Super Dooper Tuesday?

I am trying hard to resist the only sensation I get from the US primaries, the only thing I can get passionate about, deceptive though it may be, which is to cheer anything that stops Hillary Clinton become President.

~

You see, it is visceral, it goes back to the days after Bill Clinton was elected with a minority of the popular vote (forgot that, didn't you?), when Hillary decided she had been "elected" too and Bill appointed her to nationalise US health care. It goes to her views against free market capitalism, and so much of her election platform which is about tinkering, doing more with the federal government, giving away other people's money here and there, and control. Beyond that is her sense of entitlement to rule - she WANTS power, power over people, and she believes it is her right, her goal to be the first woman President, as if her sex gives her more entitlement. Her willingness to play dirty against Barack Obama speaks volumes, and has backfired somewhat.

~

While Hillary Clinton is, for anyone who believes in individual freedom, and private property rights, an anathema. Her current opponent, Barack Obama is no better. He is a nicer, friendlier and more seductive face of exactly the same politics. There is no substantive difference between Obama and Clinton, indeed Obama's endorsement by those on the left such as the Kennedys (another clan of "born to be rulers"), Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party of the USA (hat tip: New Zeal) makes him potentially more dangerous.

~

In addition to that, Obama's charisma is a contrast with Clinton's so-called divisiveness. Obama doesn't excite conservative USA as much as Clinton does - as Andrew Sullivan in the Sunday Times pointed out:

~

She has extraordinary negatives. She galvanises the conservative movement in ways no other Democrat can. Against McCain, she and she alone enables the Republicans to forget their deep internal divisions and unite. Nothing – nothing – unites them as she does. The money she will raise for the Republicans is close to the amount they can raise for themselves.

~

Sullivan believes Democrats should pick Obama. I believe, as difficult as it is to swallow, that it would be better for the world for them to select Clinton. Obama is a flake, he can speak well, he can inspire, but the substance behind what he says is absent. The media's inability to quiz him on this has been shocking.

~

By contrast we know what Clinton believes in, and fortunately, on foreign policy, she is willing to be braver than Obama. She is pro-Israel, she supports sanctions against Cuba, she supported a resolution calling Iran's Army of the Guards of National Revolution terrorists, she voted in favour of authorising military force against Iraq and she stated on CNN that "The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America". For her many many flaws, I would feel slightly safer with Clinton than Obama.

~

Oh yes there are Republicans. Romney the flip flopper, who once was seen with Margaret Thatcher, will not win. John McCain, who is Republican lite, or a member of the rightwing end of the Democratic Party, will win the nomination. The best you can hope for with him is that he wont reverse the Bush tax cuts. woopee.

Auckland's Northern Busway opens, but..

A great hurrah has come about from the opening of the Northern Busway (once called the North Shore Busway, but Transit often changes the names of projects for unclear reasons). Nothing wrong with increasing transport capacity in Auckland no, and it is a far better project than upgrading rail, but still - you wont see any coverage investigating the other side of the busway. Journalism is what I am looking for, but I simply don't see it.

~

The Stuff report on it (above) could be a government press release, and the NZ Herald saying "The first stage opened in 2005 and resulted in 500 fewer cars being on the Northern Motorway" doesn't have anyone questioning the evidence. It may be true, but what was the cost of achieving this? Was it worth it? 500 cars over what period? A journalist would ask these questions, instead of parroting government statements as fact.

~

One thing I notice is how the cost has gone up, pretty easy to find this out as you just need to look at past issues of the Transfund National Land Transport Programme/National Roading Programmes. The cost of the busway (excluding stations) is now $210 million. Only four years ago the cost was going up from $95 million to $110 million. You might ask how it went up to $210 million (plus the bus stations). The reason being because Labour has been feeding massive road construction inflation, and the contracting industry knows when the government wants something to be built - regardless of cost. You see, upgrading public transport is important to this Labour government - regardless of cost. Think what else could have been built had the government taken a more prudent approach to increasing spending on roads, or if - perhaps - it had not taken a personal interest in the advancement of certain roads. You're seeing it again now with the Waterview extension of SH20 (formerly Avondale), the PM wants it built, it has gone from $700 million to $1.2 billion in four years. Construction wont be starting for several years yet, but it will be over $1.5 billion by then.

~

I wont go on about the details of this road, they are mostly here. It's basically an extra couple of lanes parallel to the Northern Motorway, with some flash bus stations.

~

Now despite the Stuff release lets be clear, the money paying for it wasn't the warm bosom of the "government", it came from road users, all road users, although the only way all road users will benefit is from the handful of cars and buses that wont be travelling on the Northern Motorway as a result.

~

Want to know the economic benefit/cost ratio of the Northern Busway? It's not clear, you see the government doesn't like Transit publishing benefit cost ratios anymore, it shows how many of the roads getting built aren't that good. It was just over 2 last time I knew it, which was around seven years ago. With cost increases and traffic increases, it probably is closer to 1.5 now. Not great, but not bad.

