So you want a new Prime Minister?

Well New Zealand, after nearly nine years of Helen Clark telling you what to do, Michael Cullen spending a third of your money, buying back an airline that would've survived had he just let Singaporeans buy it, buying back a railway that would've survived (albeit smaller) had he just let it be, and pouring a fortune into growing the bureaucracy and improving health care (noticed that?), you want a new team.

Clark has been getting support from Mr. Anderton, and on and off the Greens, United Future and NZ First. So really you wont want to be giving any of that lot a chance will you?

So now that you've come looking you need to say what you want in a new Prime Minister. You know he (unlikely to be a she this time round) will bring a whole new team on board, which other than the word "new" isn't saying much until you judge what they will do. So what do you want to change?

Oh. You're just "fed up with the current lot"? You want to "give the other lot a go"? Yes I understand you don't like Labour and Clark (besides that third of you who either notice all the money that Labour took from others to give to you, or don't trust anyone else), but what do you want to change?

Too much tax? Well that John Key fellow says he'll cut that, don't ask how much, he's not saying yet.

You don't like the government wasting money? Well John Key wont shut down any departments, he says he'll be more prudent, but he doesn't really want to do much different at all.

You don't think health care is getting better? Well John Key wont do much different either, he's still running it all bureaucratically, making everyone pay the same whether they look after themselves or not.

You don't really know WHAT you want do you? You don't seem to want less government, you don't seem to want more government, you don't want to make your own decisions about education, healthcare and retirement.

You just want different people, same policies right? That must be why you're choosing National.

Because if you wanted to go to the left, the Greens would be doing well.
If you wanted to have less government ACT and the Libertarianz would be doing well.

Funny lot you are really - and what's the bet that after three more years you'll be complaining that things aren't any better. However, I guess TVNZ and TV3 news pander to your rather banal view of the world - you're convinced governments can "fix things" rather than being the cause of the problem, you're convinced you can't be trusted to choose the schools for your kids and for the funding to follow the kids, you're convinced that you're better off letting politicians and bureaucrats sort out health care rather than buy your own insurance, and you like being made to own power companies, accident insurance, postal company, banks, airline, railway and covering the losses of any of them.

Not only that you seem to want the government to take more taxes to spend on building a telecommunications network you might not use, even though elsewhere in the world the private sector seems happy to finance and do it themselves. You want the railway that you almost never use to have more money spent on it than it is worth, because you want to subsidise moving coal, milk, logs and containers. You want to pay for an emissions trading scheme that wont make a jot of difference to so-called climate change.

So you're not voting for change are you really? You just want new faces.

Where does the bear's paw hit next?

With Russia now comfortably ensconced in parts of Georgia, complaining when the US sends a military transport to Tbilisi airport (why should it be of concern to Russia if a sovereign neighbour has a friendly neighbour visiting?), occupying parts of Gori, and essentially lying about withdrawal - where next?

Well Russia appears willing to respond when "provoked" and the Daily Telegraph has outlined why some other Russian neighbours are nervous - particularly Ukraine, where Russia has a naval base in Crimea.

What it does mean is that NATO membership expansion should continue, with Albania and Croatia clearly next in line, with Bosnia and Montenegro next. However the bigger issues are Georgia and Ukraine.

Both have been delayed in receiving a "membership action plan" for NATO, partly to appease Russia - which is a shame, and the consequences are clear. What happens if Ukraine ceases to extend Russia's lease on the land in Crimea for its base? What happens if Russia effectively annexes Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Oh and by the way, noticed the protests from the so-called "peace movement" at Russian embassies, burning Russian flags for its military aggression? Me neither.

China's latest Olympic lie

Since the Communist Party came to power in China, its regime has long presented a show pony to the world of how much the Han Chinese dominated one party state respects and listens to the ethnic minorities of China. It is not only sensitivity about what the world thinks, but also to present a united "one China, many faces" ideal. It is most regularly seen at the Congresses to the Communist Party of China (CPC) where representatives from provinces such as Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are all expected to wear traditional "national" dress, to distinguish them and show that the CPC grants and commands respect (and obedience) from the Chinese ethnic minorities.

