John Key will do a deal, he'll sell out National to a neo-Marxist authoritarian racist political party and the result will be more taxpayers' money to organisations that this party thinks are important, and the Maori seats (and local authority Maori seats) will remain. This party that only now acknowledges that the situation in Zimbabwe is bad, but carefully doesn't blame Mugabe or Zanu-PF, that hitches itself to the Barack Obama groupies (ignoring that he votes for higher agricultural protectionism), will be embraced by National.
After all, it needs policies to come from somewhere other than Labour doesn't it?
11 July 2008
Posh isn't that posh
Victoria Beckham flying Air New Zealand (according to The Sun)?
Seriously, how poor is that!
Now I'm not saying Air New Zealand is bad. She would have flown Business Premier, which is one of the better business classes around.
However that is my point - it is BUSINESS class. A class that anyone one a high income can afford. Air New Zealand has no First Class.
What the hell is she doing flying LA to London on business class?
She should be on a private jet - it's how Simon Cowell and Sharon Osbourne travel between California and London. Is David getting too cheap?
Even if that wasn't available, how about first class? BA and Air France both have perfectly reasonable First Class cabins on direct flights on that route. United and American also have First Class, but Air NZ would be as good.
Oh and so why is this in the news in the first place? The flight had a bird enter an engine before takeoff so was cancelled and she was allegedly in "airline pjs and no makeup" which wouldn't do to return, and it wouldn't do to be bussed to the terminal (yes read the Sun if you care). Now I know Air NZ doesn't have pjs (unless this is a very new and welcome addition to the service), so she was taking used airline pjs!
Anyway, unless there is some record shortage of private jets, this is not the way someone of her wealth should be travelling. It's how I travel.
Seriously, how poor is that!
Now I'm not saying Air New Zealand is bad. She would have flown Business Premier, which is one of the better business classes around.
However that is my point - it is BUSINESS class. A class that anyone one a high income can afford. Air New Zealand has no First Class.
What the hell is she doing flying LA to London on business class?
She should be on a private jet - it's how Simon Cowell and Sharon Osbourne travel between California and London. Is David getting too cheap?
Even if that wasn't available, how about first class? BA and Air France both have perfectly reasonable First Class cabins on direct flights on that route. United and American also have First Class, but Air NZ would be as good.
Oh and so why is this in the news in the first place? The flight had a bird enter an engine before takeoff so was cancelled and she was allegedly in "airline pjs and no makeup" which wouldn't do to return, and it wouldn't do to be bussed to the terminal (yes read the Sun if you care). Now I know Air NZ doesn't have pjs (unless this is a very new and welcome addition to the service), so she was taking used airline pjs!
Anyway, unless there is some record shortage of private jets, this is not the way someone of her wealth should be travelling. It's how I travel.
The new cheaper Aston Martin
Hey guess what, I've found an Aston Martin that is cheaper than a new DB9, it does almost everything as good as the DB9 but starts at £83,000 instead of £110,850. It's the V8 Vantage.
Problem is, of course, I have money committed at lots of other things, so like hell can I afford either one.
Problem is, of course, I have money committed at lots of other things, so like hell can I afford either one.
However, the idea that you shouldn't pursue something you can't afford doesn't bother some Wellington local authorities. According to the Dominion Post they are crowing about how the new design for Transmission Gully "saves $275 million". Hmmm really? It "saves" money that actually nobody has in the first place, just like the V8 Vantage is a saving over the DB9.
You see the potential users of Transmission Gully wont pay anywhere near enough money to pay for more than maybe 10% of the road's financing costs, the project itself costs more than all road projects underway throughout the country in one go, and even the money earmarked by the government for it is less than half the cost.
So Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast is dead right when she says "At the moment you'd be hard pressed to start it at all" and that it is in never-never land without a vast increase in funding. However the money can't come from road users without an increase in fuel tax, of around 5c/l ACROSS THE COUNTRY, which would raise about $150m a year. You might ask why you in Auckland, Hamilton, Napier, Christchurch or anywhere else should pay more for petrol largely so people living in the Kapiti Coast north of Wellington can have a choice of routes to get to work in the morning.
You see Transmission Gully is a very expensive solution looking for a problem. Safety isn't it, as relatively modest amounts of money have been spent on upgrading the current road. Congestion isn't it, as it is now pretty modest at peak times, and congestion north of the route is far more significant (which it will exacerbate). The only remaining argument is the bizarre notion that Wellington needs another route out and in in the event of an earthquake. Of course given the Rimutaka's have a road, and there is a port means this is rather specious. What is this route meant to do?? Is it worth $1billion of money from those who never benefit from the project to pay for some rather peculiar insurance policy?
Porirua Mayor Jenny Brash is well intentioned, but basically this is an enormous project to benefit a few suburbs in her city - Kapiti wants it because it is a subsidy for Kapiti dwellers commuting to Wellington.
I typically believe it is better to build roads than railways, but roads shouldn't be built when the users aren't prepared to pay for them. Politicians are looking for ways to make you pay for a road that you don't use - this is a small example ($1 billion) that is about having a cool head and saying no. Labour isn't saying no, but passing it on to local government (and giving it petrol tax raising powers!), Peter Dunne is addicted to this road, and National wont say anything because it doesn't like saying no. Wellington can't afford an Aston Martin.
You see the potential users of Transmission Gully wont pay anywhere near enough money to pay for more than maybe 10% of the road's financing costs, the project itself costs more than all road projects underway throughout the country in one go, and even the money earmarked by the government for it is less than half the cost.
So Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast is dead right when she says "At the moment you'd be hard pressed to start it at all" and that it is in never-never land without a vast increase in funding. However the money can't come from road users without an increase in fuel tax, of around 5c/l ACROSS THE COUNTRY, which would raise about $150m a year. You might ask why you in Auckland, Hamilton, Napier, Christchurch or anywhere else should pay more for petrol largely so people living in the Kapiti Coast north of Wellington can have a choice of routes to get to work in the morning.
You see Transmission Gully is a very expensive solution looking for a problem. Safety isn't it, as relatively modest amounts of money have been spent on upgrading the current road. Congestion isn't it, as it is now pretty modest at peak times, and congestion north of the route is far more significant (which it will exacerbate). The only remaining argument is the bizarre notion that Wellington needs another route out and in in the event of an earthquake. Of course given the Rimutaka's have a road, and there is a port means this is rather specious. What is this route meant to do?? Is it worth $1billion of money from those who never benefit from the project to pay for some rather peculiar insurance policy?
Porirua Mayor Jenny Brash is well intentioned, but basically this is an enormous project to benefit a few suburbs in her city - Kapiti wants it because it is a subsidy for Kapiti dwellers commuting to Wellington.
I typically believe it is better to build roads than railways, but roads shouldn't be built when the users aren't prepared to pay for them. Politicians are looking for ways to make you pay for a road that you don't use - this is a small example ($1 billion) that is about having a cool head and saying no. Labour isn't saying no, but passing it on to local government (and giving it petrol tax raising powers!), Peter Dunne is addicted to this road, and National wont say anything because it doesn't like saying no. Wellington can't afford an Aston Martin.