~

Finally, the most important point - for all road users to note, especially those driving parallel to the Busway, is that it will be grossly underutilised if it remains only a busway. A corridor that cost over $200 million to build will lie, largely empty. A bus every 3 minutes! Imagine if a car passed along a motorway lane every 3 minutes! It deserves to be better used

~

It should become a tollway. As a tollway, it could charge vehicles a premium to bypass congestion, like the 91 express lanes in California. The tolls would be high, and vary according to demand, and would ensure free flow conditions remain. However, the tolls could ultimately pay for the road (except that past road users have already paid for it). An even better option would be to sell it, let bus companies pay for the right to use it, along with other road users. People could hardly moan about there not being an alternative, the government owned "free" motorway beside it would remain available.

~

Of course the whole damn thing is limited by the Harbour Bridge, itself a bottleneck, itself needing money to have its life extended and for a second crossing to be considered. So here is another solution.

~

Sell the Auckland Harbour Bridge (may as well sell the Northern Motorway from Onewa Road to the Victoria Park Viaduct as well). The new owner can then toll it, without booths, but fully electronic. Then what?

1. The new owner would be able to use revenue from road users to maintain the roads, and build new capacity. You see, the pursuit of a second harbour crossing funded by taxpayers is futile and expensive.

2. Tolls at peak times would be high, and congestion would be lower. After all, the owner would want people to use the road, but not for the road to be unattractive compared to the Upper Harbour crossing, or ferries. Of course higher tolls would make buses even more attractive, and buses could cross in relatively uncongested conditions.

3. Tolls could also help fund the Victoria Park Tunnel/Viaduct widening which has been delayed for years due to dithering, and funding. In fact, this project is probably the most valuable in Auckland, as it would eliminate the worst bottleneck at Spaghetti Junction - lack of capacity to/from the north.

4. The proceeds from selling the bridge could then be used to compensate the folk of the North Shore, in a rather simple way. Half of the proceeds could go to all North Shore City ratepayers could receive a lumpsum from the sale - this would be in recognition of how, as road users, they had contributed towards the road. The remaining half could simply be used to cut central government debt.

~

Or do you like queuing?

Goodbye to a bully

Stuff reports that David Benson-Pope has not been selected to be Labour candidate for Dunedin South. Good.

~

I blogged about his bullying behaviour in select committee, which I witnessed first hand some years ago. I don't care about allegations of being kinky, though the allegations around his behaviour as a teacher are somewhat more disconcerting. However, his involvement in the Madeleine Setchell affair is worthy of his dismissal.

~

He's a hypocritical little prick, and his disappearance from politics will only be good. A world where obnoxious lying bullies aren't in politics is a better place.

~

Though it's probably too much to hope that the people of Dunedin South will resist voting for a unionist.

Phasing out the DPB

Not PC rightly pointed out that one of the negative consequences of the DPB is that there has been a rising incidence of children being raised by parents who didn't want them, and these children end up being a problem in themselves. Now many on the DPB DO want and love their kids, after all the DPB was intended to cover a number of unfortunate events, such as death of a spouse and separation - not to fund a lifestyle choice.

~

So what could be done? It is easy to say withdraw the DPB, but we all know that wont happen, what is needed is for it to be phased out. Here are some simple steps that, dare i say it, a National government might consider if it really wants to address welfare:

~

1. Freeze the number of children current DPB beneficiaries can claim the benefit for. In other words, if you had two children when you got on it, you can't get more money for a third child.

2. Prohibit claims for the DPB for beneficiaries who wont name the other parent.

3. Replace the DPB with the unemployment benefit when the youngest (eligible) child is at school age, so that the focus moves from domestic purposes to employment.

4. Establish a legal alimony framework to allow the other parent of the dependent child to be liable to share the cost of raising the child. This will mean every separation will see this legal obligation come into effect, which will be predefined unless the parents expressly contract out of it by mutual agreement. Parents cannot rely on the state to fill any gap, beyond the unemployment benefit. This legal framework would effectively end new claims for the DPB.

~

These simple steps would have several effects. Firstly, it would replace state funded parenting with parent funded parenting. Parents would be paying for their kids, and would have to sacrifice part of their earnings to do this, even on low incomes, even on the unemployment benefit. Single parents would be treated as unemployed once the youngest child is at school, shifting the obligation towards finding employment/income. Finally, it would put a substantial new legal obligation upon both parents to share the costs of child rearing, regardless of domestic living arrangements.

~

Meanwhile, you might save enough money to knock a few more percentage points off of income tax, this in itself would also help people afford to raise their children.

~

I know this proposal is hardly that radical, and would mean the DPB is gone within five years. While it would help shrink the state, by far the biggest change would be it would destroy the incentive to have children you can't afford, and suddenly parents who get away with little (mostly men), would have to face the consequences of their breeding.

~

However, much has been written about this by Lindsay Mitchell, who has done and said more on this issue than most. If the Nats do even some of what I've listed, I'll be astounded though.

UK company makes record profit, makes BBC gloomy

So what was the lead item on BBC breakfast news on TV this morning? It was about Royal Dutch Shell making the biggest profit of any UK company in history. Now in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore or even China, this would be something celebrated, an enormous success. However not for the BBC on TV, the manufactured story was “are they ripping us off?”.
^
Now the BBC isn’t stupid. It knows that a profit figure of £14 billion means little unless you have the context of the value of the company. After all, if the assets are worth £500 billion, it isn’t great, if the assets are worth £50 billion it is a tidy profit indeed. However the socialist minded British public see profit like a lottery win – not a return on investment. The BBC didn’t disclose the current market capitalisation of Shell. Secondly, it didn’t reveal where the profit goes. This isn’t clear yet, but presumably some will be reinvested capital and much will be dividends to shareholders, many of which are financial institutions with pensions, deposits and other funds that affect the wealth of many people. Keeping vague about this ensures that many think that it just means a few people living the life of Uncle Scrooge or Montgomery Burns, whereas Shell has generated a profit that will benefit plenty.

