Obama's nuclear plan naive and premature

I can foresee a world without nuclear weapons. It will be a world with no terrorist organisations, and one where all countries operate as closely as those in Western Europe, when war is inconceivable. Considering recent history, it is worth remembering that Germany today is a very close ally of France, the UK and the USA - for those past a certain age, this is a difficult concept to grasp (it was for Margaret Thatcher for example).

However, Barack Obama's declaration that he will convene an international summit to look at the elimination of nuclear weapons is hopefully just posturing, because the global environment to abolish nuclear weapons is far from benign.

Start with Russia, which has a government that is anything but transparent, and which could not be trusted to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons any better than the old Soviet Union. As long as Russia remains an aggressive mini-power that seeks to exercise power outside its borders rather like the USSR did, then it would be wholly wrong to remove the nuclear deterrence. It would be a brave politician who predicts an economically beleagured Russia could not threaten its neighbours again.

Then there is China. You think it would abolish nuclear weapons? Not with Russia having them of course, nor India. China also is far from having a government that could be trusted to verify abolishing its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea's existing nuclear capability, and Iran's planned capability both do not bode well. It would also be madness to remove the nuclear deterrent from the Korean peninsula, nor to remove the ability to deter Iran. Finally, will India or Pakistan blink first? While Pakistan remains an unstable state, that risks falling to Islamism, you must wonder why India would remove its arsenal?

I need not state why Israel would never abolish its nuclear option either, given the existential threat it faces from Iran and others.

John Key and Phil Goff have parroted support for it. Sadly neither noted that nuclear weapons kept the peace in the Cold War between those countries that held them. New Zealand included of course.

As long as there remain state enemies of open transparent liberal capitalist societies, nuclear weapons should be held by the Western allies. The alternative are those who execute political opponents, censor opposition and wish to command control over the West having a monopoly on nuclear weapons. That is utterly unthinkable.

Helen Clark felt right

The NZ Herald reports on how Peter Davis on TVNZ said Helen Clark felt "rejected" by the New Zealand public in the last election.

"I think she felt rejected, because she felt she had done a good job - which I also believe - and had put her best foot forward and had been an almost incomparable Prime Minister and yet somehow the public had not seen that the same way" he said

Yes Peter, she was rejected. Almost incomparable? Well perhaps, by wasting away the fruits of a recovery on growing the bureaucracy and the state, flushing hundreds of millions of dollars away of (now this is what they don't understand) OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in buying back a railway and an airline.

Fortunately New Zealand is a liberal democracy, and enough got tired of "the state is sovereign" Helen. She won 1999 following a growing send of tiredness of National's cobbled together and increasingly repulsive flotsam and jetsam minority government. 2002 she won because Bill English hadn't met a principle he could embrace and stand for anything at all, and the recovery was keeping enough people happy. 2005 she barely won helped ever so slightly by breaking the law by using parliamentary funds to do electoral campaigning.

Of course, the truth is she only got into power thanks to Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters bringing their parties into coalition and confidence/supply agreements. All of their parties have paid a high price for such arrangements.

Let's constrain democratic local government!

The Standard warns ominously that the government might take steps to hinder the growth of local government's role saying:
- A bill is to be introduced "to ‘cap rates at the rate of inflation’ will cripple councils ability to fund essential new projects" ;
-The Auckland report INITIATED BY THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT will provoke "another round of amalgamation to create ’super-cities’". Which will, of course, "sell assets such as airports whenever they can" (yep those privately owned airports never work);
- As part of RMA reform the government will "axe Regional Councils"; and
- Water metering will be introduced.

Now apart from the second point (as I completely oppose supercities for reasons explained here), bring it on!

The Standard shows once again enthusiasm for pilfering from people's salaries, but also notably continue economic ignorance.

What are these "essential new projects" that councils can't convince people to pay for voluntarily? It doesn't matter, as long as people vote for a council, the Standard thinks it can rate the public as much as it likes, until the next election. A cap on rates being at inflation only is a bare minimum to stop councils growing in their thieving from ratepayers.

