legalisation of prostitution. He has a good legal mind, but does this say more about Stephen Franks or ACT? I am sure ACT will be sad to lose him, but if National seeks someone to talk about the Treaty of Waitangi he would be a good man for that role - he's certainly head and shoulders above many of the National caucus.
I don't believe in property rights so...
I can steal. Phillida Bunkle, a sad case of a dejected socialist or just a common thief?
Thieving socialist! One could feel sorry for her, but honestly I don't. She entered public life in order to be a bully, in order to raise taxes, to regulate people and their businesses - while she produced nothing. Remember you paid for her salaries and travel for several years, thanks to the retards who voted Alliance in 1996 and 1999. The Dom Post got this wrong, saying she was elected in 1999 - how much effort is there to do some basic internet research Kay Blundell? Bunkle was number 8 on the Alliance list and got in with such brainiacs as Liz Gordon, Alamein Kopu and Frank Grover. Yes, just over 10% of voters ticked these supreme underperformers (picking Alamein was, of course, part of the "got to have Maori candidates" political correctness of the Alliance, forgetting of course, that as the Alliance was largely driven by hatred of success, good people would be unlikely to be attracted to it).
^
I love Oswald Bastable's comment that "as a former Alliance MP, Bunkum genuinely did not understand that it is wrong to take other peoples property"
^
She still has a website as if she were an MP here. She was Minister of Consumer Affairs - adding to her contempt for producers or sellers. Of course her first claim to fame was co-authoring the famous/infamous article "An Unfortunate Experiment" in Metro which saw the Cartwright Inquiry undertaken. Itself controversial, but that is another story.
30 November 2007
Gillian Gibbons needs peaceful Muslims to stand up
and rally to her cause. She's the teacher who let a boy suggest his own name, Mohammed, be used as a name for a teddy bear, which most in her class agreed with. For this she faces jail and 40 lashes.
She's now been charged with "insulting religion" and "inciting hatred" according to the Daily Telegraph. The Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain has fortunately been backing her saying "This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense". Of course he's not defending her because the law is absurd and the punishment obscene, but because "There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith". Presumably if she was trying to insult Islam, he'd happily see her be flogged? By contrast the "Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas" a bunch of stoneage men believe she is part of an international conspiracy against Islam - but then again these are the same men who regard rape victims to be to anything but victims. Vile bastards to a man.
Boris Johnson, Conservative MP for Henley, who is trying to unseat Ken Livingstone as dictator for London, has said "the voices we need to hear now belong to Britain's vast, sensible Muslim majority. If British Muslims speak up decisively and loudly against this lunacy, then they can achieve two good things at once. Their arguments will be heard with respect in Khartoum, since they cannot be said to be founded on any kind of cultural imperialism, or to be actuated by Islamophobia."
Well indeed, although Johnson then slips a bit backwards saying "a strong protest by British Muslims against the imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons would help to contradict the growing ranks of pessimists and neo-cons - the people who say that the real problem is Islam, the religion itself. "
I can understand Boris saying this, and to an extent he's right - Islam as simply practised privately by consenting adults, is not a problem. People must have the right to believe whatever they wish and worship this, as long as they do not seek to initiate force against others. However, Islam as a basis for laws and the state is a problem, it is stone age. It DOES seek to initiate force against others, and more importantly enough Muslims in the West also seek to initiate force against others who insult them.
You see while Boris seeks to paint Islam as not being the problem he bemoans another fact "If you want grounds for despair, read the entries on the BBC website, in which some British Muslims say that she should be punished; or read the entries from people in Sudan saying that the children should be punished. It is tragic and incredible that we can allow people to take offence over such a simple misunderstanding. If this goes any further, it will entrench prejudice and misunderstanding. "
Frankly, such people are barbarians themselves, and this makes the point further. If there will be those who continue to think that people who do not initiate force against others deserve to have violence done to them, then they need to be criticised and outed for the fascists they are - they are no different from the likes of the BNP.
