McCarten aligns with paramilitaries and fascists

Former genius Alliance President Matt McCarten (who presided over the demise of the party from power) has sadly shown himself to be a predictable vapid cheerleader against the US government and the Georgian government in his latest article in the NZ Herald.

McCarten's thesis is rather convulated:
- Georgia starting the bombing and killing in South Ossetia (true);
- Georgia was killing Russian peacekeepers (well if you call the Russian Army, uninvited by Georgia and uninvited by the UN, peacekeepers - but Matt seems to think the UN isn't important on this one);
- Ossetians are a different culture and language, and didn't want to be in Georgia (true, but South Ossetia contained Georgians too, who Matt ignores);
- A peace agreement was reached giving South Ossetia autonomy with Russian peacekeepers (false, Georgia surrendered against strong Russian backing of South Ossetian paramilitaries, but agreed to cease fighting with a coalition of Georgian and Russian peacekeepers. Georgia retained control of some parts of South Ossetia).
- There was a wider agreement that countries bordering Russia wouldn't join NATO or allow foreign military bases on their soil (false, Ukraine already had one it is Russian)
- "American political consultants" (you know, the devil incarnate) were creating and managing "anti-Russian" parties, like the one led by Mikheil Saakashvili. Somehow this is sinister
- Saakashvili's party swept to power which is when "the real mischief began" according to Matt. Matt ignores that this happened following massive public protests against rigged elections, following many years of corrupt government that had strong military backing. He conveniently ignores that - far better that a corrupt pro-Russian government rigs elections and arrests political opponents, than a popular uprising forces its resignation;
- The US backed the new, far less corrupt, far more savoury government and provided military backing. (Shocking really, I mean Russia supporting Belarus isn't on Matt's radar) It also supported Georgian membership of NATO, surely a sinister move if ever there was one - if you support Russia.
- Georgia supported the war in Iraq. No doubt sinister as well, except when maybe you consider that Georgia is rather close to Iraq. It borders the predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan, so perhaps Georgia would have an interest in Iraq being stable and democratic - but then Matt would have preferred Saddam Hussein had stayed in power, so we know where he lies on that point.
- Georgia "provocatively" allowed "the West" to build a pipeline through Georgia between Turkey and the oil fields in the Caspian Sea. Funnily enough these oil fields are Azeri and Turkmen oil fields. Maybe Matt thinks Russia should have a monopoly on oil pipelines from its neighbours? Why does he support Russian oil companies over Western ones?
- The West allowed Kosovo to be granted independence, upsetting the Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Russia, admittedly after some years of Serbian suppression of a wide range of civil rights in Kosovo. Given Georgia did nothing of the sort in South Ossetia you might wonder why Matt thinks this justifies Russian intervention;
- Georgia's intervention in South Ossetia is "suppressing its independence movement" and to end South-Ossetia's "semi autonomy". Again, the contortions this takes by McCarten are incredible. For starters, the intervention followed some months of an internationally backed plan to grant South Ossetia full autonomy under the Georgian government. A plan opposed by Russia of course, Matt's new "victims". Some South Ossetian politicians engaged on this, others wanted to protect their arms and drug smuggling financed regime.

So having decided that the corrupt, undemocratic Georgian government before Saakashvili was "good", Saakashvili because he was US educated and backed was "bad", that Georgia choosing to allow an oil pipeline linking Turkey to Azerbaijan and other countries around the Caspian Sea justifiably "provoked Russia", that Georgia was trying to destroy the brave Ossetian people's independence - when it was actually seeking to grant legal full autonomy, and, to be fair, correctly identifying Georgia started this conflict - McCarten sees all that is going on as a grand conspiracy of the evil US privately owned mass media!!

He says "Most of the global news networks are owned and based in the US, and therefore tend to set the news agenda worldwide." This is of course rubbish, since when was Reuters, the BBC, ITN, NHK, AFP owned and based in the US. The US is important, but his vision of some grand conspiracy of privately owned news agencies is nonsense. However if he went to Russia he might find it different, but Matt is curiously silent about freedom of the press in Russia. He thinks the likes of the main US TV networks, and newspapers "become a mouthpiece for their government's policy". How utterly absurd! Since when has the US news media as a whole been favourable towards Bush?