It shows continued bigotry against privatisation, because the predominantly privately owned Auckland and Wellington airports are so badly run, compared to council owned Christchurch. Seriously, get a grip.

The axing of regional councils is feasible despite the bogus claim that "most Regional Councils manage important public functions and are fat targets for selling off major parks, water and transport assets worth many tens of billions of dollars". Most regional councils are actually glorified water catchment boards, with boundaries that reflect that. Only Auckland and Wellington ones have substantially additional functions. Most have no parks or transport assets of any consequence. Creating water catchment companies with property rights would address the relevant issues, and public transport assets in Auckland and Wellington could be held by territorial authority owned companies.

Then the real ignorance is in opposing water metering. You'd think the Standard ought to support those who use the most water paying for it, paying a bigger share of the infrastructure and water purification costs (and sewage disposal), but no. You'd think ensuring that demand reflects shares of costs would help ensure that expansion of water supplies was done when it is efficient, not when politicians get their act together (or build think big options). No. Of course, it all ignores the decades of mismanagement of water infrastructure by councils that did not replace or repair the network (something Thames Water is addressing in London). The Standard presumably thinks everyone should pay the same for water - yep, good old Marxist "economics".

Of course I don't for a moment believe the government will do ANYTHING The Standard suggests - sadly, as it would mean Rodney Hide will have done some good.

Oh and democratic local government? Give me a break. Turnout for council elections is abysmal, and democracy is never accountability when councils just vote to increase charges on the public year in year out. It is the majority (non ratepayers) voting for the minority to be pillaged for their pet projects. It's time local government was shackled.

So what about supporting the child?

I am unsurprised that Maia is supporting the woman who gave birth on a plane, who clearly was so distressed she isn't fit to be a mother (you can't look after a child if you can't look after yourself), but more curious that she is supporting her in prison (as is her right)- but doing nothing about the completely helpless baby she gave birth to.

I don't doubt Karolaine Maika is a seriously disturbed woman - but mothers, unless they adopt, have responsibilities for their children. If they fail to take even basic steps to ensure that someone else can look after them, then they are beyond the pale.

For regardless of how disturbed she is, the baby is completely and utterly helpless.

Although Maia has previously said that when people are so poor, you can understand them torturing a three year old. "it's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old".

Need I say more?

NZ's best political satire is on Twitter

It sadly lacks, I'm unsure whether a small country lacks comic genius, or whether there is some cringe among those in broadcasting to give it a fair go (and to be fair I don't watch NZ TV for a fairly obvious reason), but the best political satire I am finding now is on Twitter.

If you're not following

Trevor Mallard
Parekura Horomia
David Cunliffe (no this one doesn't deserve the silent "T") and
Clayton Cosgrove

you are missing out. It's the main reason I log onto Twitter, and now I found

Shane Jones
Maryan Street

and there are more.

UPDATE: Oops Darren Hughes is real, it's not that funny. Any more MP satirical Twitters?

Wanaka's National Front school?

Seriously, is Mt. Aspiring College the least worldly most naive high school in the country? Or a secret hot bed of neo-Nazi knuckle draggers?

Wanaka is such a beautiful location, does it just mean people there don't read, watch TV or read history?

Does it mean the school curriculum is so utterly devoid of history that so many of the staff and students are just plain ignorant?

Someone better find out - I bet the semi-evolved grunts in the National Front will be getting their tiny penises (they are 90% "men") all excited about how they need to have their conference in Wanaka as a result of this story.

Life in Wanaka is clearly far too mundane because the Southland Times reports

"many students have already got their costumes organised after depleting all the stocks of white coveralls from Wanaka's Mitre 10 hardware store. Manager Mark Watson said he had no idea the $7.98 clothing item had been so popular when contacted last night, but after a quick check of his database confirmed he had only large sizes of the boilersuit-type clothing left."