^

There is a bigger question about reserves and whether discoveries and current production can keep up with demand, which is what the Daily Telegraph focused on.

^
One thing the BBC did report was where the profit came from – exploration and discovery of new fields, the wholesale market for crude and refined products. It wasn’t retail at the pump, where the margins are closer to 1-2p per litre (noting than in the UK around 70p is tax). This doesn’t stop the leftwing union Unite stating calling it obscene – when what is truly obscene is the extent to which taxes on fuel fund big government at Westminster. Of course Unite doesn’t produce anything itself, it calls for a tax to add to the money that the state takes from oil customers, like far too many socialists Unite worships the fist of the state over the choices of consumers and shareholders.
^
So there you go, big British firm makes a hefty profit and it is held in suspicion. The UK wonders why so many people have a poverty of ambition while a culture of envy is cultivated, and the thieving hand of the state is largely ignored.

^

Of course given that by owning a TV set in the UK you are legally obliged to pay for the BBC, under threat of fine and criminal prosecution, regardless of whether you watch or listen to any of the BBC's content - I would wonder why the BBC can't answer why it can judge Shell, when its customers don't get forced to buy its products, but the BBC forces people who aren't its customers to pay for all of its products? Presumably TV and radio are more important than energy.

Which US Presidential candidate will call THIS ridiculous?

Expelling good students from school for kissing on a bus. Video here of the news article.

The puritanism, the idea there is something immoral about two teenagers kissing in public. The Islamists are closer to how some Americans think than many will admit.

Whose money?

The Dominion Post reports "Wellington City Council will plough $90 million of its own money into a Government-funded revamp of its dilapidated council flats"

Excuse me? Replace "its own" with "ratepayers'". Given 179,466 residents of Wellington city, and assuming one third are children, that means around $749 per adult resident being spent on the proposed council housing revamp.

Of course it could always sell them. After all, why should one of the local authorities with a reasonably above average citizen income be the second largest landlord in the country?

Naughty Ryanair

Isn't the UK Advertising Standards Authority amusing? I mean, seriously. It is not a government body, but you can be sure that if it didn't exist, the government would create it. It has ruled that an ad, that I and millions were unaware of, is offensive.

Now of course, it's been far more widely seen than it was originally, and Ryanair is laughing, and rejecting the finding.

The ad is shown here in the Sun, (mildly NSFW) depicting an adult woman dressed as a tarty schoolgirl. The problem is it "appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behavior" which of course is a link that is completely unjustified. There is no claim the young woman in the ad is under 18, or really a schoolgirl, and she is wearing a uniform that is more likely to be seen at School Disco club events, rather than real life. However, it clearly can't be allowed in post "Carry On" straight laced, highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, Britain.

Of course, surely it should be up to the newspapers carrying the ad, which were the Daily Mail, the Herald and Scottish Herald, to decide whether it is offensive. They are best able to judge their readership. I almost never buy The Independent or the Daily Mail because I often find their content offensive, for example.

~

Ryanair is up for a fight as "Ryanair head of communications Peter Sherrard said the airline was refusing to withdraw the advert in light of the ASA ruling...Ryanair believed there was nothing irresponsible nor offensive in its advert. “Consequently we will not be withdrawing this ad and we will not provide the ASA with any of the undertakings they seek,” he added"

According to the BBC, none of the papers that ran the ad will run it again - but I wouldn't bet it is the last time it will be shown. After all, one thing about the UK, it is full of pervs!

~

Oh and if you don't like it, don't fly Ryanair. I don't, and it's not because of its ads!

Bye Rudy, onto Tuesday (yawn)

He's not happy is he?

CNN reports the Republican race is between McCain and Romney. Now it is up to Super Duper Tuesday. Will the Republicans choose the Mormon flip flopper or the Republican-lite both of whom have similar policies of a little less government in some areas, and a little more in others?

^

Should I simply not care anymore?

^

Well since the "Change we can believe in" site requires me to effectively register, to find out what Obama wants to do, I had to go to Hillary "my entitlement to rule you" Clinton's site. I find she believes in restricting freedom of speech, subsidising families, nationalise parenting and early childhood education, more farming subsidies, massively subsidise the energy sector, strengthen unions somehow, demand all Americans pay their fair share (for what?), and finally be softly softly on the Iranian backed insurgency in Iraq as she wants to "work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war".

^

OK, that's enough reasons to want her NOT elected, shame the Republicans don't give me any reason to be excited about them more than that.

Scotland drops tolls, ignores economic truths

The Scottish Executive, which governs Scotland under devolution with taxpayer funding directly from Westminster, is abolishing tolls on the Tay and Forth Bridges. So, instead of road users paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the two bridges directly (and paying off loans associated with the Tay Bridge), money will come from general taxpayers. Socialism at work - shifting from user pays to bureaucratic planning and taxpayer pays. According to the Scottish Transport Minister this ends "years of injustice". Apparently the injustice is that those bridge users pay for their bridges, but other Scots get their bridges subsidised by everyone else in the UK. Maybe food should be "free" too.