10 July 2008
ACT on law and order
Gonzo Freakpower (Will De Cleene) posts on his concern with the ACT law and order (or as they call it "Crime and punishment" policy) as it seems to approve of extensive surveillance. Specifically he mentions this comment:
"It is easy - if we have the right relationship with our traditional allies and they provide us with intelligence - to observe the movement of cars and individuals without the need for kicking in doors or planting bugs and GPS locators (although, clearly, the latter technologies have their role)."
and more. Which is somewhat disturbing. The trend towards surveillance of the innocent has been increasing in the UK and the US, and should stop in NZ. Sadly ACT doesn't get this.
However, I did think Heather Roy just touched upon something important when she said this is a political initiative:
"* Disruption to the gang's 'customer market'. Prostitution reform helped this. State run gambling helps this. Banning marijuana and party pills does not help, but provides them with customers."
Yes it implies some form of legalisation of marijuana and party pills. May not be full legalisation, but it might see some liberalisation that takes attention from peaceful adult use and focuses on children and harm minimisation.
So ACT, give up on surveillance and the big brother state - but think more about how to not use the criminal justice system to deal with how people run their own lives. One step back, one step forward?
"It is easy - if we have the right relationship with our traditional allies and they provide us with intelligence - to observe the movement of cars and individuals without the need for kicking in doors or planting bugs and GPS locators (although, clearly, the latter technologies have their role)."
and more. Which is somewhat disturbing. The trend towards surveillance of the innocent has been increasing in the UK and the US, and should stop in NZ. Sadly ACT doesn't get this.
However, I did think Heather Roy just touched upon something important when she said this is a political initiative:
"* Disruption to the gang's 'customer market'. Prostitution reform helped this. State run gambling helps this. Banning marijuana and party pills does not help, but provides them with customers."
Yes it implies some form of legalisation of marijuana and party pills. May not be full legalisation, but it might see some liberalisation that takes attention from peaceful adult use and focuses on children and harm minimisation.
So ACT, give up on surveillance and the big brother state - but think more about how to not use the criminal justice system to deal with how people run their own lives. One step back, one step forward?
Iran sabre rattles
According to the BBC, Iran has test fired nine missiles, including a new missile with the capability of hitting Tel Aviv. Is Iran trying to provoke or trying to deter? This wont deter, it will scare - and scared Israel is more likely to strike. Ahmadinejad may want war, because he isn't very bright. However, I doubt that many in Iran are happy about this move.
I fully expect the so-called "peace movement" to hold instantaneous protests at Iranian embassies, burning Iranian flags and calling for Iran to stop threatening its neighbours. Look forward to seeing some protest in Roseneath in Wellington for example.
Wont happen though will it?
The so-called "peace" movement never ever protests against militarism by anti-Western states, like Iran, North Korea or Russia. Yes remember those protests? The so-called "peace" movement is uninterested in peace, only surrender and disarmament.
It will be exceedingly dangerous if there is an attack on Iran in self defence - but given the choice between that and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, it is no choice at all. Since 1979 Iran has been consistently the most pernicious influence in the Middle East, providing financial, military and spiritual succour to terrorists there and elsewhere (the IRA included at one time). It is a thoroughly vile and despotic regime. The preference has to be that Iran backs off, Ahmadinejad is displaced, it opens up its facilities for inspection and it backs off from its Islamist imperialism.
I fully expect the so-called "peace movement" to hold instantaneous protests at Iranian embassies, burning Iranian flags and calling for Iran to stop threatening its neighbours. Look forward to seeing some protest in Roseneath in Wellington for example.
Wont happen though will it?
The so-called "peace" movement never ever protests against militarism by anti-Western states, like Iran, North Korea or Russia. Yes remember those protests? The so-called "peace" movement is uninterested in peace, only surrender and disarmament.
It will be exceedingly dangerous if there is an attack on Iran in self defence - but given the choice between that and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, it is no choice at all. Since 1979 Iran has been consistently the most pernicious influence in the Middle East, providing financial, military and spiritual succour to terrorists there and elsewhere (the IRA included at one time). It is a thoroughly vile and despotic regime. The preference has to be that Iran backs off, Ahmadinejad is displaced, it opens up its facilities for inspection and it backs off from its Islamist imperialism.
09 July 2008
The party of moaning New Zealand
Cactus Kate posts on the vileness of NZ First coming to the fore again, with Peter Brown warning that Asian immigrants should "fit in".
Fit in to what? What is this fucking migrant himself think HE is doing picking on migrants from cultures that believe more in education, hard work, self sufficiency and family than HIS one?
So what should they fit into?
The tall poppy syndrome?
The "why doesn't the government" talkback mediocrity that demands that life be made better by the government fixing it?
The narrow minded pig ignorant personality cult followers that demand no accountability for their cult leader between elections, but think he's wonderful every 3 years?
No Mr Brown, you should go home - you and your party have done more harm to positive values of entrepreneurship, looking outwards, applying reason and personal responsibility than most Asian immigrants ever could. After all Mr Brown, what ethnic group has disproportionately low levels of welfare claims, imprisonment and high education achievement?
Yes, can't have people like that can we, because those who can actually read, get a degree and run a business aren't likely to vote for a populist personality cult led nationalist party are they?
Fit in to what? What is this fucking migrant himself think HE is doing picking on migrants from cultures that believe more in education, hard work, self sufficiency and family than HIS one?
So what should they fit into?
The tall poppy syndrome?
The "why doesn't the government" talkback mediocrity that demands that life be made better by the government fixing it?
The narrow minded pig ignorant personality cult followers that demand no accountability for their cult leader between elections, but think he's wonderful every 3 years?
No Mr Brown, you should go home - you and your party have done more harm to positive values of entrepreneurship, looking outwards, applying reason and personal responsibility than most Asian immigrants ever could. After all Mr Brown, what ethnic group has disproportionately low levels of welfare claims, imprisonment and high education achievement?
Yes, can't have people like that can we, because those who can actually read, get a degree and run a business aren't likely to vote for a populist personality cult led nationalist party are they?
58 years on - a little more truth from Korea
The Korean War, so closely following World War 2 was a particularly heinous affair. Intense propaganda from both sides shrouded the truth, and the truth was that at the time both North and South Korea were led by blood thirsty butchers. Both of whom were more blood thirsty than their allies of Red China and the US led UN forces. The North Korean side was particularly brutal, keeping some POWs in tiny holes standing vertical where they could kick heads at ground level.
However the truth of how the southern side acted has always been somewhat hidden. The North of course proclaims endless atrocities committed by the US side, which of course creates much doubt about the truth behind it. However, according to the NZ Herald, South Korea now has a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which has revealed that a blind eye was turned as the South Korean regime executed 3500 political prisoners. Furthermore as many as 100,000 suspected leftists were killed in the first weeks of the Korean War. Whilst these slaughters were carried out by the Syngman Rhee regime, the US largely ignored or was modestly critical. The ends do not justify the means, and North Korea was not thwarted by slaughtering suspected South Koreans en masse - it was thwarted by concerted military action.
None of this should give sympathy to North Korea or credence to most of its claims of "atrocities". We probably will never know the extent of those. However, it is important to know what was done by our ally in the name of freedom. South Korea has grown, changed and become a free and open society for the past 20 years. North Korea need not be described. It doesn't reflect badly on either South Korea or the USA today, but it is worthy of remembering. South Korea can face its demons with bravery, and maybe just maybe one day North Korea may even start.