In the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony the same was seen with 56 children dressed in the native costumes of ethnic minorities within the People's Republic of China - except they were all Han Chinese children according to a report in the Daily Telegraph.

Again Chinese officials have been willing to answer obfuscate questions around this saying "I would argue it is normal for dancers, performers, to be dressed in other races' clothes".

The unspoken truth about China is that it is quite racist, it is the norm to regard other ethnic groups as inferior. Don't forget the Han Chinese form around 90% of the population of China (including Taiwan) and there has been no need for China, unlike the USA, ex. European colonial powers or subjects, to confront racial bigotry.

The fact the children are Han Chinese will be neither here nor there to most Chinese, and yes in truth it is of small consequence - but it does raise the question as to why the Chinese Communist regime did NOT simply find some children from the ethnic minorities. It also raises the question of the truth of how these ethnic minorities are treated by the state - we hear much about Tibet, but what do we not know? Maybe it isn't much different from the majority, maybe not, and not having a free press means people outside China will predominantly assume the worse.

Branson the whinging entrepreneur

I have before said that Sir Richard Branson or "Beardie" as Jeremy Clarkson likes to call him, is far more about style than substance. One need only see his latest bleatings to show how little of a true entrepreneur he really is.

British Airways, American Airlines and Iberia (and to a lesser extent Finnair and Royal Jordanian) are all seeking immunity from competition authorities in the EU and USA to allow them to codeshare and more closely integrate their networks. Hardly surprising with high jetfuel prices, intense competition between and within Europe and North America, and as all three are in the OneWorld alliance.

Skyteam alliance airlines Air France/KLM (which has by far the plurality of slots at both Paris Charles de Gaule and Amsterdam Schiphol airports) already have this with partner airlines Northwest and Delta, as do Star Alliance airlines Lufthansa and United. Lufthansa has dominance in airport slots at both Frankfurt and Munich.

Beardie is upset because BA has 42% of slots at Heathrow, and American around 6%. He said "If this monster monopoly is approved it will be third time unlucky for consumers. It will still be bad for passengers, bad for competition, and bad for the UK and US aviation industries."

Let's see what this "monopoly" looks like:

London to New York you can fly on BA, AA, Virgin Atlantic, Delta, Continental, Air India, Kuwait Airways.
London to LA you can fly on BA, AA, Virgin Atlantic, United, Air France, Air NZ.
London to Chicago you can fly on BA, AA, United, Virgin Atlantic, Air India.

Of course you can fly indirectly on these routes through Europe, Canada and other US destinations on umpteen airlines, a lot cheaper than the direct routes typically.

There is also no legal restriction on any US or European airline entering any TransAtlantic routes (although landing slots at Heathrow are at a premium, Delta, Continental and Northwest got some earlier this year without enormous effort). Monopoly? Hardly!

Let's compare that to trains between London and Manchester - how many operators run that? Oh yes, one - Virgin Trains, and it gets hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies from British taxpayers to do this. Of course there is competition by air and road Beardie would say, of course he would - he isn't involved in monopolies now is he?

So why does BA have so many slots? Well Heathrow is BA's hub, like Frankfurt is Lufthansa's and CDG is Air France, and Schiphol is KLM's. You don't operate an airline that flies within the UK or around Europe at all, so it's no bloody wonder you have less. There are, of course, several European airlines over the years that have gone bust you could have bought and revived, but I don't see you doing that - not going to buy out and rename Alitalia, Virgin Italia?

You might see what Chairman (and majority owner) of BMI - Sir Michael Bishop - another competitor of yours (and BAs), with the 2nd highest number of slots - has said instead "I think things have changed after open skies and they are not setting any precedents. What BA is asking for is what both the other major alliances already have." according to the Daily Telegraph.

So Beardie - compete, make your own arrangements (you already have a codeshare deal with Continental, but I'm sure it's not as lucrative now Continental has agreed to join Star Alliance) and don't pretend that somehow AA gives BA anything more except closer integration to the US domestic market. Why don't you fly from Frankfurt, Schiphol or CDG? Why don't you seek to closely integrate with BMI? Why is Singapore Airlines finding it hard to sell its 49% stake in your floundering airline?