Only the slim to average sized stupid and racist students are going. Although one report does suggest a bit of mischief making:

"Last year they went on sale two weeks earlier and this year it was only a few days before. They were hiding them until the last minute. "Those kids are not as dumb as the principal is making out."" says "angry mother".

Bloody hell! Parents of Wanaka. Airfares to Australia are NOT expensive, probably cheaper than to Auckland if you scoot to Queenstown. Take your kids at least to Aussie (well Sydney and/or Melbourne anyway) at least twice before they are 13.

Buy them books.

Show them where the news channels on Sky are.

and most of all, show them images of white supremacists in their natural environment (above).

(Credit to Stuff for the image)

The G20's declaration against you

The full text of the declaration is here.

Despite some nice words about markets and recovery, there isn't a lot to cheer about, unless you think it could have been worse.

A lot more money for the IMF to lend to governments which overreached themselves. Rewarding the profligate wasters and overspenders.

A commitment to sustaining the fiscal child abuse that pours a fortune of borrowed money into unproductive activity under the guise of stimulus.

Creating a Financial Stability Board to punish countries that grow "recklessly".

Punishing countries that offer taxpayers protection from the thieving claws of the likes of the US IRS and the legalised thieves of other national tax mafias. Public finances are important, your finances are not important.

A limp wristed pledge to not increase trade protectionism for the next 20 months. Given Barack Obama already had a hand in increasingly US farm subsidies, it's hardly surprising. A statement on progressing the Doha round, a bare minimum really.

So for all the cheshire cat grins of Gordon "Britain always is in deficit under me" Brown and Barack "no more pork, except my pork laden budget" Obama, this summit was a wet blanket. It has done next to nothing, done little to avoid future harm, and has shown an inadequate regard for how the global economy is dependent upon producers not governments.

Well at least protestors should remain disappointed.

Standard distorts G20 protests

It reports tens of thousands protested, yet the BBC reports there were only 5,000. (The post on the Standard links to BBC News but clearly doesn't read it).

It ignores the direct attacks on Police which I saw live on TV, refusing to take sides of course. It ignores the rampant vandalism of the RBS branch in the city for being the reason why the Police contained the protestors.

See I watched the coverage on BBC News and Sky News channels for most of the day yesterday. The Standard is getting its news secondhand. Funny how it writes about inaccuracy when it writes such shoddy nonsense as this.

What I fear about One Auckland

At Not PC Owen McShane characterises the proposal for a single megacity for Auckland as fascist.

Now, while this risks derision by the mere use of the word fascist, it is worth noting only the differences between TRUE fascism and what is being described for Auckland.

Yes, you will be able to leave Auckland, you will be able to criticise the megacity with the same free speech rights as now, you wont face more censorship, you wont be conscripted into an army to invade Ethiopia.

However, you will face more co-ordinated attacks on your private property rights, you might face the megacity regulating your business, or even competing with you. The megacity will have a substantial budget for propaganda publicity, and with one grand plan you'll know what is expected of you, your land use decisions and your property in the future. You are likely to face ever growing demands for money from your pocket, through rates. A megacity after all can increase rates by a small amount and get so much from it. Besides, few of you objected with relatively large ARC rates increases, so that can continue right?

A megacity will dilute your influence. By this I don't mean that there should be more democracy. That will simply mean those with the greatest lobbying strength (either by numbers or money) will use a megacity to regulate, tax and subsidise as they see fit. The left fears this ends up being business, the right fears it ends up being leftwing activist groups - both are right - Auckland does not need governance by lobbyist.

However, what will happen is just that. Loud lobbyists will work full time to lobby a megacity, and a megacity will have an army of planners out to ensure land use, transport use, energy use and indeed almost all aspects of day to day life are monitored and regulated if they can be legally empowered to do so.

In fact, I expect one of the first things a megacity will ask for is a review of local authority regulatory powers and tax raising powers, which were not substantially changed in the 2002 Local Government Act. The megacity will complain it isn't sufficiently empowered (to have power over you), or can't make you pay enough for it to do what it want otherwise known as raise revenue.

Auckland is over governed as it is.

