It does more harm than good, according to a study by the Wolfson Unit for Prevention of Peripheral Vascular Disease in Edinburgh, according to the Sunday Telegraph.
"More than 3,000 men were randomly assigned to receive a daily dose of aspirin or a dummy pill and were followed up for an average of eight years.
There was no difference in the rate of heart attacks or stroke between the two groups and deaths from any cause were similar.
However there were 34 major bleeds in people taking aspirin, or two per cent, compared with 20 or 1.2 per cent of those on the placebo."
So aspirin is for headaches or prescription.... that's it...
UPDATE: Yes bollocks to my grammatical error, that I would give other people hell for... thank you Opinionated Mummy.
31 August 2009
Japanese voters create history
Japan has spent almost all of its post war history governed by the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP). For many year it ensured stability and importantly, during the Cold War, resisted the early communism of post-war Japan. The almost continuous improvement in prosperity and living standards, including environmental clean ups in the 1960s-1980s, were under the LDP. The then Socialist Party frightened some, because of Japan's proximity to the USSR and North Korea, besides why change when everything was going so well?
Don't forget Japan has the world's second largest economy, with China only now rivalling that.
However, the LDP has long been beholden to many special interests. Japan's agricultural sector has long been the most heavily subsidised and protected. The construction sector in particular has benefited from ongoing massive state spending on roads, bridges, dams and other infrastructure, so much so that Japan has many grossly underused roads and railways. In addition, the state sector has remained immune from restructuring, and a regulatory environment that is supportive of incumbents, putting significant barriers in the way of new entrepreneurs who seek to challenge.
There was a brief period of 11 months in 1993 when the LDP lost power, as two factions brokeaway from the party and formed a short lived coalition. However, beyond that it has held on. Junichiro Koizumi helped revitalise the party briefly, and ensured the party's re-election in 2005, but since then it has gone through 3 leaders and so its reputation is in tatters. Constantly borrowing and spending money on infrastructure has failed to revitalise the stagnant Japanese economy. Japanese voters know they have not had it so bad for decades.
So now the former socialists, the Democratic Party have won 308 out of 440 seats in the House of Representatives. It will likely form a coalition with the leftwing SDP and the liberal centrist People's New Party. It's policy agenda is mixed, including cuts to the public sector, increases in some subsidies, cuts in fuel and sales taxes, hiking the minimum wage. However, I suspect it will be able to confront some of Japan's big economic demons - and will have little choice but to slash spending and confront the massive state debt.
Japan's economic is tied up in all sorts of regulation and discriminatory treatment of businesses based on favours and preferences. For example, Japan is one of the few countries left which Air NZ needs explicit approval for any new airfares it wants to set for flights from it.
Some on the left are encouraged by the socialist origins of the DP, as it talks of being less beholden to US foreign policy, and international capitalism, but I am not convinced it will make a material difference in those areas. It will learn very quickly how little it can change, how little room there is to move.
Japan is a country that is always difficult for outsiders to read, being one of the most insular societies in the world - but it is one of the economic powerhouses, and has long needed to break away from the monopoly of political power the LDP has increasingly mishandled.
Let's hope the DP takes a chance to be brave and make some tough decisions - Japan badly needs it.
Don't forget Japan has the world's second largest economy, with China only now rivalling that.
However, the LDP has long been beholden to many special interests. Japan's agricultural sector has long been the most heavily subsidised and protected. The construction sector in particular has benefited from ongoing massive state spending on roads, bridges, dams and other infrastructure, so much so that Japan has many grossly underused roads and railways. In addition, the state sector has remained immune from restructuring, and a regulatory environment that is supportive of incumbents, putting significant barriers in the way of new entrepreneurs who seek to challenge.
There was a brief period of 11 months in 1993 when the LDP lost power, as two factions brokeaway from the party and formed a short lived coalition. However, beyond that it has held on. Junichiro Koizumi helped revitalise the party briefly, and ensured the party's re-election in 2005, but since then it has gone through 3 leaders and so its reputation is in tatters. Constantly borrowing and spending money on infrastructure has failed to revitalise the stagnant Japanese economy. Japanese voters know they have not had it so bad for decades.