^

Well it wouldn't be if you applied some economic rationality. For starters you could have dedicated the average amount of fuel tax collected from users of the bridges to the bridges themselves, and used the tolls to collects anything left over. You could have sold the bridges. Yes, I know you'd almost rather paint a St. Andrew's Cross on yourself and call yourself English that do something so instinctively anti-Marxist, but you could've. Then you'd still have people saying they pay fuel tax and tolls, but you could have offered to refund the fuel tax, or credited it towards the tolls. After all, what's wrong with user pays? Oh I forgot you're running the Scottish Executive, everything is wrong with user pays isn't it? Because the users wouldn't pay if they had the choice.

^

Of course abolition of the tolls is meant to bring great benefits, by elimination congestion at toll booths. Again, a modicum of research would point out that toll booths are yesterday's technology to tolling, as electronically tolled roads in Canada, Chile, Australia and elsewhere have proven for several years now.

^

The truth will be in a few months time and a few years down the track. Removing the tolls lowers the cost of using the bridge, this increases demand, which will in itself mean congestion at peak periods of demand. This will bring demands for new bridges, which are not cheap. So then you have to decide do you have those who demand the new capacity pay for it, or just be good socialists and make everyone pay for it.

^

In Tauranga, it was less than 2 years after the toll was removed that there were regular reports of lengthy delays on the harbour bridge, and calls for a duplicate bridge. Now the bridge is being built, paid for by all road users nationwide, after NZ First Leader Winston Peters lobbied for it not to be tolled as part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party. No doubt in 10 or so years time there will be demand for yet more increases in bridge capacity or at least peak periods of congestion.

^

Selling the bridges would make far more sense. You may then see the following happen:

^

1. Operators of the bridges that want to maximise their efficiency, so would shift towards lower cost electronic tolling and optimise maintenance;

2. Operators of the bridges that want to maximise throughput of the bridges. This means charging more at times of peak use, but correspondingly ensuring traffic is not severely congested. It also means responding quickly to accidents or blockages, and ensuring maintenance activities are carried out at off peak periods. Don't believe me? Look at the privately built, funded, designed and owned Citylink motorway in Melbourne, because this is exactly what happens.

3. Operators of the bridges that make profits, and might reinvest the surplus in other worthwhile business ventures, pay dividends to shareholders or even build duplicate bridges if they were deemed worthwhile. This is bound to be better use than politicians spending the surpluses.

4. Government would get a substantial windfall of cash it could use to pay off debt and reduce taxes overall.

^

Or you can keep doing the old fashioned tried and tired central planning option for roads. It has been a stunning success hasn't it?

Another reason why the job in Afghanistan was half done

Yes the Taliban were removed, from Kabul and much of the country. Yes, the new administration is friendlier towards the West. Yes it is better than the Taliban, but no.. it is no friend of individual freedom.

^

A death sentence has been imposed upon Afghani journalist, Pervez Kambaksh, for "downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam". According to the BBC the Upper House of the Afghani Parliament "supports" this, reportedly "the Afghan Senate has issued a statement on the case - it was not voted on but was signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, an ally of President Hamid Karzai. It said the upper house approved the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambaksh by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif."

^

It isn't final yet as "Mr Kambaksh has at least two more courts in which to appeal and the sentence would have to be approved by President Karzai to be carried out". One can hope that one of these appeals would be successful. However it simply highlights how little so called "imperialism" has been imposed by the US and allied forces. All that has happened is that an offensive war mongering regime has been replaced by a less offensive non war mongering regime. Afghanis deserved better than this.

Greens oppose apolitical state sector

Transit has for some time now allowed foreign countries to fly their flags on the Auckland Harbour Bridge on various occasions, particularly national days. This policy was reversed last year to avoid controversies with the relevant press release stating "The New Zealand flag will be the sole flag flown on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. It will be flown on both flagpoles and will fly at half-mast on occasions of national mourning as directed by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage".

~

This was a wise step, Transit should, after all, be apolitical. So its most recent decision to refuse to fly the Tino Rangitiratanga flag is correct. Green MP Metiria Turei's response is nothing more than grandstanding. She claims it is pure prejudice. What nonsense. Transit New Zealand is a New Zealand government Crown entity, if it flies flags of political movements it will need to also fly flags for any political party or organisation, and ceases to be apolitical. Turei is quite racist and patronising to claim that the Tino Rangitiratanga flag represents "Maori". Some Maori may support it, but others do not. Turei, like the collectivist she is, believes Maori are a political group, with one set of views. The flag does NOT represent Maori, nor does she.

~

The public sector should be strictly apolitical. The Tino Rangitiratanga flag is highly political. The only "cultural division" here is between those, who like the Green Party, Chinese, Zimbabwean and Russian governments, think the state sector should be politicised, and those who believe the state sector should be beyond politics to the extent possible. So should the Auckland Harbour Bridge fly a flag for free market capitalism too Metiria, or is that unacceptable because it isn't your preferred race?