A real entrepreneur responds with a competitive challenge by outsmarting and outdoing the competition - stop running to Nanny State to protect your business and work it out - an airline dedicated to nothing but long haul flights from the UK, with only a smidgeon of partners feeding it, is not a sustainable business. It's not the fault of BA that it's figured out where the future is and you haven't. What are you scared of? Most British business class travellers wouldn't touch American Airlines for obvious reasons and if fares "go up" you benefit if there is less capacity on the route? Or is this maverick "I'm all for competition" all style over substance?

Is that why you're spending money lobbying Barack Obama and John McCain to protect your impotent business?

Why phase out national superannuation?

Read this Op-Ed from the Ayn Rand Institute published on SOLO - replace Social Security in the US context with National Superannuation in the New Zealand context.

Add in the fact that those who die before they reach retirement age get nothing, nor do their spouses or children or anyone else in their will, from the years of compulsory contribution by taxes. The state has thieved those taxes to pay for someone else or something else. This particularly affects Maori, who have lower life expectancy.

National superannuation is an enormous fraud, and it is about time that it was slowly phased out to let people choose how to save for their retirement. The most painless way would be to cease increasing national superannuation in nominal terms, and recycle the savings through tax cuts.

However I advocate a far more aggressive approach. One option is that people of certain ages are told they will receive a range from 90-10% of current national superannuation on retirement, nominally. In return, all people of those ages get a tax cut to allow them to save, invest or whatever. On retirement the state pays out the proportion that was promised and no more. A simpler approach would be to grant people a lump sum to buy a contributory pension or any investment, with provision for those too close to retirement to invest (given they spent most of their lives paying tax for others to have national superannuation).

Is it not telling that the fraud of national superannuation isn't even on the agenda in New Zealand? What other retirement fund could get away with the shockingly poor returns of national superannuation?

Breasts offensive?

It will be a fine day in New Zealand when city councillors find their own enthusiastic willingness to makes other people pay for projects that people wouldn’t choose to pay out of their own pocket more offensive than women showing their breasts in public.

Trying to prosecute women exposing a part of their body which should not be seen as offensive (they feed children and please many men, and some women) is simply fascist. It is curious that the feminist left (in the form of the bizarre councillor Cathy Casey) and the conservative right both think womens' breasts are so appalling that it should be a crime to show them - like the Taliban and Iranian mullahs think of breasts.

The NZ Herald reports: Ms Casey is also threatening to lie across Queen St with friends to stop the parade.

I don't want to see this parade, but Ms. Casey? Get a real job - who gives a rat's arse if you are offended by breasts, how can you possibly bathe everyday seeing such offensive parts of your body? Leave peaceful people alone.

Family First National director Bob McCoskrie not to be outdone says it is "sexualised nudity in a public street that is offensive to many people and completely inappropriate for young people and children to view"

What this means is that it risks turning him on. Bob, your organisation is offensive to many people too, should we ban it? Breasts seem to be ok to feed babies from, but you don't want to explain to young people that there are part of women's bodies and what their purpose is?

Of course, it's the best publicity Steve Crow could ask for, it makes it far more interesting to people than it would be otherwise. After all if bare breasts were not an issue in New Zealand culture, then it wouldn't have the potency that it currently does. My suggestion to those who find it offensive is simple - don't go.

NewZeal/Trevor Loudon is back

and NewZeal has had a major facelift.

Welcome back Trevor, your intensive research into modern day leftwing "luminaries" will be enlightening as the election comes closer, but I am also fascinated about Barack Obama's socialist past.

I don't always agree with Trevor, for example on China, but he is a committed opponent to the vile bankrupt philosophy of Marxism and can run rings around anyone looking at some of the apologists for murderers who now reside in the Greens and I suspect the Maori Party as well. I look forward to him updating such posts, and perhaps reviewing the party lists for such lowlifes.

Where is it safer in London?

Go to the London Metropolitan Police website crime map and check it out, well for burglary, robbery and vehicle crime anyway. I've only lived in "average" suburbs, hmmm. However it is a bit messy, and is hardly a good guide in itself about where to live.