However the truth of how the southern side acted has always been somewhat hidden. The North of course proclaims endless atrocities committed by the US side, which of course creates much doubt about the truth behind it. However, according to the NZ Herald, South Korea now has a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which has revealed that a blind eye was turned as the South Korean regime executed 3500 political prisoners. Furthermore as many as 100,000 suspected leftists were killed in the first weeks of the Korean War. Whilst these slaughters were carried out by the Syngman Rhee regime, the US largely ignored or was modestly critical. The ends do not justify the means, and North Korea was not thwarted by slaughtering suspected South Koreans en masse - it was thwarted by concerted military action.
None of this should give sympathy to North Korea or credence to most of its claims of "atrocities". We probably will never know the extent of those. However, it is important to know what was done by our ally in the name of freedom. South Korea has grown, changed and become a free and open society for the past 20 years. North Korea need not be described. It doesn't reflect badly on either South Korea or the USA today, but it is worthy of remembering. South Korea can face its demons with bravery, and maybe just maybe one day North Korea may even start.
08 July 2008
A broadcasting policy
If I were Broadcasting Minister.
Step 1: Sell TVNZ - give away 51% of the shares to the public, sell the other 49%
Step 2: Give away shares in Radio NZ to the public. Allow it to sell advertising, sponsorship or subscriptions.
Step 3: Abolish NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho.
Step 4: Give away Maori TV and radio, and Pacific Island Radio, and Access Radio by giving away shares to all New Zealanders.
Step 5: Abolish the Broadcasting Standards' Authority, regulating broadcasting on the same basis as publications.
Step 6: Convert broadcasting frequency management rights into full blown property rights.
Note, all to be completed or commenced within one parliamentary term.
The state should not own or control any of the means of communication with the public.
Note, you'll never ever ever hear any serious balanced debate about abolishing public broadcasting on Radio NZ - which, of course, destroys any of their claims for being balanced and presenting all points of view.
Step 1: Sell TVNZ - give away 51% of the shares to the public, sell the other 49%
Step 2: Give away shares in Radio NZ to the public. Allow it to sell advertising, sponsorship or subscriptions.
Step 3: Abolish NZ On Air and Te Mangai Paho.
Step 4: Give away Maori TV and radio, and Pacific Island Radio, and Access Radio by giving away shares to all New Zealanders.
Step 5: Abolish the Broadcasting Standards' Authority, regulating broadcasting on the same basis as publications.
Step 6: Convert broadcasting frequency management rights into full blown property rights.
Note, all to be completed or commenced within one parliamentary term.
The state should not own or control any of the means of communication with the public.
Note, you'll never ever ever hear any serious balanced debate about abolishing public broadcasting on Radio NZ - which, of course, destroys any of their claims for being balanced and presenting all points of view.
Who are the perverts?
Australian PM Kevin Rudd is in a squawk because of Art Monthly magazine publishing a picture of a girl of 6, nude, on its front cover. It isn't child pornography, in fact it isn't even erotic - well unless you count the fact that MANY things are erotic to a tiny minority who have specific fetishes. The range of human fetishes is almost infinite, but by no measure was a crime committed in having her pose in this non provocative, non revealing pose.
However it is telling when both the Australian PM and the conservative Liberal opposition both join the same chorus of outcry at the image, including wanting to ban taking photos of naked children. Expecting fully a witch hunt of the girl and her family. The girl in the photo is now 11 and yet doesn't feel exploited. You see her mother, Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou took the photo.
The girl clearly has more courage than Rudd or the vile little weasel who leads the opposition, Brendan Nelson, by saying SHE is offended because Rudd said "he can't stand" the image of her. Too right. The image is rather beautiful in its own right/
A picture of her today with her family, and the photograph in the background is here, courageously on the Sydney Morning Herald website.
The image is not sexualising her - the naked human body is not, by its very nudity, an invitation to be sexual. The understandable fear parents have of their children being abused has been exaggerated to a phobia about children being seen. It is a phobia that means teachers are thought suspiciously if they give an upset child a hug, especially male teachers. It is a pernicious blend of an ultra conservative belief that the naked body is by nature sinful, and feminists who see exploitation and rapist men at every corner.
The image wont incite a child to be abused. How many children who have been abducted were naked at the time? The people sexualising Olympia Nelson are Mr Rudd, Mr Nelson and the henpecked Hetty Johnston, whose minds are filthy enough (or politically corrupt enough) to have decided that this little girl is a corrupting influence that needs covering up. Next there will be calls to make it illegal for fathers to see their daughters naked, or adults to be alone with any naked children (I mean parents here, after all there is plenty of evidence that much child abuse happens at home!).
Olympia hasn't been exploited, by her or any reasonable objective measure - it's about time that politicians and do gooders shut up and left her family alone. There is plenty of real child abuse going on in Australia, it's just not as easy to find, not as easy to "ban" and not as easy to get outraged about.
However it is telling when both the Australian PM and the conservative Liberal opposition both join the same chorus of outcry at the image, including wanting to ban taking photos of naked children. Expecting fully a witch hunt of the girl and her family. The girl in the photo is now 11 and yet doesn't feel exploited. You see her mother, Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou took the photo.
The girl clearly has more courage than Rudd or the vile little weasel who leads the opposition, Brendan Nelson, by saying SHE is offended because Rudd said "he can't stand" the image of her. Too right. The image is rather beautiful in its own right/
A picture of her today with her family, and the photograph in the background is here, courageously on the Sydney Morning Herald website.
The image is not sexualising her - the naked human body is not, by its very nudity, an invitation to be sexual. The understandable fear parents have of their children being abused has been exaggerated to a phobia about children being seen. It is a phobia that means teachers are thought suspiciously if they give an upset child a hug, especially male teachers. It is a pernicious blend of an ultra conservative belief that the naked body is by nature sinful, and feminists who see exploitation and rapist men at every corner.
The image wont incite a child to be abused. How many children who have been abducted were naked at the time? The people sexualising Olympia Nelson are Mr Rudd, Mr Nelson and the henpecked Hetty Johnston, whose minds are filthy enough (or politically corrupt enough) to have decided that this little girl is a corrupting influence that needs covering up. Next there will be calls to make it illegal for fathers to see their daughters naked, or adults to be alone with any naked children (I mean parents here, after all there is plenty of evidence that much child abuse happens at home!).
Olympia hasn't been exploited, by her or any reasonable objective measure - it's about time that politicians and do gooders shut up and left her family alone. There is plenty of real child abuse going on in Australia, it's just not as easy to find, not as easy to "ban" and not as easy to get outraged about.
Mbeki gets a telling from the G8
I bet he didn't think for a moment that he, as the leader of the great and wonderful post-Apartheid "free" South Africa, would ever be held to account for his blood dripping handshaking collusion with Robert Mugabe - but he did.
Thabo Mbeki wont want to go to a G8 summit again.
According to the Times, Mbeki was told along with other African leaders that "trade and investment on the continent could be hit unless they acted to deal with the "illegitimate" Zimbawean president" (sic)
US President George Bush apparently directly criticised him - but that wont mean the leftie former lickspittles of Mugabe will possibly concede Bush was right to do this I am sure.
A Canadian official reported that African representatives were told:
"The Mugabe regime is an illegitimate regime and it should not be tolerated. Public opinion in G8 countries questions why the world would tolerate such a regime and questions why Africa would tolerate such a regime"
Mbeki apparently flew to Harare last weekend to try to meet Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangarai, but Tsvangarai rightly refused saying Mbeki couldn't be trusted. Quite right too, your enemy's mate is hardly someone worth talking to.