Kedgley peddles more hysteria

Like some parroting hysteric, Sue Kedgley has found a new conspiracy which threatens the health and lives of us all. It is the possibility that telecommunications transmitters might be installed, of all places, on top of power poles. Her reaction tells all about the use of language as propaganda.
~
The tenor of her press release is seriously unhinged and outright scaremongering with statements such as “telecommunications companies will be able to clutter power poles in residential areas and next to schools and childcare centres with new cellular and wireless technologies”.
~
In that once sentence she loads so much evidence absent value judgments to frighten the ill informed, i.e. those who vote for her. “Clutter” apparently implying that somehow we’re all using the top of power poles now, and will be interfered with, or that it will be ugly. I am willing to wager than in one day, Sue Kedgley would be unable to identify every single telecommunications transmitter site in Wellington City – because so many of them are unobtrusive, and plenty are on top or on the side of building with nobody noticing them. However, I am sure it wouldn’t be “clutter” if they were broadcasting a free to air commercial free channel of leftwing doggerel.
~
Then she talks of “next to schools and childcare centres”, implying, though not saying, that transmitters are “unsafe”. She likes claiming new technologies are unsafe, it gives her something to regulate, something to blame at and it looks like she is saving us all from the evil companies who don’t care. The truth is that she is an unscientific busybody who prefers fear and hysteria to science and balanced debate – she squawks like a parrot, happily stirring fear to gain votes.
~
She continues "We have set up a power pole in Mount Victoria with antennae and masts, to demonstrate how visually intrusive power poles around New Zealand could become”. No doubt using the latest technology with every incentive to make it work efficiently and be unobtrusive right? Of course most homes in New Zealand already have antennae, masts, some have satellite dishes. Perhaps they are visually intrusive too, as are the trolley bus wires that provide a 550v netting over many major arterial routes and city streets in Wellington – but that’s ok, because electric buses are good – telecommunications companies are bad. Of course she has a cellular phone and rarely catches a trolley bus – funny that.
~
She continues her rant “there will be no restrictions on the number of masts and antennae hanging on poles outside homes and bedrooms, regardless of concerns about the health effects of increased exposure to radio frequency radiation”. Forgetting that the laws of physics do impose such restrictions, given poles can’t carry unlimited numbers of these things, and there are serious issues of avoiding harmonics and interference between antennae, and if you have a bedroom next to a power pole then more fool you. More importantly the “health effects” are largely a beat up by her. She completely ignores that every single radio and TV transmits non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, she also ignores the proliferation of home wifi systems as well – presumably this is all good, or because it isn’t an evil entity (telecommunications companies fit that category), it isn’t worth her attention.
~
Finally she says “There is no obligation under the proposed national standard for the companies to pay rentals for the usage of power poles, which in many cases are owned by state-owned enterprises”. Again, her lack of command of the facts says a bit about her. Very very few power poles are owned by state-owned enterprises, largely because most are owned by electricity lines companies. These are not retail companies (which SOEs most certainly own). The implication here is that the beloved warm embracing state that she loves is being “robbed” because of a lack of rentals. She should relax. Not only are they not owned by state owned enterprises in almost all cases (and transmitters on top of Transpower masts are likely to be hardly an issue for numerous reasons), but the issue should be whether owners of poles should be allowed to.
~
So there it is, a press release of hysterical assertions, and leading value judgments with next to no evidence. It bears a mild resemblance to the sort of nonsense that passes for news from North Korea – blurting out fear, blame and demands that something be done – when scratching the surface it is just a grasp for attention, pleading to the ignorant by the power hungry and envy ridden.

Bush's final state of the union address

I don't go along with the views of most people I meet about Bush. It is almost de riguer to treat Bush as an unmitigated disaster. When you probe as to why, the comments tend to be "Iraq" or "foreign policy" or climate change. You see it's trendy to bash Bush. Michael Moore made it an art form, or indeed a multi-million dollar business, ironically - funny how little of that he uses to buy poor people health insurance isn't it?
^

So I react to that, not because I think the Bush administration is an overwhelming success. However, I do acknowledge what has happened. Afghanistan and Iraq have been partial successes, and quite principled too (and contributed to Libya coming out from the cold). It has also been a relatively friendly administration for free trade, challenging Europe to match it on slashing agricultural subsidies at WTO talks - which the EU promptly said "no" to. Yes I can criticise Bush for excessive spending, and for the erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terror, but I don't doubt that Bush believes in Western civilisation. He called Islamism Islamo-fascism, and he was dead right - you wont hear Gordon Brown say that, let alone Helen Clark, Anyway, so what of his final state of the union address? What DID he say?

^

• He called for a balanced budget, and not by increasing taxes. Good.
• He wants to save Social Security. Bad, but hardly surprising.
• He believes "Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools". Bad, public schools are the problem.
• He wants public school control to be further devolved, and effectively endorsed education vouchers. Good, but it wont happen. Democrats don't like school choice or performance monitoring of schools or teachers.
• He wants standard tax deductibility for health insurance. As far as this reduces taxes for those looking after themselves then good.
• He wants to subsidise state programmes to fund private health insurance. Bad, it undermines the earlier programme, states should raise their funds locally.
• He wants to establish a temporary worker programme for foreigners. Good.
• He wants to use taxpayers' money to subsidise alternative fuels. Bad, let the market decide based on price signals.