Sadly I think Boris is wrong with his last statement "But if British Muslim leaders are able to seize the opportunity and speak up for common sense, then they have a real chance to show that there is all the difference in the world between Islam and the ludicrous fanaticism that has incarcerated Gillian Gibbons." Sadly I think the difference is not that great. Most predominantly Muslim countries are full of people who wouldn't bat an eyelid at Gillian Gibbons's
She's now been charged with "insulting religion" and "inciting hatred" according to the Daily Telegraph. The Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain has fortunately been backing her saying "This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense". Of course he's not defending her because the law is absurd and the punishment obscene, but because "There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith". Presumably if she was trying to insult Islam, he'd happily see her be flogged? By contrast the "Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas" a bunch of stoneage men believe she is part of an international conspiracy against Islam - but then again these are the same men who regard rape victims to be to anything but victims. Vile bastards to a man.
Boris Johnson, Conservative MP for Henley, who is trying to unseat Ken Livingstone as dictator for London, has said "the voices we need to hear now belong to Britain's vast, sensible Muslim majority. If British Muslims speak up decisively and loudly against this lunacy, then they can achieve two good things at once. Their arguments will be heard with respect in Khartoum, since they cannot be said to be founded on any kind of cultural imperialism, or to be actuated by Islamophobia."
Well indeed, although Johnson then slips a bit backwards saying "a strong protest by British Muslims against the imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons would help to contradict the growing ranks of pessimists and neo-cons - the people who say that the real problem is Islam, the religion itself. "
I can understand Boris saying this, and to an extent he's right - Islam as simply practised privately by consenting adults, is not a problem. People must have the right to believe whatever they wish and worship this, as long as they do not seek to initiate force against others. However, Islam as a basis for laws and the state is a problem, it is stone age. It DOES seek to initiate force against others, and more importantly enough Muslims in the West also seek to initiate force against others who insult them.
You see while Boris seeks to paint Islam as not being the problem he bemoans another fact "If you want grounds for despair, read the entries on the BBC website, in which some British Muslims say that she should be punished; or read the entries from people in Sudan saying that the children should be punished. It is tragic and incredible that we can allow people to take offence over such a simple misunderstanding. If this goes any further, it will entrench prejudice and misunderstanding. "
Frankly, such people are barbarians themselves, and this makes the point further. If there will be those who continue to think that people who do not initiate force against others deserve to have violence done to them, then they need to be criticised and outed for the fascists they are - they are no different from the likes of the BNP.
Sadly I think Boris is wrong with his last statement "But if British Muslim leaders are able to seize the opportunity and speak up for common sense, then they have a real chance to show that there is all the difference in the world between Islam and the ludicrous fanaticism that has incarcerated Gillian Gibbons." Sadly I think the difference is not that great. Most predominantly Muslim countries are full of people who wouldn't bat an eyelid at Gillian Gibbons's
UPDATE: She has been sentenced for 14 days, she wasn't even allowed her lawyers for the hearing. Stone age thugs and Damian Lanigan from the Daily Telegraph has a good comment on it all:
"Politicians have been fair game for millennia and now religions and religious people are as open to ridicule as everyone else. This is of course excellent news, and actually a mark of civilization. We all roll around in the mud together - but at the same time, we actually treat each other rather well. Is it ironic that those who profess to have powerful notions of something 'higher' can act so bestially? Or is it kind of inevitable?"
Indeed, every dictator acts in exactly the same way.
Why is SHE being charged?
My most popular recent post has been about this woman (warning link from that post is NSFW), who engaged in group sex on a hotel balcony in Latimer Square Christchurch. All consensual of course, but for some reason she has been charged but none of the men involved have been?
^
Now, as I've said before the only crime really is trespass - if the hotel didn't want them all doing this, then they could have told them to leave, it was private property after all. However, it is an outrage that her name is plastered over the media, whilst those men who availed themselves of the openings that she offered are anonymous and don't face legal proceedings? After all "taking part in a 45-minute group-sex session one afternoon" didn't mean masturbation did it?
^
She was arrested last Friday breaching her bail conditions that she not go within 100m of Latimer Square, so what pervy cops were keeping such a close eye on a young woman who, presumably, means nobody any harm (indeed quite the opposite for some)?
^
So:
1. Why was she charged in the first place for doing an "indecent act" which actually is not an offence in and of itself, but is in a public place? Is the balcony of a hotel a private or a public place? Who forced anyone to look?
2. Given she has been charged, what of the the men involved? Are men immune from prosecution if they gangbang a willing teenager?