So the G8 is going to discuss increasing sanctions (though I wonder if the presence of Russia is a hindrance or a help).
Meanwhile, The Times has published one of its archive articles on its website, an editorial from 1985 about how Mugabe sought to create a one party state then. Yes, the same year I believe New Zealand opened diplomatic relations. The leftwing myth of the hero, blanking out the reality even then.
Thabo Mbeki wont want to go to a G8 summit again.
According to the Times, Mbeki was told along with other African leaders that "trade and investment on the continent could be hit unless they acted to deal with the "illegitimate" Zimbawean president" (sic)
US President George Bush apparently directly criticised him - but that wont mean the leftie former lickspittles of Mugabe will possibly concede Bush was right to do this I am sure.
A Canadian official reported that African representatives were told:
"The Mugabe regime is an illegitimate regime and it should not be tolerated. Public opinion in G8 countries questions why the world would tolerate such a regime and questions why Africa would tolerate such a regime"
Mbeki apparently flew to Harare last weekend to try to meet Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangarai, but Tsvangarai rightly refused saying Mbeki couldn't be trusted. Quite right too, your enemy's mate is hardly someone worth talking to.
So the G8 is going to discuss increasing sanctions (though I wonder if the presence of Russia is a hindrance or a help).
Meanwhile, The Times has published one of its archive articles on its website, an editorial from 1985 about how Mugabe sought to create a one party state then. Yes, the same year I believe New Zealand opened diplomatic relations. The leftwing myth of the hero, blanking out the reality even then.
National's broadcasting policy?
Move along - nothing to see here.
Clint Heine says most of what I think. No Minister has policies I'll happily go along with, before giving away the remaining 51% of shares in TVNZ.
Ask your National candidate this : Why, in an age when it is the cheapest ever to set up a radio or TV station, or produce video or audio content and distribute it, worldwide, must I be forced to own and pay for content on TV and radio stations I don't watch or listen to and don't like?
Clint Heine says most of what I think. No Minister has policies I'll happily go along with, before giving away the remaining 51% of shares in TVNZ.
Ask your National candidate this : Why, in an age when it is the cheapest ever to set up a radio or TV station, or produce video or audio content and distribute it, worldwide, must I be forced to own and pay for content on TV and radio stations I don't watch or listen to and don't like?
David Cameron believes in something right!
"We talk about people being 'at risk of obesity' instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it's as if these things - obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction - are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.
"Of course, circumstances - where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make."
Yes! Amazing these words from the Conservative Leader David Cameron, according to the Daily Telegraph. Just when I think that the Tories are going to disappoint again, David Cameron actually makes a play for reason. Yes, by and large you ARE responsible for your lot. Yes, your own choices are actually what is important here. Revolutionary? Well the government didn't have much to say other than "He wants to hug a hoodie", true, but it shows something else - there is a bit of a philosophical underpinning to this man.
He continues:
"There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them - including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop."
Yes THIS is the moral nihilism that is at the heart of the decay of values, and the unwillingness of all too many to take responsibility for their actions and to not set boundaries. The simplest boundary is to respect the body of others. How hard is that? Well for too many teens with knives, it's clearly outside their (im)moral compass.
He continues:
"There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them - including, often, their parents. If we are going to get any where near solving some of these problems, that has to stop."
Yes THIS is the moral nihilism that is at the heart of the decay of values, and the unwillingness of all too many to take responsibility for their actions and to not set boundaries. The simplest boundary is to respect the body of others. How hard is that? Well for too many teens with knives, it's clearly outside their (im)moral compass.
Now what this means in terms of policies is another thing. He went on about tax breaks for married couples, and that was about it. However for me, this is an important breakthrough. It is the confrontation of the idea that the mistakes people make are "society's fault". What is also notable is that David Cameron said this in Glasgow East - the latest constituency facing a by-election. Glasgow East is a textbook example of the abject failure of the welfare state, and it would be fair to say that Labour has taken it for granted and failed it miserably.
Glasgow East by-election or why socialism has failed
The Glasgow East by-election is occurring because its sitting MP, David Marshall, is standing down for health reasons. It shouldn't surprise, at 67 he is already outliving the average man in his constituency.
In the 2005 election he won with 60.7% of the vote. Yes he is one of those MPs with a strong true majority. The Scottish National Party (SNP) came a distant second with 17%, the Lib Dems third with 11.8% and the Conservative Party fourth with 6.9%. You get the picture, this is heartland Labour territory. Much of the media coverage is about whether Labour might lose, as the SNP is campaigning strong calling for nanny state to help food and fuel prices. Once addicted to nanny state, always addicted, although I hope the Tories might squeeze into third place (which happened, just, in 2001).
What's actually more telling are two sets of statistics. First, those about the constituency itself. This is a part of the UK that is not middle class, it is the absolute pits of despair - funded from the loving caring generous welfare state.
UK polling report describes the seat as follows:
"This seat contains some affluent suburban areas like Mount Vernon and Bailleston, but it is mostly made up of the post-war product of slum clearances, soul(l)ess tenements and terraces thrown up in the 1950s and 1960s into which the population of Glasgow’s substandard housing were decanted. The resulting estates, lacking employment and amen(i)ties were ravaged by unemployment, hard drugs, violence and gang culture." (sic)
It is poor white Scotland, with only 1.1% of the population not European. A quarter of the population under 18 and 20% over 60. Parts of the seat have a life expectancy for men of 62 - one of the lowest in the UK and akin to Bangladesh. Good ol' NHS doing wonders isn't it?
Only 7.6% of the population are graduates and just over 50% of adults have no school qualifications at all. Good ol' state monopoly education working then?
46% live in "social housing", about the same again in owner-occupied homes. 15.6% of homes have either no private bathroom or no central heating - in Glasgow!
Fraser Nelson of the Spectator explains further: "I once had the job of signing up the good people of Glasgow East to the electoral register — at the time, regarded as an invitation to pay poll tax. Gang graffiti scars the walls, police are virtually unseen. This no-go-zone status is new, and cost billions to achieve. Houses there are in good condition, money is being spent. But it has funded a hideous social experiment, showing what happens when the horizontal ties which bind those within communities to one another are replaced with vertical ties, binding individuals to the welfare state."
You see this is the dire world of welfare, drug and despair addicted Scotland "A boy born in Camlachie is expected to live to 64.5 — the same as in Uzbekistan. In Parkhead it is 62, the same as Bangladesh. Just outside its boundaries lies Dalmarnock where the figure is 58 — lower than Sudan, Cambodia or Ghana. The lowest is Carlton, where the figure of 54 is lower than even Gambia’s equivalent"
Nelson continues, pointing out the vile levels of dependency of those there and how irrelevant they are to Labour "It is invisible because the people in this Labour stronghold are of no use to politicians, who only do battle nowadays in marginal seats. When I last visited a pub there, to research an article, I was asked if I was a missionary — church groups are about the only people who bother with such places these days. Its horrors are hidden by statistical manipulation. Official unemployment is just 6.7 per cent. But add in such factors as those claiming incapacity benefit, and it quickly emerges that a scandalous 50 per cent of the working-age population are on out-of-work benefits."
However, you might think as a Labour heartland seat, this should be easy, this sort of seat is apparently what Labour is meant to be about.
Well no.