None of this excites me particularly, in fact, sadly I can say at best it could be worse. However, Bush does inspire me in one direction - his response to Islamofascism. He said:

"Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent. Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Take that "death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us". THAT is the enemy, as cold and murderous as that. THAT is who is appeased by withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and by befriending Islamism. Bush continues:

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom"

Indeed. It is as clear and stark as that. You wont hear this from Helen Clark, Ken Livingstone, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In fact you wont hear it from the Green Party either. Listen carefully from the Presidential candidates this year, as to who talks of freedom, and who really believes it.

As Bush continues, talk of withdrawal from Iraq, like the left wants to do unconditionally is a nonsense:

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. "

Islamist Iraq would be a disaster for Iraq, and its neighbours (except Iran), and the West.

Beyond that Bush talks of freedom elsewhere, although saying "We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur." may be too short a list. I'd add Saudi Arabia, Russia and China as well. Realpolitik means it is easy to support freedom in relatively weak states, it takes more courage to confront Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

^

You see, flawed though he may be, Bush more than many of his critics, understands that the battle against Islamism is a battle for freedom, and a battle for Western civilisation. It is for this he should be remembered. His domestic record is not inspiring, and on balance perhaps mildly positive. However, internationally Bush has adopted a foreign policy that at best has overthrown evil murderous dictatorships, and at worst had mistakenly replaced them with democracies, not guided by secularism or freedom, but by milder forms of Islamism.

^

The world is a dangerous place, but a withdrawn USA that ignored the hosts of its enemies would not make it safer. Beyond the rhetoric of the centre-left chattering classes, Bush understands that. Islamism is our most real and present enemy, confronting it not appeasing it is critical.

Who's lying John Minto?

The story of John Minto's rejection of an alleged award from the near to one party state South African government has, of course, been well covered. Minto generated plenty of publicity through his open letter to President Thabo Mbeki, himself a man with a flexible view of reality. Minto basically condemns the democratically elected South African government for not being more Marxist, which perhaps says more about what he thinks of democracy - he presumably thought the ANC would be far closer to its communist allies than it actually is (it's already far too close for my liking). As fragile and questionable as South African democracy and freedom is, it is still better than it was under apartheid - but Minto wanted a full revolution.

^

One South African journalist (Mike Trapido) has stuck it to Minto clearly by saying:

^

"Now he wants to thumb his nose at authority again; this time at our expense — build the Minto legend. All he has achieved is to show South Africans that we were misguided in trying to give him the award in the first place — what he actually represents is exactly what we were trying to get away from. Ironically he, despite his views, played a part in that."

^

However the real rub is that Reuters has reported that he was never offered the award in the first place. A statement from the office of the President of South Africa states:

^

"The Presidency has noted publication of an open letter addressed to President Thabo Mbeki written by Mr. John Minto of New Zealand.

In the letter, Mr. Minto claims, amongst other things, to have been nominated for the prestigious Order of the Companions of OR Tambo.In this regard, the Presidency wishes to place it on record that Mr. Minto has not, as a matter of fact, been nominated as a candidate for any of our national orders"

^

So the burden of proof is on Minto - come on - prove it! Post the evidence John!

^

UPDATE: So Minto has now been reported in the Dominion Post as saying "South African sports minister Reverend Makhenkesi (Arnold) Stofile told him at his home last year he had been nominated for the award." Oh so no letter John? No written evidence? Funny that. Given this is a man who once said the death of the Kahui twins was "society's" fault, it's no surprise that he has his own portable reality generator. I guess a journalist will now interview the South African sports minister.

^

UPDATE 2: Now Minto has a friend testifying in the NZ Herald:

^

"Kitch Cuthbert, who attended the Auckland dinner with Mr Minto and Mr Stofile, said her recollection of that night was that the award offer had been a "done and dusted scenario".
"My understanding was that an award of some substance was being offered, and Minty said that he would have concerns and issues about accepting such an award," Ms Cuthbert said.
"I didn't hear the preamble to it, but I thought the offer had been made and Minty had basically said thanks but no thanks.""

^

Not that convincing, a good lawyer would be able to tear that evidence down, but still someone needs to ask "Mr Stofile", his contact details are here.

Clinton or Obama then?

No, I haven't gone mad. Supporting a Democrat? Hardly. Both big government statists, who think "change" is about the state doing more, taking more money and regulating more. They are central planners, and about as inspiring as a public servant.

^

What my point is - which one is more likely to lose against a Republican. Not that the Republican options are inspiring. No.

^

Whilst I'd be concerned about Huckabee, being an evangelical, the truth is his campaign is likely to fizzle out after losing Florida. He might pick up a handful of states on Super Dooper Tuesday, but he wont win the nomination (although he could be selected as Vice Presidential running mate).

^

Unless Giuliani can bring in a miracle in Florida (even getting second will save him, third is probably too little too late), he's out of the race. He could have been a strong contender, but has misjudged and has no momentum.

^

So it's Romney vs. McCain. It will be McCain. Why? Romney has at least two characteristics that are against him:

- He's a mormon, which will kill off evangelical support more than McCain's social liberalism;

- He is a flip flopper. He was liberal in Massachusetts, and now claims to be conservative. He will be eaten alive by either Clinton or Obama, and it will be obvious.

On top of that, his charisma largely comprises a smile.

^

McCain for what he is worth has experience, understands foreign policy, is reasonably socially liberal and, well, he's all there is. Not particularly inspiring for one wanting less government, but he should be able to maintain a strong line against Islamism. Most importantly he wont frighten socially liberal voters, and his military record does inspire some admiration.