Energy policy that is economically sound

Since National has shown a lack of imagination, (which Not PC has ably exposed for the vacuousness that it is)

The Greens are scaremongering about gas, and constantly talking about "we" lose control and "our" energy, as if they somehow own what others produce, sell and buy.

So what should be done about energy? Well here are my thoughts:

1. Remove the legal restriction that prevents local lines companies from investing in generation.
2. Replace the RMA with a comprehensive legal framework for land use based on private property rights, including rights to air, adjacent waterways and sight lines based on long standing past planning approvals.
3. Remove sector specific legal barriers to building any kinds of power plants. Whether any are built should be based upon commercial assessment by the private sector.
4. Sell 49% interests in all three government generating/retail companies to separate buyers partially as injections of new capital. Issue remaining shares to all New Zealand citizens. Adopt a similar approach to Transpower. Investment in new generation and transmission is unlikely when the government controls 70% of the market.
5. Cease funding EECA and subsidies for energy efficiency.
6. Abolish the Electricity Commission.
7. Require local authorities to privatise their ownership of local electricity lines companies, so that underinvestment in those companies can be addressed by a combination of new capital and private entrepreneurship.
8. Give no subsidies, assistance or preferences to "alternative energy" including biofuels. New fuels should survive on their merits.
9. Abolish the proposed regional fuel taxes, existing local authority petroleum tax and inflation indexing of fuel tax. New funding for roads should come directly from charging road users by road owners.

Because, after all, why do you think politicians know any more about what energy supplies New Zealanders should and will use today than Rob Muldoon and Bill Birch thought they did in the late 1970s and early 80s?

Hating the rich because it meets your needs

Giles Coren is a brilliant writer, and in the Times he has systematically demolished the banal, finger pointing superiority seeking envy driven nonsense of infamous leftwing writer Polly Toynbee:

He starts:
"Leafing through The Guardian this week, I have been gripped by extracts from a new book by Polly Toynbee and David Walker, Unjust Rewards, in which the two Guardian stalwarts interview loads of rich people and discover that... they're not very nice.

Who would have thought? It's lucky we have The Guardian to get to the nub of things for us with its unique blend of snobbery, bitterness, jealousy and thwarted ambition, cobbled together with the tawdry and risible clichés its readers have thrilled to for years."

Well honestly Giles, if you WILL read the Guardian - the newspaper for the leftwing intelligentsia, that fawns over Castro, remains uncomfortably aligned with new Labour (where else can they go? Lib Dems? pfft The Independent already is up their arse) and scrapes out an existence from its onanistic sarcastic snivelling socialists.

Go on, think of it as an well aimed kick at the heart of the pinups of the left - Idiot Savant likes Polly Toynbee - and you do wonder what she does everyday to help the poor, besides helping sustain a newspaper that they wrap their fish and chips in.

Sorry Rodney?

Blair Mulholland reports that Rodney Hide at a recent ACT regional conference stated that "he supported making it illegal to insult cops"

Blair understandably is outraged - the Police SHOULD be accountable when people are upset due to negligence, recklessness or being bloody minded bullies.

So is this true Rodney? Does the liberal party want to make it a crime to tell a cop he's being useless? Can other ACTivists enlighten, enquire, confirm or deny? Just when I was starting to give ACT the benefit of the doubt.

Kedgley's latest hysterical scaremongering

Yes, it's that old bogey the cellphone tower. Why does she hate them so, even though she uses cellphones? Well it's simple:

1. It's new technology. Yes, new, not old, traditional, nostalgic like trains, it's new, so we should be wary, cautious, don't move too fast. Remember talking in person was always good until letters were proven safe, then after that twisted wire copper phone lines. However cellphones? No. The towers haven't been proved safe have they? (neither have many foods, but nevermind - evade).

2. It's technology used a lot by businesspeople. Yes those selfish child eating, worker crushing lowlife who would sell all the poor people into Chinese sweat shops and steal crusts from begging children, boot pensioners out of their homes so they could build parties to drink expensive French champagne and drive their big SUVs to pollute the world. Cellphones aren't used much by... oops that argument doesn't wash anymore does it?