The people of Glasgow East have been rewarded by their loyalty with Labour by being ignored. Channel 4 reported that the party has as few as three dozen active members in the seat, and that it has never actually campaigned there in recent history on a door to door basis. After all, why would you campaign when those who vote do so as zombies, ticking the same formula as they are told time and time again that only Labour represents the working man, an irony given how the majority don't actually work. The Labour Party doesn't even have a database on the seat's demographics show where it's weakest and strongest. It has taken most of them for granted. With one part of the seat excepted, poor, destitute, welfare ridden, they'll vote Labour - nobody else will bother campaigning in this seriously dire part of Glasgow.
Of course as David Cameron says, the truth is that those in this electorate have, to some extent, given up. Although you do wonder how the inquisitive bright kid in this place fairs, when he risks being beaten up for being "smart", hounded at a school where intelligence makes you a social pariah, where one parent cynically thinks he's getting "too big for his boots", and with temptations towards drugs and other mindless decadence all around. They all vote for the status quo, and get it of course - and get it from a party only too glad that it gets a guaranteed House of Commons vote so it can have power, to look after the floating voter.
You see that's where, hopefully, all that will be proven wrong. This heartland Labour seat speaks volumes about the arrogance of many on the left for those they purport to give a damn about. Labour ignores them, doesn't even have enough local members who LIKE Labour, and the other parties completely ignore them too - until now. What has Labour done for Glasgow East? Kept the benefits flowing, kept the state monopoly schools open, refurbished some housing and left law and order to the gangs.
So the failure of socialist is apparent - starkly apparent. The formula is not more money for state monopolies and welfare. Yet this seat may offer a chance for the taste of change.
I'll leave the end to Fraser Nelson from the Spectator again:
"Labour, forced for the first time to focus attention on one of its ‘safe’ welfare ghettoes, may find it has nothing to say. Is it to promise more of the same? Or blame the wicked Conservatives? It is one thing for Labour to lose the leafy suburbs which Mr Blair won over in 1997. But to be rejected in a supposed heartland like Glasgow East would plunge the party into existential crisis, and rightly so. Because after all those years in power, and all those billions spent, its main legacy has been, quite simply, the most expensive poverty in the world."
In the 2005 election he won with 60.7% of the vote. Yes he is one of those MPs with a strong true majority. The Scottish National Party (SNP) came a distant second with 17%, the Lib Dems third with 11.8% and the Conservative Party fourth with 6.9%. You get the picture, this is heartland Labour territory. Much of the media coverage is about whether Labour might lose, as the SNP is campaigning strong calling for nanny state to help food and fuel prices. Once addicted to nanny state, always addicted, although I hope the Tories might squeeze into third place (which happened, just, in 2001).
What's actually more telling are two sets of statistics. First, those about the constituency itself. This is a part of the UK that is not middle class, it is the absolute pits of despair - funded from the loving caring generous welfare state.
UK polling report describes the seat as follows:
"This seat contains some affluent suburban areas like Mount Vernon and Bailleston, but it is mostly made up of the post-war product of slum clearances, soul(l)ess tenements and terraces thrown up in the 1950s and 1960s into which the population of Glasgow’s substandard housing were decanted. The resulting estates, lacking employment and amen(i)ties were ravaged by unemployment, hard drugs, violence and gang culture." (sic)
It is poor white Scotland, with only 1.1% of the population not European. A quarter of the population under 18 and 20% over 60. Parts of the seat have a life expectancy for men of 62 - one of the lowest in the UK and akin to Bangladesh. Good ol' NHS doing wonders isn't it?
Only 7.6% of the population are graduates and just over 50% of adults have no school qualifications at all. Good ol' state monopoly education working then?
46% live in "social housing", about the same again in owner-occupied homes. 15.6% of homes have either no private bathroom or no central heating - in Glasgow!
Fraser Nelson of the Spectator explains further: "I once had the job of signing up the good people of Glasgow East to the electoral register — at the time, regarded as an invitation to pay poll tax. Gang graffiti scars the walls, police are virtually unseen. This no-go-zone status is new, and cost billions to achieve. Houses there are in good condition, money is being spent. But it has funded a hideous social experiment, showing what happens when the horizontal ties which bind those within communities to one another are replaced with vertical ties, binding individuals to the welfare state."
You see this is the dire world of welfare, drug and despair addicted Scotland "A boy born in Camlachie is expected to live to 64.5 — the same as in Uzbekistan. In Parkhead it is 62, the same as Bangladesh. Just outside its boundaries lies Dalmarnock where the figure is 58 — lower than Sudan, Cambodia or Ghana. The lowest is Carlton, where the figure of 54 is lower than even Gambia’s equivalent"
Nelson continues, pointing out the vile levels of dependency of those there and how irrelevant they are to Labour "It is invisible because the people in this Labour stronghold are of no use to politicians, who only do battle nowadays in marginal seats. When I last visited a pub there, to research an article, I was asked if I was a missionary — church groups are about the only people who bother with such places these days. Its horrors are hidden by statistical manipulation. Official unemployment is just 6.7 per cent. But add in such factors as those claiming incapacity benefit, and it quickly emerges that a scandalous 50 per cent of the working-age population are on out-of-work benefits."
However, you might think as a Labour heartland seat, this should be easy, this sort of seat is apparently what Labour is meant to be about.
Well no.
The people of Glasgow East have been rewarded by their loyalty with Labour by being ignored. Channel 4 reported that the party has as few as three dozen active members in the seat, and that it has never actually campaigned there in recent history on a door to door basis. After all, why would you campaign when those who vote do so as zombies, ticking the same formula as they are told time and time again that only Labour represents the working man, an irony given how the majority don't actually work. The Labour Party doesn't even have a database on the seat's demographics show where it's weakest and strongest. It has taken most of them for granted. With one part of the seat excepted, poor, destitute, welfare ridden, they'll vote Labour - nobody else will bother campaigning in this seriously dire part of Glasgow.
Of course as David Cameron says, the truth is that those in this electorate have, to some extent, given up. Although you do wonder how the inquisitive bright kid in this place fairs, when he risks being beaten up for being "smart", hounded at a school where intelligence makes you a social pariah, where one parent cynically thinks he's getting "too big for his boots", and with temptations towards drugs and other mindless decadence all around. They all vote for the status quo, and get it of course - and get it from a party only too glad that it gets a guaranteed House of Commons vote so it can have power, to look after the floating voter.
You see that's where, hopefully, all that will be proven wrong. This heartland Labour seat speaks volumes about the arrogance of many on the left for those they purport to give a damn about. Labour ignores them, doesn't even have enough local members who LIKE Labour, and the other parties completely ignore them too - until now. What has Labour done for Glasgow East? Kept the benefits flowing, kept the state monopoly schools open, refurbished some housing and left law and order to the gangs.
So the failure of socialist is apparent - starkly apparent. The formula is not more money for state monopolies and welfare. Yet this seat may offer a chance for the taste of change.
I'll leave the end to Fraser Nelson from the Spectator again:
"Labour, forced for the first time to focus attention on one of its ‘safe’ welfare ghettoes, may find it has nothing to say. Is it to promise more of the same? Or blame the wicked Conservatives? It is one thing for Labour to lose the leafy suburbs which Mr Blair won over in 1997. But to be rejected in a supposed heartland like Glasgow East would plunge the party into existential crisis, and rightly so. Because after all those years in power, and all those billions spent, its main legacy has been, quite simply, the most expensive poverty in the world."