^

So who can McCain beat? That IS the question.

^

Clinton is a polarising figure.

^

Although she is more mature than Obama, the claims that she is riding on Bill's coattails, that she is cold and calculating remaining married to a misogynist in order to pursue her own ambitions of power, and her tactics against Obama (which indicate a sense of "entitlement" to the Presidency) are likely to ensure a substantial vote for "anyone but Hillary". Stopping Hillary getting elected may encourage enough conservative Republicans to back McCain, whilst McCain himself is socially liberal enough to not scare centrist independents. Quite simply I don't believe Hillary is electable - against McCain.

^

However, Obama is something else. He now has the Ted Kennedy endorsement, which while hardly endearing him to 40% or more of voters, does give him some momentum to build upon his crushing win in South Carolina. His strong victory in South Carolina shouldn't be dismissed as "oh well, it's a black state so no wonder", he won with over 55% of the vote, with Hillary getting only 26.5%, more than double of her vote. The media also are giving him a relatively clear run, and has done so for several years now. His talk of conciliation, and avoiding division sounds good - his talk of anything substantial is difficult to see, but it doesn't matter. He is a media darling, and if Florida goes well for him (not that it officially matters, though it will substantively), then he does have a chance of carrying it off. Especially given that the Clinton technique to respond when threatened is to get nasty - which plays into Obama's hands beautifully.

^

Obama is no better than Clinton though. In fact given his campaign is subject to scrutiny only superficially, and he can turn attacks into, implicitly, something about race, and turn any attacks as being against his "collegial" style. It's slick, and it avoids substance. Whilst Obama will, inevitably, encourage a racist minority to turn out to vote against him, he wont invoke the hostility of Hillary Clinton. In short, he could beat McCain.

^

So, given the choice between a McCain Clinton or a McCain Obama contest, I reluctantly pick the former. I would like to see the Democratic race be close, and bitter. I'd like to see Clinton snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but only just, and having done so alienated enough of the Democratic base that they wont turn out for the cold calculating collectivist that she is. Obama wont, after all that, be a Vice Presidential running mate, but John Edwards might be, giving some geographical balance between east coast and the south. Obama wont be gone for good, but Clinton's true colours will be shown.

^

McCain might just win under these circumstances, as Clinton's arrogance in believing in the inevitability of becoming the first female President does not pay off. Of course some will say having a female President would be good, to which I say, it really isn't that important - it could be good, not important or bad. It depends on the person, which is really what this should be about.

Prince Charles wont go to Beijing

The Daily Telegraph reports that Prince Charles is refusing to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, this wouldn't be important really except in two respects:

^

Firstly, if Charles was in the capacity of a private citizen, then good for him. There are good reasons to boycott the Beijing Olympics, notwithstanding the low value that the Chinese communist regime places on human life and ever lower value on freedom. Supporting independence of Tibet is less of a reason, as an independent Tibet per se may not mean a great improvement in freedom there. Nevertheless, the Chinese record is abysmal enough to support independence for Tibet. I don't object to the sentiment or boycotting the games that the vile Communist Party of China and the state it controls will use to paint a rosy picture of how wonderful China is - ignoring how it treats those who disagree, or get in its way.

^

However, the issue is moreso one of the role of a future constitutional monarch, which, notwithstanding accident, Charles will become. The truth is the man is completely unfit for the job. He has laid his cards on the table politically, which, regardless of what views they hold, is utterly contemptible. One can always guess the views of Queen Elizabeth II on politics, she has probably been more comfortable under Conservative administrations than Labour, although Thatcher probably was too liberal and radical for her liking. However, these are matters of hearsay and conjecture, entirely. Not once has the Queen ever expressed a political view of her own. Nor should she. Whatever her views, and she obviously has them, and is entitled to have them, they do not tarnish her role. Charles on the other hand appears to be some sort of muddled up centre-left econut who sympathises with numerous religions.

^

He supports numerous charities, which is, in itself, hardly a problem. Patronage of charities, that do not have a strongly political agenda, are just part of the role. However, he has created several foundations to advance his personal agenda, such as "The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment" to advance his views on architecture and "The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health" to advance his advocacy of unconventional medicine. He has championed climate change and is seen as supporting the likes of Al Gore, hardly an uncontroversial figure. His support for organic farming is well known as well. The big question is when does he cross the line between pursuing personal interests and pursuing political agendas.

^

What happens if a government was ever elected that was negative towards support of organic farming or alternative medicines? What if one was skeptical about man-made climate change? How about one that maintains friendly relations with the People's Republic of China?

^

The decision about whether or not he goes to the Beijing Olympics should be a matter not only of himself, but of the Queen and Cabinet. Clearly, refusing to go will send a negative message, unless it is for non-political reasons.

^

Of course the real solution is simply to let the constitutional monarchy expire when Elizabeth II does. It is time to move on, for the British royal family to be left with whatever assets they hold to manage or mismanage as they see fit, without a single pound of taxpayer's funds. They would remain some sort of tourist attraction no doubt, with pomp and ceremony, but that would be all. Who would be the head of state then? Well that is another matter - but you could do worse than having a written constitution, with a democratically elected President essentially ensuring that the government of the day does not breach its constitutional role.

^

Meanwhile Charles should pull his head in - he must be apolitical - his inherited privilege and influence are such that he is not entitled to anything more.