The Royal Commission on Auckland report should be treated as follows by the government:

- Thank you, very interesting;
- Raises some important issues about current problems with local government in Auckland;
- Royal Commission operated under a mandate determined by the previous government so did not address some fundamental issues about the role of local government that this government has;
- We believe there are more fundamental issues to the performance of Auckland based on local authorities going far beyond certain core principles that should limit want councils do;
- As such we will be undertaking a more fundamental review of local government across the country, and will take into account Auckland as part of that review;
- (Thanks for the doorstop, the Royal Commission on Social Policy documents were getting a bit yellow).

Time to consider what the hell local government ought to be doing.

Time for those who say "not very much" to make their voices heard loud and clear, before the Nat/Act/Maori/Dunne government takes what Labour has done on local government (give it an almost unlimited mandate), and make it much much worse.

Otherwise, Rodney Hide's position as Minister of Local Government will have been for nothing.

George Galloway refused entry into Canada

I am slightly late on this, but it is curious that George Galloway, who supported the ban of Dutch MP Geert Wilders (because free speech is not an absolute) is complaining about the Canadian government refusing him entry because of his views on Afghanistan and his support for Hamas and Hizbollah. The decision has been upheld by a court appeal.

Galloway, you see, has said explicitly that he provided financial support to Hamas - an organisation that trains and arms suicide bombers, that produces television calling for children to be martyrs against Israel. Here is a video of him supporting suicide bombing and Hamas, Hizbollah and

He also has denied the genocide in Darfur, defended the Islamist dictator of Sudan Omar al-Bashir who is subject to an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Of course who can forget him saluting Saddam Hussein for his "courage and indefatigability", his friendship with dictator Fidel Castro. He also has spoken of how lucky Syria is to have Bashar al-Assad as President - who holds onto power much like Saddam did - running a one party state.

Galloway is a vile creature, who tells one story to the mainstream British media, whilst essentially befriending the enemies of Western civilisation and liberal democracy. He is a willing whore to murdering dictators and terrorists. It is no wonder Canada excludes him, as he happily supports enemies of Canada.

If I were a resident of Bethnal Green & Bow for the 2010 General Election I'd vote Labour to remove this vermin of the political system.

Hat tip: "Tony Blair" blog (well not really him)

Are we losing Afghanistan?

No, it's not April Fool, it's not even the Taliban winning, it's the government we are supporting. The Daily Telegraph reports that Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has signed a new law legalising marital rape. The Telegraph continues that the unpublished law...

"is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with their husband's permission.

Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women."

The Guardian reports:

"Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said."

It is believed the law is part of a strategy to win votes in the upcoming election. The US government has raised it directly with Hamid Karzai.

The point should be clear. Aid is dependent entirely on Afghanistan moving towards more individual rights and freedom, and should be pulled if the opposite happens.

Idiot Savant thinks it calls into question New Zealand's military commitment to Afghanistan, (Which he opposes, preferring Afghanistan be left to the Taliban presumably). What it SHOULD do is question all aid, and New Zealand should support a united front of all countries with military presence supporting the fragile democracy in Afghanistan to demand that this means protecting individual rights.

It is important to fight the Taliban, it provides succour for Al Qaeda, part of the Iraqi insurgency and is pushing into Pakistan. It is the dead enemy of Western civilisation. Afghanistan's government should not look like a Taliban-lite.

Afghanistan should be a constitutional liberal democracy that guarantees basic individual rights and freedoms. If foreign troops are not there defending, nurturing and protecting that, they are doing less than half their job.

A hole in Lenin's arse

A hole has been blasted in Lenin's arse by vandals in St Petersburg according to the Daily Telegraph.

Quite right, the bastard was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands, and famine of millions in the 1920s. He was a deliberate mass murderer, and his name deserves to live in infamy, and he started a revolution that would bring Stalin to power bringing tens of millions to their deaths, and his satellites in eastern Europe, North Korea and Africa (be fair to say China's revolution was separate).