3 years ago today
I used the tube twice today, and was gently reminded by coverage in one of the free papers that today is the third anniversary of the terrorist bombings that killed 52 innocent people and injured 700 in London.
It is notable that it had a low profile today. London has been scarred, but neither the economy nor the culture of the city has been substantively hurt. In the regard, the Islamist terrorists did not achieve their goal of frightening Londoners nor frightening the British government to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan.
However I do wonder whether the relative nonchalance is naive, or a reflection of the success of the security forces in combating terrorist plots. I hope the latter, because Britain has paid a high price in individual freedom for security.
There is no doubt that it has proven more difficult than the Islamist terrorists thought to undertake their own filthy form of civil war against British society - but Britain remains vulnerable - and has to remain vigilant. Hopefully the naivete about Islamists who preach jihad in British mosques has been shattered - for too long the UK has relied only on its tolerance to battle the intolerant. The message ought to be that if you, as an individual, wish to declare war on Britain's government and society, you will no longer receive the generosity of tolerance. An (effectively) secular United Kingdom must never be negotiable.
It is notable that it had a low profile today. London has been scarred, but neither the economy nor the culture of the city has been substantively hurt. In the regard, the Islamist terrorists did not achieve their goal of frightening Londoners nor frightening the British government to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan.
However I do wonder whether the relative nonchalance is naive, or a reflection of the success of the security forces in combating terrorist plots. I hope the latter, because Britain has paid a high price in individual freedom for security.
There is no doubt that it has proven more difficult than the Islamist terrorists thought to undertake their own filthy form of civil war against British society - but Britain remains vulnerable - and has to remain vigilant. Hopefully the naivete about Islamists who preach jihad in British mosques has been shattered - for too long the UK has relied only on its tolerance to battle the intolerant. The message ought to be that if you, as an individual, wish to declare war on Britain's government and society, you will no longer receive the generosity of tolerance. An (effectively) secular United Kingdom must never be negotiable.
Gordon austerity Brown tells Britain off
"There are poor kids in Africa who would love that food" says Gordon Brown in effect, as he puts on the school headmaster outfit and tells the UK off for throwing away "too much food".
Like a little protestant guilt monger he snarls at us all, eyes darting from right to left with that dour expression permanently etched on his tightly judgemental face. Already lovingly taking between 20 and 50% of our incomes, because, after all, he knows best how to spend that money (no longer "ours"), he's decided we don't spend the rest of it well either.
According to the Daily Telegraph he said "If we are to get food prices down, we must also do more to deal with unnecessary demand, such as by all of us doing more to cut our food waste which is costing the average household in Britain around £8 per week".
Furthermore "If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat...(whipping sound)". (OK so I made that one up).
Talking to the British public as if they are children is hardly going to endear him with them all, but no doubt he thinks it is good. Maybe he was raised to eat everything off his plate, overcooked dried peas, boiled to a pulp carrots, bland mashed potatoes and lard fried sausage products, and be damned lucky he had that.
Now don't get me wrong, I KNOW people waste food. I do. Sometimes things go off, sometimes something you buy is quite awful (like the pasta we had last night). Maybe some people who moan about it could be more economical, but it's the same about petrol, electricity, clothes, gambling, alcohol, entertainment - hell, anything.
However, what is particularly grating when the G8 summit he has gone to has ensured he is well fed with a banquet including caviar. Yes Gordon, eat up!
What I care about more is whether Gordon can stop his rapacious consumption of taxpayers' money. He bailed out a bank with it, he is pouring money into the Olympics with it, he's pouring money to pay for other people to have easy access to the property market, he's pouring money into a long list of petty welfare projects that are nothing but politics. Gordon, maybe people would be under less stress if you didn't spend so much of their money? By the way, hope the caviar was good, and you saved doggy bags for your constituents.
oh and by the way, next time you want to tell me how to spend the remainder of my money after you took over half through taxes, just fuck off. You're not my moral superior, and the money you take from me already is not that well spent. I learnt enough about being thrifty from my own Scottish Protestant parents, I don't need a highly paid new one who constantly has his hand in my fucking wallet!
Like a little protestant guilt monger he snarls at us all, eyes darting from right to left with that dour expression permanently etched on his tightly judgemental face. Already lovingly taking between 20 and 50% of our incomes, because, after all, he knows best how to spend that money (no longer "ours"), he's decided we don't spend the rest of it well either.
According to the Daily Telegraph he said "If we are to get food prices down, we must also do more to deal with unnecessary demand, such as by all of us doing more to cut our food waste which is costing the average household in Britain around £8 per week".
Furthermore "If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat...(whipping sound)". (OK so I made that one up).
Talking to the British public as if they are children is hardly going to endear him with them all, but no doubt he thinks it is good. Maybe he was raised to eat everything off his plate, overcooked dried peas, boiled to a pulp carrots, bland mashed potatoes and lard fried sausage products, and be damned lucky he had that.
Now don't get me wrong, I KNOW people waste food. I do. Sometimes things go off, sometimes something you buy is quite awful (like the pasta we had last night). Maybe some people who moan about it could be more economical, but it's the same about petrol, electricity, clothes, gambling, alcohol, entertainment - hell, anything.
However, what is particularly grating when the G8 summit he has gone to has ensured he is well fed with a banquet including caviar. Yes Gordon, eat up!
What I care about more is whether Gordon can stop his rapacious consumption of taxpayers' money. He bailed out a bank with it, he is pouring money into the Olympics with it, he's pouring money to pay for other people to have easy access to the property market, he's pouring money into a long list of petty welfare projects that are nothing but politics. Gordon, maybe people would be under less stress if you didn't spend so much of their money? By the way, hope the caviar was good, and you saved doggy bags for your constituents.
oh and by the way, next time you want to tell me how to spend the remainder of my money after you took over half through taxes, just fuck off. You're not my moral superior, and the money you take from me already is not that well spent. I learnt enough about being thrifty from my own Scottish Protestant parents, I don't need a highly paid new one who constantly has his hand in my fucking wallet!
07 July 2008
60 years of NHS- time for a rethink
The past week has seen the BBC and the UK, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the nationalised health service - the NHS. The system based on the openly socialist philosophy that the state should provide health care free at the point of use to all.
The reality of the risks of that system was largely ignored by the Labour Party at the time it was introduced. Britain was bankrupt from World War 2 and the Atlee Labour government used ample funds from the Marshall Plan supplied by the USA (and the UK got more than any other country in post war Europe) to fund its socialist plans of the NHS, iron/steel, coal, railway, bus, truck, airline etc nationalisations. The point that the NHS would result in over demand (with some going to doctors when they had little wrong with them), few incentives for healthy living (you pay the same regardless if you smoke, exercise and eat fatty foods or not), and a lack of accountability for any failure to perform as promised
Now the NHS is probably the UK's biggest sacred cow - it shouldn't be. For years the argument was that it needed more money - Labour did that, increasing NHS spending by 80% in 11 years. Improvements are difficult to see, as most of the extra spending has been sucked up by increased demands and increased pay. Another argument was that there needed to be administrative tinkering, which also has sucked in more money.
The Sunday Telegraph's editorial rather boldly proposes something else - an insurance based model which includes the private sector.
It states that the original vision of the NHS was that it would require less money over time as people became healthier, but ignored that people would expect more over time:
"It was assumed that, as the nation's health improved, so demand for medical treatment would diminish.