"Redistribution of wealth" - the phrase of lies

Now this phrase is thrown about endlessly by the left, usually with the weasel word "fairer" in front of it. Now there are two key points about the use of this phrase, and the complete dishonesty behind it.

^

1. It is a euphemism: Yes, what it really means is theft. The word "wealth" is used to imply abundance, a sense of "those who have more than enough", so it is a value judgment that some have more than enough (according to the person who said it, remember this isn't some moral guardian, it is just an opinion). Redistribution does not mean to let people give, or encourage people to give, it means "take". A more neutral way to describe this is "taking property to give to those deemed by me to be more deserving". Those who advocate redistribution of wealth are advocates of theft, given that taking property without permission is quite simply that. After all, if you went into the home of one of these people (or their bank account) without permission and decided to "redistribute" the wealth, they'd call it theft wouldn't they? However, when THEY or their friends do it, it's "ok".

^

2. It is based on a false premise: You see the concept of "redistribution" implies that someone "distributed" wealth in the first place. It implies a central power did so, and also implies that it was not done so fairly. This is complete nonsense. By and large, (the exceptions are in kleptocracies and authoritarian states) property is not distributed. Nobody sits in a room and decided "how much wealth will x or y get today". Now before you say "hold on, my boss decides my pay", well yes - but your boss doesn't decide what property you own, just what you earn based on your labour - which you can remove, or augment through your own effort.

^

The wealth you have is because you earned it through the application of your mind either through owning a business, your job or making a wise investment, or you received it as a gift, inheritance or gambling. Of course some may have wealth due to theft, or due to the state giving what has been taken from others, or due to the state skewing the market through regulation or protectionism. That is the state "distributing" wealth, or rather engaging in theft directly or indirectly.

^

So next time a politician talks about a fairer "redistribution of wealth" ask him or her "who distributes wealth now?" and more importantly ask "don't you mean theft?". You see it is them wanting their hand in your wallet. You might respect them more if they simply said "I want to rob the majority of you so I can give that money to the minority", at least it would be honest.

Zieg Heil - NZ fashion police

In Iran there are police specifically patrolling matters of apparel, particularly women who show too much flesh. In New Zealand there are also police doing this, because, you see, they already perfected rapid response to your house being burgled, your car being converted and the like. The complete absence of real crimes means the Police can now focus on men wearing the Borat swimsuit.

^

Now we all know it is a fashion crime, and I would question as to how many men could get away with it (women of course are hardly a problem really) and not look vile, but this is all besides the point.

^

Now when the Police don't respond to your demands you know what they are doing - stopping people getting offended.

^

I dare people to do this, wear the swimsuit in public (the stadium can set rules on entry, although it is hardly "private property") and go to court, and see where covering up genitalia is indecent exposure.

^

UPDATE: David Farrar quite rightly calls them the fun police. However, will the National Party confront the culture of lack of cost accountability, and varying performance of the Police? Will it even consider radical reform of the Police (decentralising Police into regional forces would be one step worth serious consideration, and no the Police should not undertake any investigation).

NHS die while you wait

Michael Moore, the fat git of an American socialist (you know one of those very wealthy socialists who don't give up their own money to help people but want everyone else forced to first) in his film Sicko praises the UK NHS. I wonder if he would care to meet Colette Mills.

^

According to the Sunday Times, Colette Mills has breast cancer. Avastin is a drug that can hinder the spread of cancer around the body, and could keep the disease under control. However, the NHS - which after all is compulsory to pay for, from National Insurance contributions and income tax - wont pay for it. Nevertheless, Colette wants the drug and is prepared to pay for it to assist her treatment. However, the NHS isn't impressed. It has ruled (after taking her money over many years) that:

^

"any patient who wants to pay for additional drugs not prescribed by the NHS should lose their entitlement to their basic NHS cancer care and pay for all their treatment."

^

Like an envy ridden Marxist, it effectively is saying "oh, so you don't think we give you enough treatment AND you want to buy more? Well fine, pay for all of it".

^

Vile, just vile.

^

The UK Department of Health says that "top-up payments would “undermine” the “fundamental principle of the NHS, now supported by all the main political parties, that treatment should be free at the point of need”. "

^

Besides the minor point that the Department of Health should NEVER attempt to reflect the views of political parties, it fails miserably by only emphasising half of the sentence. It demands that treatment should be free, but fails to provide what Colette needs. In other words, if it takes your money, doesn't provide what you need, then tough.

^

Now here's the statement you'll hear time and time again from leftwing politicians, like Gordon Brown, like David Cameron:

^

"The government claims that to allow some patients to pay for additional drugs on top of their NHS treatment creates a two-tier system between those who can and cannot afford them."

^

Excuse me? So if Colette paid for ALL of her treatment (getting no NHS refund) that isn't a two tier system? So allowing Colette to die is ok as long as there isn't the FICTIONAL absence of a two-tier system. Isn't socialism nice, caring, warm and loving?

^
So will Michael Moore pay for all of Colette's treatment? Now there's a joke. The truth is that it is too late for her to benefit from the interaction of the new drug and her treatment.
^
meanwhile the system happily pays for me, on a well above average salary, to get free doctor's visits, and happily services for free thousands of drunken gits who poison themselves every weekend - for nothing. Great isn't it?