Something to remind the next spotty idiot wearing a Lenin tshirt.

Why cheer Clark?

David Garrett is a dickhead, as many of his comments have shown he is closer to the "mob justice" view of the world, and has a mixed view of individual rights at best. However, in refusing to participate in the nauseating standing ovation for Helen Clark he deserves credit for having some principle.

Seriously. He may not have a clue on some things, but he is a man who believes in certain things - he didn't enter politics to be cheering Helen Clark.

If you belong to ACT or National you belong to political movements that essentially are opposed to the socialist Nanny State view of the world exemplified by the Clark led Labour Party. Clark is an intelligent, cold power hungry politician, who has spent her whole life working to have the power she centralised around herself, Heather Simpson and strictly controlling government communications led by now MP Brendan Burns. She increased government regulation and theft of people's incomes and property, with only a handful of exceptions, she declared "the state is sovereign" showing her utter contempt for there being any fundamental individual rights.

Clark broke the law and had it repealed so she wouldn't face the consequences, as Labour used government administrative funding to pay for electioneering. She ran a tight ship, a Cabinet comprised of people she largely regarded as far less competent than herself (which is true), and subverted Ministerial authority by having Cabinet papers vetoed by H2 before they got presented to Cabinet. She promoted racially driven policies with "Closing the Gaps", before hypocritically turning her back on them when Don Brash got traction with "One law for all". She warmly embraced giving local government far more extensive powers to spend your money and interfere with what you do. She retained a tight grip on the anti-competitive and centrally controlled state education and health monopolies that all are forced to pay for, whether they deliver what users want or not.

She's off to lead a featherbedded lazy UN organisation, and live off the back of global taxpayers' money (mostly from wealthy Western countries) travelling to many countries, like the Queen of aid and development.

Yes it is bad politics to have sour grapes and not cheer her on. However, it is hypocrisy to pretend you thin she deserves a cheer - I'd have preferred if she spent her life as an academic, and didn't try to run other people's lives. The New Zealand economy, the health and education of New Zealanders, New Zealanders' property rights and their individual freedoms have all suffered because of this woman.

A better approach would be for those politicians who have consistently opposed her politics (and to be fair plenty of National MPs have not), to simply excuse themselves from the House. Let Labour, the Greens, Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne have their love in.

Will National support racist local government?

Now once John Key signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party we all knew the Maori seats in Parliament wouldn't be going anywhere. Not a particularly big deal, after all they already exist.

However, race based seats for local government ARE new, and National opposed them vehemently whilst in Opposition.

The NZ Herald is reporting that the government is considering Maori based seats as part of a mega Auckland council. John Key was non-committal about it, but Pita Sharples expressed support for the concept in principle, although he had issue with the detail.

Do you want local government representation to be based on your race, or just your political views? Is it appropriate in the 21st century for psychologically based identities (for ethnicity is in the mind, not a matter of fact) to be legally entrenched in political representation, or for it to be based on one person one vote, and for representatives to be based on political views not the legend of ethnicity?

It would be nice if the Minister of Local Government - Rodney Hide - made it abundantly clear that race based local government representation will not be allowed under this government.

Paul Goldsmith, Auckland City Councillor, agrees.

Electricity review might deliver useful answers

I tend to be sceptical of reviews, but the report in the NZ Herald of the government's announcement of a Ministerial review into the electricity sector is likely to look at how this state dominated generation and retail sector needs to be unshackled to allow competition to operate more freely.

Gerry Brownlee has indicated one issue is duplication of sector governance, which basically means too much bureaucracy. Energy security is important as Labour interfered considerably to try to guarantee supply (at high cost), and pricing given the government is the key market player is worth observing. The question being whether Labour milked the SOEs for dividends compared to investment in capacity.

The panel appointed includes some useful heavyweights. Brent Layton and Lewis Evans are excellent infrastructure sector economists who understand markets, Stephen Franks should add a reasonably sound legal perspective, and David Russell while on the left, becomes the consumer representative. Toby Stevenson knows the electricity sector intimately, and Miriam Dean is a competition lawyer.