People will complain and moan about public health care and fail to recognise the simple truths, that the price of socialised healthcare is queuing, not always getting what you want, and paying the same regardless of your good or bad behaviour. It is time to put healthcare in the hands of those paying for it, by moving towards insurance, private provision and competition. The status quo has failed, and will fail more as the population ages and biotechnology pushes the cost of the best treatment beyond a socialised system. People will simply not tolerate ever increasing taxes for a system that produces ever increasing queues.
The reality of the risks of that system was largely ignored by the Labour Party at the time it was introduced. Britain was bankrupt from World War 2 and the Atlee Labour government used ample funds from the Marshall Plan supplied by the USA (and the UK got more than any other country in post war Europe) to fund its socialist plans of the NHS, iron/steel, coal, railway, bus, truck, airline etc nationalisations. The point that the NHS would result in over demand (with some going to doctors when they had little wrong with them), few incentives for healthy living (you pay the same regardless if you smoke, exercise and eat fatty foods or not), and a lack of accountability for any failure to perform as promised
Now the NHS is probably the UK's biggest sacred cow - it shouldn't be. For years the argument was that it needed more money - Labour did that, increasing NHS spending by 80% in 11 years. Improvements are difficult to see, as most of the extra spending has been sucked up by increased demands and increased pay. Another argument was that there needed to be administrative tinkering, which also has sucked in more money.
The Sunday Telegraph's editorial rather boldly proposes something else - an insurance based model which includes the private sector.
It states that the original vision of the NHS was that it would require less money over time as people became healthier, but ignored that people would expect more over time:
"It was assumed that, as the nation's health improved, so demand for medical treatment would diminish.
But the opposite has proved true. Increasing life expectancy means more people live to an age where they contract diseases that are expensive to treat. People are also less inclined to queue than they were in the austere days of the 1950s.
In a consumerist age, people compare their healthcare with the provision of other services and expect to have the same choice and speed of delivery.
Yet, while the NHS has evolved over the years, its structure and the way it is financed still owe more to a 1940s belief in the efficacy of state monopoly than to the realities of the modern world."
The paper continues, pointing out that both Germany and France have insurance based models with larger private sectors:"Insurance schemes that let people decide how much of their own money to spend on healthcare and top up what they contribute in taxes are the way to bring greater investment into the system. Politicians must prepare the country for the realities that need to be faced; yet the totemic power of the NHS to stifle debate seems undiminished."
Indeed, the incentives of insurance could assist in encouraging people to look after themselves, and manage the costs of healthcare, in particular exposing people to the costs of what they expect. However, it is difficult to see the Tories (much like National in NZ) making any worthwhile change."Proposed Conservative reforms risk replacing Labour top-down targets with their own. The party must be willing to take on producer interests in the NHS and give greater choice to patients by embracing new ideas such as easier access to specialist doctors.
People no longer see the NHS as the property of its practitioners, but of those who pay for it. The NHS must respond to that mood - or voters will want to put their money into something that delivers the care they expect"People will complain and moan about public health care and fail to recognise the simple truths, that the price of socialised healthcare is queuing, not always getting what you want, and paying the same regardless of your good or bad behaviour. It is time to put healthcare in the hands of those paying for it, by moving towards insurance, private provision and competition. The status quo has failed, and will fail more as the population ages and biotechnology pushes the cost of the best treatment beyond a socialised system. People will simply not tolerate ever increasing taxes for a system that produces ever increasing queues.
Drug addict? go on a benefit and don't get treatment
One of the arguments given for the welfare state is how caring and compassionate it is, and how mean, greedy and nasty are the people who actually would rather have their own money back, and then choose to spend it as they see fit, including charity or other acts of genuine benevolence.
The left would argue that the state is best trusted to care for those in need, and those who want tax cuts are less compassionate and moral that they.
So you may ask yourself why, according to the Dominion Post, 5270 drug and alcohol addicts can be on sickness and invalids benefits, defined as those who identify their addiction as the reason they cannot work - AND that none of them are required to engage in any form of treatment as a condition of receiving your money.
Imagine a single charity giving out money to addicts and saying "go on, come back for more every fortnight, and we don't care whether or not you go to treatment".
What is more alarming is the number has gone up so much in a short time "there are 2540 beneficiaries who have drug abuse listed as their primary reason for being unable to work - almost twice the 1297 listed in 2004."
Apparently "case managers could not force beneficiaries into treatment programmes". I would have thought if the government changed benefit eligibility so that if you refuse treatment you cease to get the benefit, it might be an effective way of incentivising them into treatment.
The left would argue that the state is best trusted to care for those in need, and those who want tax cuts are less compassionate and moral that they.
So you may ask yourself why, according to the Dominion Post, 5270 drug and alcohol addicts can be on sickness and invalids benefits, defined as those who identify their addiction as the reason they cannot work - AND that none of them are required to engage in any form of treatment as a condition of receiving your money.
Imagine a single charity giving out money to addicts and saying "go on, come back for more every fortnight, and we don't care whether or not you go to treatment".
What is more alarming is the number has gone up so much in a short time "there are 2540 beneficiaries who have drug abuse listed as their primary reason for being unable to work - almost twice the 1297 listed in 2004."
Apparently "case managers could not force beneficiaries into treatment programmes". I would have thought if the government changed benefit eligibility so that if you refuse treatment you cease to get the benefit, it might be an effective way of incentivising them into treatment.
Work and Income deputy CE Patricia Reade has said though that "Many had other mental or physical health problems which prevented them from working, such as cirrhosis. Alcoholism in itself was not a reason to be off work." So presumably those problems should be listed shouldn't they, not alcoholism. Alcoholism if listed shouldn't be a grounds for the benefit if that is the case.
So what to do?
Now some on the conservative right may say that everyone getting the benefit who is a drug abuser should be incarcerated. That, after all, is what the war on drugs is about isn't it? It makes it a crime to ingest banned substances, so why should people get money for being an addict, and why shouldn't those receiving those benefits get a knock on the door from the cops with search warrants with pending charges? (Then for good measure, being tough on crime and all, if they find nothing, there is benefit fraud from NOT being a drug user!).
The better solution is that, while accepting these benefits exist for now, the system should use a carrot and stick approach to treatment. Addicts who are unable to work because of their addiction should only receive the benefit whilst they undertake treatment (and have been certified as having attended). Similarly, they should not receive the benefit whilst they use. That means testing. Whilst some of those receiving the benefits are no doubt trying on the system, others will be sad cases - feeling trapped and alone, and unsure what to do. Pulling the money away unless they undertake treatment is the only kind thing that can be done in those circumstances. You'll find the ones who are trying on the system will drop out, and maybe those who are in genuine need drop out after weeks and months of help (helping their families too).Now some on the conservative right may say that everyone getting the benefit who is a drug abuser should be incarcerated. That, after all, is what the war on drugs is about isn't it? It makes it a crime to ingest banned substances, so why should people get money for being an addict, and why shouldn't those receiving those benefits get a knock on the door from the cops with search warrants with pending charges? (Then for good measure, being tough on crime and all, if they find nothing, there is benefit fraud from NOT being a drug user!).
You see it's how private welfare would ultimately work.
It is kinder than the mad Green idea of throwing more money at beneficiaries, kinder than Labour's "here's the money now you could seek treatment, but if you don't just see your doctor every 13 weeks and if you're still an addict, we''ll keep paying you", and kinder than the "throw you in jail for being a (drug) addict" of the "tough on crime" brigade.