3. Private enterprise builds cellphone towers. PRIVATE! Not like the loving caring community centred Kiwirail building railways in Auckland. Private companies make profits!! Yes they spend money to make MORE money. How evil is that? Yes and when you make a profit you don't care how you do it, even if it involves taking blood from poor people, and making the elderly run on treadmills to generate power. You can't trust private enterprise!!

4. Cellphone towers involve electromagnetic radiation. What? Radiation? Ohhh like Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Mururoa. We know that kills you. Non Ionising? Oh stop with your Western non-feminist scientific rational mumbo-jumbo, PROVE it's safe? Yeah go on - it's radiation! It MUST be bad.

Kedgley's deranged attack on cellphone towers can be outed for the sheer stupidity that it is by pointing out a few little facts about electro-magnetic radiation:

1. The average person gets far more exposure from a computer screen/ TV screen (CRT or not) that they would if they lived adjacent to a cellphone tower. People with home WIFI networks also are exposing themselves to a greater level of exposure.

2. People have been living in close proximity to major radio transmitters for up to three generations with no reported ill effects. For example, Wellingtonians in Khandallah, Johnsonville and Ngaio live under the bathing radiation of the Kaukau transmitter site which transmits 10 TV channels and more FM radio stations at levels many times that of a cellphone tower. Those in Titahi Bay live adjacent to AM transmitters that target a range as distant as Hawera to the north and Blenheim to the south. A friend working in this field in Australia pointed out to some people in a community concerned about cellphone towers that they faced much greater exposure from TV transmitters 24 hours a day - to which the community responded "don't take away TV"!

3. Far more important is personal use of cellphones and laptops with WIFI. There is some anecdotal evidence indicating that sustained close exposure to these devices causes some localised heating which may pose some sort of risk. It is far from proven, but worth taking care about. Kedgley surprisingly hasn't ordered laws protecting people from talking too long on cellphones.

She funnily enough says "It is bizarre that while people need a resource consent to alter their homes, even in a minor way, telecommunications companies can erect 12 to 22 metre cell towers around New Zealand without needing any resource consent, or even to consult with the local community."

It is bizarre Sue - bizarre that people should ever need a resource consent to alter THEIR homes. THEIR P.R.O.P.E.R.T.Y. I know you don't understand the concept. However well done evading the point that if a new cellsite is created it DOES need a resource consent - the lack of consent is only needed for existing sites that are able to be used for this purpose.

Oh and Sue, there are cellphone transmitters on buildings all over cities, you can't even tell they are there, keep an eye open next time you drive through town.

Is Russia really that strong?

Richard Beeston in The Times thinks not:

Flush with billions from the sale of oil and gas, the Kremlin may calculate that it does not need allies in the West and would rather be respected and feared than befriended.

That too would be a serious mistake. For all its big-power bluster, Russia is weak and vulnerable. Russian tanks and aircraft may have smashed the fledgeling Georgian Army with ease, but most of the weaponry was Cold War-era and many of the troops conscripts. Anyone who has seen the Russian Army operating in the Caucasus knows that the military will need a generation to modernise. Meanwhile America, and its main Nato allies, are decades ahead in military technology and combat experience.

Russia is also facing a severe demographic crisis. Its population is shrinking by 700,000 people a year. The UN estimates the population will fall below 100 million by 2050, down from around 146 million today.

Indeed, Russia's economy is only booming because of oil and gas. It has nothing else. Now Saudi Arabia, Brunei and other countries have thrived just on energy, but that's it. Not technology, not manufacturing beyond arms, not services.

It doesn't mean Russia shouldn't be deterred, but it is not an equal to the USA, or even China. What it can do is so limited by generations of crushing conformity, authoritarianism and the suppression of innovation, variety, diversity and entrepreneurship. It is not a reason to be complacent, but also not a reason to really fear Russia - it hasn't got anything else to scare the world besides its aging nukes.

Who deters Russia?

The UN? Hardly, given the Security Council gives Russia a veto - like the USSR had throughout the Cold War. It is blatantly powerless.