McCarten has shown himself at best to be ignorant, about the only fact he has stated is that Georgia started the war. However he is silent on Russia's occupation of Gori, well beyond South Ossetia, its apparent bombing of a railway bridge at Kaspi also well outside South Ossetia, reports of South Ossetian paramilitaries looting Georgian homes, torching them and abducting young women after driving others out, and of course silent on Russian sabre rattling against Poland.

McCarten is just a rather vapid anti-American socialist, rubbing his hands with glee that Russia can take on any country that supports the USA. He claims to care about Ossetian independence, but ignores Georgian attempts to grant autonomy, and is naturally silent about Russia's suppression of Chechnya's independence. He prefers to align himself to the quasi-fascist militaristic Russian state, that has little free press, that does have mass media that echos the government, that runs elections that are far from free and fair, and which threatens nuclear attacks on... Poland.

Why does the mainstream media give this obvious idiot such time?

Terry Heffernan the Nat??

Seriously, this guy is a National Party candidate?

National's profile of Terry Heffernan curiously evades his chameleon like past, one that is notable in New Zealand politics for having been a candidate for five different political parties, four of which would cause serious concern about one's capability.

Terry Heffernan's political career started and was most well known in the Social Credit Political League, later the Social Credit Party. Yes the a+b theorem, Douglas Credit, loony tune, funny money, Skoda driving, grey zip-up shoe, safari suit wearing, bearded teachers and Mangaweka milkmen of Bob Jones fame. The party of nutters.

He stood in the Christchurch Central by-election in 1979 for Social Credit, the election that saw Geoffrey Palmer enter Parliament for the first time. Heffernan came second but with only 18.4% of the vote it was an smashing victory for Labour (and overwhelming embarrassment for National in third). However, Terry boxed on, he was determined to get into Parliament to spread the word of monetary reform.

He stood, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times for the Social Credit Party/Democratic Party in the seat of Wanganui. 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990. Admittedly in 1987 he came second by only 27 votes against Labour's Russell Marshall (who was paying the price for the government closing the unprofitable EastTown railway workshops) (Wanganui, like Rangitikei, East Coast Bays and Pakuranga were odd locations for the loony funny money movement to grab hold of people's brains and cast them to one side).

OK so he was with Social Credit. Stood five times with them. Surely that's enough to get the lunatic politician label? He apparently was once lader

Well in 1993 the "Democratic Party" stood Terry as Alliance candidate in Wanganui. So yes he followed the Democrats to the Alliance. The Alliance in 1993 stood for a decidedly socialist vision of New Zealand, with higher taxes, renationalisation, strong state control of the economy and to increase welfare benefits and make all education and healthcare "free".

Terry Heffernan stood a full on left wing platform. He lost against Jill Pettis.

In 1996, he decided that socialism and funny money weren't his thing, he went to NZ First. He stood in Albany for NZ First, where admittedly he came second against Murray McCully. McCully got just under 50% of the vote and Heffernan around 17%, so whilst he could claim success with Labour coming fourth, that was it. He was 28th on the NZ First list so unlikely to get far unless the party got over 20% of the vote.

Terry Heffernan stood on a platform with Winston Peters, who was campaigning spreading alarm about Asian immigration, and on an avowedly anti-privatisation, nationalist manifesto.

So, now he stands for National. National describes his past as "In a former life, Terry has been involved in active campaigning in a number of elections, coming close on more than one occasion to unseating a front-bench Labour Cabinet Minister. "

Former life? He's not reincarnated is he? He only came close on on occasion, and he ran against a front-bench National Cabinet Minister too.

So the Nats have selected a seven times failed candidate who spent most of his political career opposing National, advocating everything from funny money to socialism to anti-immigration nationalism. Yes he's been a member of the Nats for 11 years now (that's meant to give you comfort).

Will the people of Banks Peninsula boot out Ruth Dyson for this far too enthusiastic seeker of political power? I mean really, after seven tries at Parliament wouldn't you just give up and get the point?

Olympic glory for NZ and British athletes

Well it seemed bleak earlier on in the week, when Togo had a medal and New Zealand didn't, but now a more respectable 21st on the medal tally as of the time of this post shows there is some excellent talent in the NZ Olympic team. Having said that, it would be nice for them to beat North Korea which is at 20th! (Though North Korea might notice its compatriots in the south in 6th place).