Not a unionist, token ethnic representative or gender balance in sight, a review made up of intelligent, talented people.

However, will it be allowed to recommend privatisation of the sector? There is little sign that it will support the crazy Green agenda of recreating a single state owned monolith electricity generator.

So I am cautiously optimistic that it will unshackle the sector, and support more private sector investment (after all minority private investment wouldn't be full privatisation would it?).

More importantly, will a similar heavyweight team review the telecommunications sector?

Police let protestors smash RBS branch

Nice, so the Police forces in London have done relatively nothing to stop the graffiti, window smashing, raiding and robbery of a Royal Bank of Scotland Branch in the City of London.

The BBC is reporting that people are moving freely in and out of the Branch, and riot Police are not moving in yet - presumably because they don't have the number ready yet. I am seeing windows being smashed live on camera still, some 15 minutes after it started.

RBS is 70% state owned, but it is slightly chilling that the Police are unable to respond directly to such wanton vandalism and theft.

One of the protestors said it is because "our money goes into their pockets", which of course is the fault of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party who took it out of "their pockets" in the first place!

G20 - what good it could do

While the UK media fawns over the arrival of Barack Obama, and several thousand solutionless people who are statists or anarchists, the G20 summit COULD achieve good if only two things happened.

1. The G20 came out, unanimously, against trade protectionism, in favour of renewing the Doha round, and a new emphasis on lowering barriers to trade in primary products, manufactured goods and services. THIS could do more to encourage global recovery than any other government measure because, it basically, is about removing government measures.

2. The less free G20 members (China, Russia in particular) might notice that an economy in trouble can have public political protests largely kept under control.

However, this is unlikely. Far more likely are platitudes, a few moans from poorer countries that it isn't their fault (but showing how dependent they are on wealthy country demand), and a demonstration that everyone is in agreement that the recession should end.

On the other side, I've noticed in the protests some Soviet flags (because the USSR was known to accept public protests as a matter of course), and the hard left "Stop the War Coalition" is calling for US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end to aid for Israel and unilateral nuclear disarmament. In other words, surrender to Islamists and leave nuclear weapons in the hands of dictatorial governments. Charming lot.

Rob Muldoon's back

The NZ Herald says NZ$1.5 billion of your money - an "investment" - which will "bring New Zealand into the 21st century" - "enable it to compete with countries such as Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong". (Ah yes the 20th century is alive in well in NZ, and which Korea are we competing with again?)

Yes, National is going to grow the state by setting up a "Crown investment company" called "Crown Fibre Investment Co" (not that it is picking technology winners of course!) to build a network, and the users will come. I said before the election that this was shades of Muldoon's Think Big.

Look at the promises behind it:
- John Key says "They will be able to watch TV comfortably and easily over their computer screens, ". OHH TV over the computer screen, now THAT will create jobs right? I mean it's not as if there isn't digital Freeview subsidised by the state, and Sky's own commercially provided satellite platform right? You need TV via broadband to.... let you watch foreign TV subsidised??
- and "they will be able to run businesses from home". Amazing. Don't believe anyone running a business from home at the moment, they LIE, you can't do it without fibre to your home!

This is despite Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra Clear, the only real network providers in the country saying that their own plans will be adequate to meet demand - no doubt noting that when the government starts setting up a rival network, it devalues their own. In other words, the government is effectively shutting out significant new PRIVATELY funded network investment.

Ask yourself how you'd feel now as Telstra Clear, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars ten or so years ago rolling out hybrid fibre-coax cable to the kerb in Wellington and Christchurch, for the state to be now using taxpayers' money to roll out a superior network? (Well frankly Telstra Clear, having called for state expropriation of Telecom's property rights SHOULD now feel some chagrine).

Ernie Newman of the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand (not producers mind you, and not taxpayers either) is happy as can be, having long demanded the state subsidise and regulate for the benefit of his members. He was long a chief advocate of confiscating Telecom's property rights.