^
Finally, you might ask why the Police in Christchurch so eagerly jumped upon this case, so to speak, but will be apathetic about burglaries, car conversions and the like when there IS a victim.
^
Nice to know there is so little real crime in Christchurch.
29 November 2007
Pity Pakistan
Founded from the religious separatism, and bigotry that Jinnah inspired in the Pakistan movement, the artificial division of India into two then three states, the hundreds of thousands murdered and who died in the population transfer, as a heterogeneous India became several lands - and Pakistan and India would be antagonists, fighting over borders and Kashmir especially. It became an "Islamic Republic" ensuring that the common law legal system and criminal law it inherited from Britain would be frittered away with Islamic law and its brutal treatment of women.
So with its cold war with India, it was inevitable sadly that it would become nuclear - and so Pakistan is the only predominantly Muslim nuclear weapons state. It also is the location of not a few madrasses, teaching hatred of the West, fomenting the Islamist attitudes of anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, and anti-individualism. So letting Pakistan slide towards the sort of rule of Iran or the Taliban, would not just be scary, it would be downright dangerous.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Pakistanis are not Islamists, there is an Islamist element, but they are, by and large, moderate. So that is why having secular leaders, which has been mostly the case in recent years, is important. Unfortunately, those who Pakistan has had have either been authoritarian or grossly corrupt.
I didn't cheer the arrival of Benazir Bhutto. She may be a pin up of the left because she is a woman in a Muslim country, secular and a socialist, but her and her husband are under charges of corruption for a reason. Apparently a rather large property outside London was found that was paid for by the Pakistani government, which was allegedly for her and her husband (though she denied it), when the government was seeking to sell it off, suddenly they came out of the woodwork. Pervez Musharraf isn't so corrupt, but his state of emergency and martial law were unacceptable.
Now he has not only surrendered control of the army, but has declared the state of emergency will be over in a few weeks, with elections allowed in the New Year. That is all good, but what Pakistan needs is leadership - secular, modernising, reforming and not corrupt. India is growing enormously because it has finally unlocked the entrepreneurship of its people and its enormous market. Pakistan could share in this, if only it wasn't shackled by socialist policies that India has been throwing away, and the stifling influence of Islamism. The former needs reforms, the latter needs a serious battle against terrorism, seeking of peace with India on Kashmir, and to ensure the judiciary is fully independent, respects private property rights and contracts, and to be open. Pakistan is not Iran, but it is a long way from being a Turkey. That is the model it should be looking to follow, and if the economy is opened up, fear of terrorist attacks against Westerners reduced, then the prosperity that would arise would be a useful antidote against Islamism.
A booming Pakistan bordering Afghanistan and Iran will speak volumes, and will be our best hope that the nuclear weapons will stay in the hands of those who are sane.
28 November 2007
Hone Harawira's simple approach to life
^
"One media commentator told me that the difference between CNN and Al Jazeera was that “CNN films the missiles being fired from American bases and Al Jazeera films those missiles exploding in Middle Eastern communities” – a simple but powerful analogy that was easy to understand."
^
Yes, but who films the bombs being exploded in Middle Eastern communities by Islamist terrorists, or rockets fired by Islamists into Israeli territory? So CNN wasn't in Baghdad during the last two wars against Saddam Hussein?
^
In fact, where did the technology come from to allow Al Jazeera to even operate, who conceived it, who built it? Oh Hone, take your Anti-Western bigotry and your crayons and go play.
Green party faith based initiative
Ahhh the regular ballot for private member's bills has brought up one of the loony Green ones, which I already blogged about last year.
^
In my assessment last year the "Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill" was the second looniest one of the lot. What does it do? Well it aims to dramatically increase the proportion of your road taxes (fuel tax, road user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees) spent on modes where the users don't pay any (or the full costs) of any contribution to that fund.
^
The effect of this would be to run many of the country's roads into the ground, because it would increase funding of slow modes of transport so much that it would cut significantly into the maintenance budgets for roads. Some work undertaken by Transit NZ in the early 1990s indicated that there were fuel savings/emissions savings and safety gains by maintaining roads to a high standard - something that the USA and much of the UK hasn't learnt - that would be destroyed. So this bill could be the "potholes and lower speed limits" bill.