So now the former socialists, the Democratic Party have won 308 out of 440 seats in the House of Representatives. It will likely form a coalition with the leftwing SDP and the liberal centrist People's New Party. It's policy agenda is mixed, including cuts to the public sector, increases in some subsidies, cuts in fuel and sales taxes, hiking the minimum wage. However, I suspect it will be able to confront some of Japan's big economic demons - and will have little choice but to slash spending and confront the massive state debt.
Japan's economic is tied up in all sorts of regulation and discriminatory treatment of businesses based on favours and preferences. For example, Japan is one of the few countries left which Air NZ needs explicit approval for any new airfares it wants to set for flights from it.
Some on the left are encouraged by the socialist origins of the DP, as it talks of being less beholden to US foreign policy, and international capitalism, but I am not convinced it will make a material difference in those areas. It will learn very quickly how little it can change, how little room there is to move.
Japan is a country that is always difficult for outsiders to read, being one of the most insular societies in the world - but it is one of the economic powerhouses, and has long needed to break away from the monopoly of political power the LDP has increasingly mishandled.
Let's hope the DP takes a chance to be brave and make some tough decisions - Japan badly needs it.
Miscellaneous kiwi news bits
Compulsorily funded Radio NZ is bemoaning budget cuts. Oh dear how sad, even though private broadcasters have faced cuts due to advertising, the stations you all have to pay for, whether you listen to them or not, doesn't like facing getting less of the money you are forced to pay to it. Of course nothing stops people donating to RNZ. Funnily enough I notice Culture & Heritage commissioned a study into RNZ by KPMG, which as anyone who has dealt with the big 4 knows, is going to give you pretty much the result you wanted. Ever since broadcasting policy left MED and went to Culture and Heritage, it has become about how the state can do more, not less.
Of course my answer to Radio NZ is simple - start attracting donations, sponsorship, and learn to ask people for money.
Tukuroirangi Morgan, one of the most high profile parasites on the public tit in recent years thinks his opinion deserves some respect. He talks bollocks about denying Maori a voice on the Auckland council, when he means "denying people like me who need a separate Maori seat to get a job because I can't do it on my own merits". This supercilious nobody will forever be remembered as the man who claimed expenses for luxurious underwear, and was a one term wonder. He was defeated by Nanaia Mahuta (and a NZ First candidate, having defected to tough man Tau's Mauri Pacific party) in the 1999 election. Of course the Mauri Pacific party has the record of getting less party votes than Libertarianz in 1999. He is sad that even with Maori seats, he so disgraced himself few wanted him to represent them. Of course, it's been a while since he had a job that wasn't about his race - but just about his skills and abilities.
Paul Holmes thinks we can learn a lot from wild animals. He is of course dreaming when he is talking about species which engage in rational reactions for their own survival, that of the tribe and offspring. There's nothing special about it, except some animals get anthropomorphised by people who think they are cute. The thing is, animals are driven largely by instinct, not reason, and compassion is linked to reproduction and pack instincts for survival. He can romanticise as much as he likes, but I would've thought he could learn more from reading than from animals.
Of course my answer to Radio NZ is simple - start attracting donations, sponsorship, and learn to ask people for money.
Tukuroirangi Morgan, one of the most high profile parasites on the public tit in recent years thinks his opinion deserves some respect. He talks bollocks about denying Maori a voice on the Auckland council, when he means "denying people like me who need a separate Maori seat to get a job because I can't do it on my own merits". This supercilious nobody will forever be remembered as the man who claimed expenses for luxurious underwear, and was a one term wonder. He was defeated by Nanaia Mahuta (and a NZ First candidate, having defected to tough man Tau's Mauri Pacific party) in the 1999 election. Of course the Mauri Pacific party has the record of getting less party votes than Libertarianz in 1999. He is sad that even with Maori seats, he so disgraced himself few wanted him to represent them. Of course, it's been a while since he had a job that wasn't about his race - but just about his skills and abilities.
Paul Holmes thinks we can learn a lot from wild animals. He is of course dreaming when he is talking about species which engage in rational reactions for their own survival, that of the tribe and offspring. There's nothing special about it, except some animals get anthropomorphised by people who think they are cute. The thing is, animals are driven largely by instinct, not reason, and compassion is linked to reproduction and pack instincts for survival. He can romanticise as much as he likes, but I would've thought he could learn more from reading than from animals.
Jeanette's economic illiteracy
Unsurprisingly, the Green Party doesn't understand why the government has abandoned setting minimum fuel efficiency standards for imported vehicles. Quite simply, it would be counterproductive.