So why is this happening? Does the government truly believe that subsidising a particular technology so that consumers (far more than producers) can download Youtube, music, listen to internet radio and play high definition interactive games is good for the economy, or even moral?

After all, Stuff says "Ultra-fast broadband will let people watch high-definition or three-dimensional TV online, while talking on the phone via broadband or making video phone calls. Downloading movies will become much faster."

Is that worth subsidising? Faster movie downloads??

Anyway, why wont the private sector provide if people want it (and crucially are willing to pay)?

Well when you add up:
- Government denying Telecom and Vodafone private property rights over their telecommunications networks by forcing both to sell capacity on their networks to competitors at a price set by government;
- Government likely to regard any collusion between telcos for a new fibre network to be "anti-competitive";
- The RMA allowing local authorities to prohibit new overhead wire telecommunications networks in their districts, even if there are already such networks at present.

Then you might figure out that this Muldoonist approach to telecommunications is the wrong approach, and that subsidising the entertainment of New Zealanders who want cheap fast broadband is quite simply wrong.

David Farrar is typically abandoning his usual rather liberal smaller state approach to affairs and swinging in behind Muldoonist central planning of internet infrastructure. He will enjoy fibre to the kerb, and thinks my parents and their elderly friends should be forced to pay for it.

It is Think Big for the 21st century, it is cheaper, and less ambitious, but is driven by the same cargo cult belief that it will be some sort of economic saviour.

At best, it might prove to be financially self sustaining at some point, and get enough use to not be a total disaster, but at worst it will prove to be far more expensive than predicted, will not be completed according to plan, supplant other technologies, and wont deliver cheap broadband because... quite simply, it can't make international internet backbone capacity cheaper.

UPDATE: Paul Walker at Antidismal quotes an interesting example of how private sector underinvestment occurs when it fears the risk of nationalisation.

Strange radio signals from space

While most were sceptical this morning of the reports from Mongolia of irregular radio signals from space, the confirmation of these reports from independent sources in Europe, Africa, the United States and Australia is exciting scientists at several universities.

Professor Ahmed Tanfik Rachdi of the University of Algiers was reported as reading the signal from the University's own listening station that signals on frequencies of 6576-6602 kHz and 9325-9345 kHz seemed to not follow any regular pattern, but that the wide bandwidth included an amplitude modulated sound that, if verified, would be the very first sound transmission received from space not attributable to a natural phenomenon. However he was not the first to note it. The signal detection was shared by several others, first noted in Mongolia.

"Doctor Choi Khan San of Ulaan Baatar University may well have been telling the truth when he noted the disruption to regular radio broadcasts for 67 minutes between 10.34 and 11.41GMT did not come from any typical radio bandwidth transmission" said Professor Rachdi.

Professor Bart Kennedy of the Berkeley Institute of Astronomical Science is unconvinced, and says it might be a reflection of a signal from outside the solar system that has taken some time to return to earth, although he says scientists should have a better idea after further research.

Is it just a bizarre reflection (and amplification) of past radio signals from earth from some other source, or is it intelligence from outer space?

Greenpeace spokesperson Elkin Colinsonya of Finland said that if there is evidence of life outside earth, we should "ignore it, as we shouldn't corrupt its ways". Colinsonya said research into signals from outer space simply encouraged the use of electricity for purposes inconsistent with the sustainability of the planet. "What if humans become friends with inhabitants from another planet? We'll want to use it and abuse it like our own".

Rob Muldoon's back AGAIN

Want a new home? Why don't you turn to the government, given the latest Stuff report?

The Building and Housing Department (yes I didn't know it existed either) held a contest using your money for a design for an affordable "starter home". The winning design would apparently cost a state defined NZ$168,000 to build (excluding land) half the "usual cost" (forget the market, the recent drop in prices confuses bureaucracies as it makes planning difficult).

"Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson said the competition showed starter homes could offer superb design and be affordable."

The state is needed to provide such valuable information.

Will it be building any though? (to be fair, this was a Labour Government initiative).