The so-called "peace movement"? Yes, they may get upset at Russia, but really some will be glad there is a powerful challenge to the US as the only superpower. The "peace movement" is only interested in surrender of fighting, it would have surrendered East Asia to Japan, continental Europe to Nazi Germany, South Korea to North Korea, just as it surrendered South Vietnam to North Vietnam.

There is only one option - the USA, bolstered by NATO. NATO's rejection of Georgia and Ukraine's membership bids recently was done partly out of fear of "upsetting Russia". There are other reasons to withhold, but still progress membership. Georgia is paying the price for it.

It isn't quite a new Cold War, but Russia is flexing itself. If it gets away with effectively annexing parts of Georgia, it may try again against Ukraine, it almost certainly will claim more of the Arctic, and may treat Belarus more as an extension of itself - particularly if Lukashenko can be deposed.

The only way to deter this effectively is for states which are friendly to the values of freedom, liberal democracy and open transparent government to be aligned with NATO - and for NATO's implicit nuclear umbrella to be extended to them.

This wont impress the left, many of whom miss the USSR - but it is in all our interests once and for all to contain Russia's ambitions. Russia is today a fascist state, with a governing party that faces no real challenge, a media either owned by the state or those compliant with the state, and a leadership aggressive, militaristic and with little hesitation to spill blood. If it wants to be treated as a civilised country it needs to treat its neighbours with respect, even if most of its citizens are comfortable with being pushed around by the bullies who run it.

Charles engages in anti-GM hysteria

One of the UK's biggest beneficiaries, Prince Charles, is in the Daily Telegraph today saying:

"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.

"And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."

He gets hundreds of thousands of pounds of subsidies every year from Brussels, subsidies that prop up your farms against competition from more efficient farmers in other countries, from South America to Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand.

He's also a widely esteemed biologist and scientist of course, oh no that's right, he talks to plants and embraces a wide range of religions. Qualifications for the future Head of State to express such controversial views surely.

Hasn't this untrained bludger off of European taxpayers disqualified himself from being a future apolitical head of state often enough?

Why do the Greens let Cuba off?

The Green Party Frogblog waxes lyrically about Cuba albeit with the statement "While I’m not endorsing Cuba or Castro...", whilst noting that it has "an almost complete lack of democracy" (but not ever mentioning the complete lack of freedom of speech, no independent press, the use of mental hospitals as political prisons and its execution of political prisoners) it says:

"I’m always amazed that we don’t give it more credit for some of the amazing feats it has achieved, given it’s enforced isolation from the world. It has an enviable literacy rate and trains an astonishing number of doctors"

So why believe that? Who knows what the literacy rate is? In North Korea it is apparently very good too, Ceausescu's Romania used to proclaim great statistics for health, education and standards of living - all lies though, because that's what totalitarian states do. Are Cuba's doctors any good? Who knows?

As long as Cuba bans any form of free speech, free press and independent journalists investigating any aspect of life there, including interviewing local residents without them fearing reprisals - you can't really say much about Cuba other than it is an authoritarian one-party state.

What else did Winston do?

Oh really you DO have to laugh. Winston making speeches condemning National for its rather heavy handed electricity reforms in the late 1990s, which NZ First voted for as National's coalition partner AND fully supported.

The NZ Herald describes this delicious irony, which of course Winston tried to evade assuming his largely elderly audience aren't au fait enough with the history of the energy sector to remember what he did when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

So just to aid in jogging Winston's memory:

New Zealand First promotes electricity reforms - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 07/04/1998
A better deal for electricity consumers - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 07/04/1998

He also agreed on the scoping of the part privatisation of TVNZ

Terms of Reference for TVNZ Scoping Study - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 05/05/1998

In his 1998 budget he announced opening up the ACC employer account to competition and the abolition of tariffs on imported motor vehicles - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 14/05/1998

He announces how NZers get first call on the privatisation of Auckland airport - Rt Hon Winston Peters - 04/06/1998. He has other press releases promoting it.