06 July 2008
Hitchens tries waterboarding
One of the most controversial actions of the Bush Administration has been the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique at Guantanamo Bay for terrorism suspects.
Critics have described it as torture - and the use of torture by a liberal democracy is an abomination, it markedly weakens the moral position of those who wish to defend free secular society from the tyranny of dictatorships whether theocratic, nationalist, Marxist or otherwise. One of the dividing lines between civilisation and the barbarity of tyranny is the unwillingness of civilised states to inflict physical harm and pain upon those it incarcerates or to use the deliberate infliction of pain to seek confessions. It is not because it is always unreliable, at times it is not. Those enduring pain that would otherwise drive you mad are more likely to do what is necessary to avoid it continuing, than concoct some elaborate fantasy. Which is why some soldiers receive waterboarding as training to prepare in the event that they face the horrors of an enemy which wouldn't dare have this debate. The preparation is because of genuine fear that torture produces results.
However torture is wrong. Interrogations are not meant to be fun, they are harrowing, lengthy and can deprive the suspect of comfort and some sleep - but they should not cross the threshold of actually inflicting pain and suffering. To inflict such suffering upon one who may be innocent is simply sadism, to trust the evidence of one who confessed or revealed information under threat of pain is far more questionable than a confession given freely.
So what is waterboarding? Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens decided to find out first hand. His account is here. As far as he was concerned it was torture to go through with it, but he also gives the argument against it. He takes a considered view which gives me pause for thought, in both directions.
"a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay....On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."
The counter is a number of arguments, but ones that I find most compelling:
"It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. ... To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “not all of it reliable.”
Critics have described it as torture - and the use of torture by a liberal democracy is an abomination, it markedly weakens the moral position of those who wish to defend free secular society from the tyranny of dictatorships whether theocratic, nationalist, Marxist or otherwise. One of the dividing lines between civilisation and the barbarity of tyranny is the unwillingness of civilised states to inflict physical harm and pain upon those it incarcerates or to use the deliberate infliction of pain to seek confessions. It is not because it is always unreliable, at times it is not. Those enduring pain that would otherwise drive you mad are more likely to do what is necessary to avoid it continuing, than concoct some elaborate fantasy. Which is why some soldiers receive waterboarding as training to prepare in the event that they face the horrors of an enemy which wouldn't dare have this debate. The preparation is because of genuine fear that torture produces results.
However torture is wrong. Interrogations are not meant to be fun, they are harrowing, lengthy and can deprive the suspect of comfort and some sleep - but they should not cross the threshold of actually inflicting pain and suffering. To inflict such suffering upon one who may be innocent is simply sadism, to trust the evidence of one who confessed or revealed information under threat of pain is far more questionable than a confession given freely.
So what is waterboarding? Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens decided to find out first hand. His account is here. As far as he was concerned it was torture to go through with it, but he also gives the argument against it. He takes a considered view which gives me pause for thought, in both directions.
"a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay....On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint."
The counter is a number of arguments, but ones that I find most compelling:
"It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. ... To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “not all of it reliable.”
It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack."
If you could prove that a crime you had been accused of had been confessed by you because the Police tied you and shot water up your nostrils repeatedly, your confession would be meaningless. This is, of course, completely right and appropriate in our judicial system. However, even taking the argument that this is a form of war, the question of where you draw the line emerges.
Finally:
"One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true?"
Read for yourself, there is little doubt that waterboarding has helped extract information of value in the war against Islamist terrorism. However, the line that has been crossed is a dangerous one, and one that must be subject to full, free and frank debate. It is not a debate between those who want to be soft on Islamist terror and those who are sadistic fascists - it should be a debate about what constitutes that behaviour which is acceptable for the governments of Western free democracies to undertake. Waterboarding is, as Hitchens said, foreplay compared to how Al Qaeda operates, or Iran or North Korea or China, or indeed many other countries. The moral equivalency some on the left, including Amnesty International, applies to this is repulsive, but somewhat inevitable. I look forward to our friends on the left waging an orchestrated protest and campaign against Camp 22 in North Korea for example. However, a line has been crossed which gives reason to say the US engages in torture.
Hitchens is not soft on terrorism or Islamists, neither am I. I believe it slightly undermines the moral authority we have against Islamists who seek to portray Western secular societies as corrupt and cruel - yet it also may well have saved lives. Do the ends justify the means?
05 July 2008
Video shows the complete fraud of Zimbabwe's election
Shepherd Yuda has fled Zimbabwe with his family, but not before he secretly filmed the most recent election. Yuda was a prison officer who decided to film what he could covertly, with assistance from The Guardian.
The story is here, with the video. It graphically shows how the ballot was anything but secret, but was cast in front of one of the so-called war heroes - you know a bit like Japanese war heroes in Korea and China during and before WW2 - thugs. In other words, they know who you voted for and you are told that MDC will never win.
The UN Security Council is debating a resolution to freeze the financial assets of Mugabe and other top members of the regime and impose a travel ban. The International Herald Tribune says Russia and China are unenthused, but considering whether or not to veto, and South Africa is thinking about it.
Russia I expect little from, murdering kleptocrats as they are. China, ditto given how they treat dissidents. South Africa? Morality can't piss on this regime of capitulating sycophants to tyranny. Seriously, who else has had enough of the South African government, that acts the high mighty and moral, but feeds, powers and shakes the blood dripping hands of their murderous friend and comrade. After all, would you shake hands with someone protecting and friends with their murdering rapist neighbour?
The story is here, with the video. It graphically shows how the ballot was anything but secret, but was cast in front of one of the so-called war heroes - you know a bit like Japanese war heroes in Korea and China during and before WW2 - thugs. In other words, they know who you voted for and you are told that MDC will never win.
The UN Security Council is debating a resolution to freeze the financial assets of Mugabe and other top members of the regime and impose a travel ban. The International Herald Tribune says Russia and China are unenthused, but considering whether or not to veto, and South Africa is thinking about it.
Russia I expect little from, murdering kleptocrats as they are. China, ditto given how they treat dissidents. South Africa? Morality can't piss on this regime of capitulating sycophants to tyranny. Seriously, who else has had enough of the South African government, that acts the high mighty and moral, but feeds, powers and shakes the blood dripping hands of their murderous friend and comrade. After all, would you shake hands with someone protecting and friends with their murdering rapist neighbour?
4th of July
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Beautiful words, thank you USA. For all the flaws, and the criticisms, you still are the repositary of the idea that government is the extension of the rights of the governed, not governing subjects.
Now to think simply this, can all the powers of government ever be legitimately more than the rights that the citizens have themselves? (self defence) and if so, why? How can government by the people, for the people have rights that the people themselves cannot delegate?
Without the Declaration of Independence, this question may not have been answered for some time - and that is why it is worthwhile to celebrate the 4th of July.
Beautiful words, thank you USA. For all the flaws, and the criticisms, you still are the repositary of the idea that government is the extension of the rights of the governed, not governing subjects.
Now to think simply this, can all the powers of government ever be legitimately more than the rights that the citizens have themselves? (self defence) and if so, why? How can government by the people, for the people have rights that the people themselves cannot delegate?
Without the Declaration of Independence, this question may not have been answered for some time - and that is why it is worthwhile to celebrate the 4th of July.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)