^
You see the Greens see money collected from road users for roads as being money that can be pillaged to pay for their pet projects. Unhappy with a funding framework that has shifted from regarding economic efficiency as the primary criteria for funding transport projects, to a multi-faceted criteria (which they agreed with). Unhappy with a funding framework whereby the Minister can direct Land Transport NZ to spend larger amounts of money on public transport, walking, cycling and the like, now the Greens want to make it mandatory.
^
It is a faith based initiative.
^
For starters it is anti user pays. The Greens don't like road users money being spent on roads, I mean, how ludicrous that you pay for what you use? They far prefer road users spend money on other people travelling by other modes, or freight going by other modes -EVEN if the benefits to road users are less than what is spent on the subsidy.
^
Apparently, the travel time savings, fuel savings, safety improvements and environmental improvements from many road projects are simply ignored by the Greens, but the merits of railways and public transport simply don't need evaluating - they are good so should be funded. The Greens reject objective appraisal criteria to decide if it is better to pay for a road or a railway, because odds are the railway probably wont win, and this goes against the Green article of faith: railway good, road bad. Bus better than car, train better than bus, electric train better than diesel train.
^
Jeanette's complete naivety or rather, willful stupidity (as the Greens have advisors who understand the system but don't like its results) is shown in this statement
^
"With the cost of fuel steadily increasing, people are already seeking alternatives to using their own vehicles. It is pointless to keep pouring money into more and more new roading projects, which will only end up being very expensive white elephants."
^
Well actually Jeanette, if the appraisal by Land Transport NZ indicates that the projects will be little used and not worthwhile, the project wont be funded.
^
She waffles on: "It will also decrease the amount of freight transported on roads. Getting freight onto coastal shipping and rail has huge benefits. It gets long-haul trucks off the roads, saving fuel and reducing the amount of CO2 emissions."
^
Huge benefits really? That's why the shippers aren't actually choosing to do this without others subsidising them to do it? Utter drivel. If it saved so much fuel, the freight would go by the other modes, but then it isn't all about fuel Jeanette, some of us value other things too.
^
Finally the Green press release emits "In the 2007/08 year the National Land Transport Programme spent six times as much maintaining and expanding the road network as it did on providing more sustainable options like public transport."
^
Oh sounds awful, except that almost all of its funding came from road users. The faith is seen here, because public transport is "sustainable". How on earth something that requires people who don't use it to be forced to pay for it is "sustainable" takes a belief in the Green faith to cloud your mind to sustainability being about anything other than the environment. You see, nearly empty trains and buses are good, cars are bad.
^
Scratch the surface and you see the Greens are completely banal on transport. They treat any emissions from cars and trucks as "bad", but emissions from buses and trains as "good", because those modes CAN carry more people. The holy grail is electric transport, bikes and walking of course. The difficulty they have is threefold:
^
1. People make choices based on a whole host of factors. Fuel use, travel time, availability/convenience of parking/public transport, flexibility and other costs/benefits. If you don't respect that, you wont understand why you see trucks carrying freight beside railway lines, or people driving past bus stops. People make the choices best for them.
2. Oil will never "run out", at the most it will become unaffordable compared to other fuels, which are numerous. The trend to private mobility has been inexorable since the 1920s, there has been no sign of this changing, it simply changes pace.
3. Refusing to accept objective analysis that goes against their holy grail. Just because you believe it is so, doesn't mean the evidence supports you. Electric rail in Auckland will do virtually nothing to relieve traffic congestion, and cost a fortune to do it - that's a fact - along with the fact that the users will not pay any more than a small fraction of the cost to have this toy. The Wellington Inner City Bypass is another tale, a tale of constantly refusing to accept the evidence, even after the Greens changed legislation to meet their vision of the transport funding world, the project still got funded. So their own beliefs, when applied objectively, failed to be backed by evidence.
^
My point is simple. If fuel cell cars and trucks become economically viable within the next 10-15 years, what then is the environmental argument against them and in favour of, what is basically, collectivised transport?
^
The USSR restricted car ownership for control, and advanced railways over roads, for control. Is not the "if only people caught the train" mentality a weakened reflection of this failure to understand that in a free society, people often make decisions you don't think they should?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)