So Winston, given you supported the electricity reforms, supported privatising Auckland airport, supported a study into part privatisation of TVNZ, supported ending import restrictions on motor vehicles - going to rail against other moves to increase competition and reduce the size of the state?

Abortion: should there be a wider debate?

Abortion has for a long time been in the political "too hard basket" in New Zealand. It is a subject that fires up two considerable minorities of people, passionately, with a degree of bitter hatred on both sides. Many are aware of how in the USA this has seen violence be exercised by opponents of abortion.

The debate has long been dominated by fundamentalists on both sides. Conservatives who believe that replicating human cells have the status of a human life no different from any other and feminists who believe that a foetus inside a womb is simply part of the mother's body, and she must have absolute control over that. I believe a majority of people reject both views.

However, the legal status quo in New Zealand arguably gives scope for both views to be disenchanted, but not enough for them to be particularly agitated.

Anita at No Right Turn describes the issue well.

The law as it stands looks like it confines abortion to categories that I believe the majority of New Zealanders would agree with. They come down to putting the woman's health above the foetus, permitting abortion in cases of rape and incest (as cases where the woman has been violated) and the more troubling case of endangering the woman's mental health.

However, the practical effect of this has been to interpret "mental health" far beyond that which was intended by some of the legislators at the time.

No Right Turn argues that there needs to be a political debate about this, because the application of the law depends entirely upon the people selected for the Abortion Supervisory Committee. No surprise where that blog would take the issue, but my views on it are not as liberal. In fact, the one point I would assert first and foremost is that given the depth of feeling about abortion, and the moral outrage so many have, the state simply should not fund abortions. It is highly inappropriate for people to be forced to pay for something that so deeply offends them ethically, and which in itself is about drawing a line somewhere between the extremes I described.

If the debate is to start, it needs to avoid, as much as possible, ethics driven purely from religion or from identity politics, and look at what the salient issue is - when does a human being exist and what rights does it have. I find the notion that a dollop of replicating cells are equivalent to a baby to be ludicrous, but I also find the notion that an 8 month old foetus is disposable due to inconvenience to be murderous.

Abortion wont be an election issue. Neither major party wants to fire up one or the other side on this issue, especially when each side names itself something that most people couldn't disagree with, on the face of it - who isn't "pro-life"? who isn't "pro-choice"?

However, a mature debate is important. It is not one to be afraid of, as long as all those involved employ reason, not abuse as their common currency. You see from my perspective, I'm a libertarian - choice to me is fundamental, and as an objectivist, I also value life as the highest value. In addition, it is plausible that had abortion on demand been available at the time I was conceived, I may not be here. That doesn't fire me up, but it makes me think.

Who is TVNZ scared of offending?

Blair Mulholland posts on a music video TVNZ wont show, because it depicts kids drinking milk in an adult party environment. Go have a look and see if you find it more corrupting than anything else TVNZ shows kids. Ask yourself whether the state owned broadcaster should be making those decisions.

Ask yourself why there should be a state owned broadcaster at all!

China is changing

I'm less surprised that, Lin Maoke, the little girl shown singing in the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, was lip syncing, because Chinese Communist politicians decided the little girl REALLY singing, Yang Peiyi did not meet the criteria that "The child on camera should be flawless in image, internal feelings, and expression" (reports CNN). The Communist Party of China has been lying to its people and the world incessantly for the past sixty years.

What is most notable is that the General Music Designer of the ceremony actually revealed the fact, and revealed it on Chinese state radio, and it was reported, and presumably with little consequences for the man concerned - Chen Qigang.

This is the kind of honesty and openness unknown in the China that Sue Bradford went to 35 years ago, and dare I say even 10 years ago. Chinese bloggers are debating it and some condemning it. China is changing if one looks closely.

It goes without saying that the replacement of the child for one "cuter" is rather distasteful to many of us, who find the idea that some aging communist official could deem the appearance of a child to be not good enough for the nation to be abhorrent. I'm sure those who made this decision are hardly picture postcards of beauty themselves, in fact they have proved themselves to be so.

However, allowing this debate does show a change, one that is positive, and which puts China well ahead of the likes of Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and Burma. May debate on other official decisions flourish.