The British is also doing well, now in third place! Ahead of team from Australia, Russia, Japan, Germany - all Olympic powerhouses. Quite something indeed, although the teams from USA and China remain far out ahead, and undoubtedly things could change in the week.

However one side of the Olympics I haven't missed is the inane sense of nationalism that TVNZ puts upon Olympic medals - the notion that "we won". What nonsense.

I agree with Oswald Bastable on this:

"there is the collectivist bullshit about NEW ZEALAND winning- like every fat prick in a Lazyboy had anything to do with it...It SHOULD be about individual excellence. The teams sports can generally sod off, although events like team rowing and relays should remain."

The victories are for individual athletes achieving outstanding results against the best in the world. They are not victories for nations, races, ethnic groups, states and least of all governments. New Zealanders can cheer the medalists for their success, be pleased for them and support them - but "we" did not win.

However, don't expect any politicians to understand that - expect almost all of them to want to bask in the glory that should be that of the individuals concerned. Notice the few who wont.

Greens not so green on shipping

A long time ago it used to be that when a ship from overseas sailed into New Zealand waters, it was only allowed to drop off freight that has been consigned from overseas. So, for example, if it arrived first into Auckland, then went to Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton and finally Port Chalmers, it could only offload freight to those ports, and take freight on board that it would be taking overseas again. It couldn't take freight from Auckland to Port Chalmers, for example.

That was called cabotage - it was a form of protectionism that those on the conservative right used to endorse because it protected shipping companies, and those on the left endorsed because the most leftwing (and overpaid and underworked) unions - those on the waterfront and on board ships, were also protected.

This was abolished in the late 1990s, with the main groups bemoaning it the unions, the local shipping companies and Tranz Rail. The same thing happened in the airline sector with Australia, which is why Qantas and Pacific Blue now readily fly domestic routes, to the benefit of all domestic travellers as pressure is brought to bear on price and service quality.

The benefits to shippers have been tremendous, as freight that isn't time sensitive can be placed on ships with spare capacity trekking up or down the coast as part of an international trip. It also has meant it is more viable to keep such ships going to ports at the "end" of the trip, such as Bluff.

From an environmentalist's perspective this should be seen as a win. Ships that otherwise would have burnt fuel running part empty can use this spare capacity carrying extra freight at low marginal cost, instead of being on trucks, trains or on other ships. No need for government owned infrastructure to be used, no need for services to operate specifically for such freight, the spare capacity is there, able to be used. Prices are kept low, the environment benefits, everyone wins (except those higher priced transport operators that don't get the business).

Except the Greens don't see it that way. They would rather these ships keep going from port to port carrying no domestic freight, and instead New Zealand shipping companies or Kiwirail or even truck companies put on services to carry this freight. The reason?

Unions. The maritime unions are the most militantly leftwing the country has and the Greens are rather warm towards them. The well paid jobs these mariners want to keep and grow (only unionised ones of course, the Maritime Union isn't too friendly to workers who don't like their representation) are more important to the Greens that lowering emissions in this case.

So you see the Greens prefer freight charges to go up for shippers, and for ships to operate around the coast carrying less freight, in order to protect their union mates in MUNZ. Another case of it being the Red Party rather than the Green Party?

Peace movement protests against Russian imperialism

Yes noticed those in the free West? Me neither.

While the Daily Telegraph reporting that Russia is moving more troops into Georgia, essentially ignoring the French brokered ceasefire which Russia "pledged to implement" and which Georgia signed, it is becoming clear Moscow is prepared to lie and do as it wishes in what it sees as its sphere of influence. Russia is clearly uninterested in respecting Georgia's borders - it knows that it is highly unlikely that the West would intervene on the side of Georgia.

President Bush said: "Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation," Which also followed the US and Poland agreeing to extend the US anti-missile shield to that country.

Russia subsequently threatened a nuclear strike on Poland with the Russian deputy chief of staff General Anatoly Nogovitsyn saying, according to the Daily Telegraph "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

Oh and back to the main point - there have been anti war protests, in Russia AGAINST the government. The liberal Yabloko party's youth wing held them according to the St Petersburg Times. Good for them, very brave.

Funny how more Russians can protest their own government than the leftwing anti-American peace movements in the USA, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Funny how none of them march against Russia, burning Russian flags, calling for Russia out of Georgia, calling for no threat to Poland. Shows your how much the peace movement cares for peace - isn't that right Green Party?

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?