Such standards will restrict new and used vehicle imports - that puts up the price of buying a car. So people with existing old less efficient cars would pay up to $1,500 more if such fuel efficiency standards existed than if not. So it is better to just let people pay the market price, then they are more likely to get more efficient vehicles.
This goes way over the head of Jeanette Fitzsimons who clearly thinks "if we regulate so people can only buy fuel efficient cars, they will". Not thinking that reducing the supply of a good puts up the price. It isn't the EU Jeanette, this isn't a huge market and in fact New Zealand remains so poor that a large number of imported vehicles are secondhand.
So take it slowly Jeanette:
1. There is pretty much a free market today for vehicle imports. This means demand and supply are at equilibrium keeping pressure on prices.
2. Imported vehicles are typically newer and more fuel efficient than the ones they replace.
3. Restricting the imports to only vehicles of a certain standard bans certain ones from entering the market, restricting the ability of some to buy a replacement vehicle (which while not meeting your standard is bound to be an improvement). So such people keep older vehicles for longer.
4. The remaining vehicles imported face demand but less supply, so retailers can put the price up.
The analysis demonstrated your policy was wrong.
Such standards will restrict new and used vehicle imports - that puts up the price of buying a car. So people with existing old less efficient cars would pay up to $1,500 more if such fuel efficiency standards existed than if not. So it is better to just let people pay the market price, then they are more likely to get more efficient vehicles.
This goes way over the head of Jeanette Fitzsimons who clearly thinks "if we regulate so people can only buy fuel efficient cars, they will". Not thinking that reducing the supply of a good puts up the price. It isn't the EU Jeanette, this isn't a huge market and in fact New Zealand remains so poor that a large number of imported vehicles are secondhand.
So take it slowly Jeanette:
1. There is pretty much a free market today for vehicle imports. This means demand and supply are at equilibrium keeping pressure on prices.
2. Imported vehicles are typically newer and more fuel efficient than the ones they replace.
3. Restricting the imports to only vehicles of a certain standard bans certain ones from entering the market, restricting the ability of some to buy a replacement vehicle (which while not meeting your standard is bound to be an improvement). So such people keep older vehicles for longer.
4. The remaining vehicles imported face demand but less supply, so retailers can put the price up.
A new low on Kennedy
Mary Jo Kopechne might have thought her death by drowning was "worth it", given the career of Ted Kennedy.
So says Melissa Lafsky in the Huffington Post.
Given she said "Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy." Yes, you all owe him so much, because he wanted to take more of your taxes and regulate the world so people like you had a chance, because without the services of a wealthy morally bankrupt politician, your life wouldn't have been so good.
Is it not so disgustingly evil to think you might speak on behalf of a dead woman to say her death at the hands of a drunken lech was worth it because of what he did with his life?So says Melissa Lafsky in the Huffington Post.
Given she said "Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy." Yes, you all owe him so much, because he wanted to take more of your taxes and regulate the world so people like you had a chance, because without the services of a wealthy morally bankrupt politician, your life wouldn't have been so good.
Should Melissa now offer herself on the altar of some politician so she can be left to die somewhere and someone else speak on her behalf and say "never mind, she'll think it was worth it given what the guy who left her to die did with his life".
Beyond smacking
Sadly, the terms of the debate on this issue have been very binary focused. One side arguing against the state interfering in how parents raise children, another said saying it needs laws on the use of force to stop horrendous cases of abuse. Neither particularly enlightens about how to raise children. Some will be aware of debate and disagreement among some objectivists about this issue.
I've written here, here, here, here, and here about my hesitancy about both sides on this issue. I despise Sue Bradford's desire to nationalise parenting, as epitomised by her embrace of Cindy Kiro's Orwellian proposals, but also despise the minority in the "pro-smacking" camp who embraced corporal punishment. Notwithstanding that, I believe most parents don't like smacking kids, but also they want to have the option without the Police treating them as abusers. Most parents would do virtually anything for their kids - it is the ones who treat their kids as a nuisance that are the problem.
So what ARE good parenting techniques? Not PC has lifted the debate, and produced an excellent post with many links (and comments) which is worthy of a read by any parent or prospective parent.
So if you don't think the best way to raise kids is to fill them with shivering fear of your violent punishment of them, OR that kids should be allowed to do whatever they like with no boundaries or guidance (except Nanny State), then go have a good read. It's called taking an issue beyond the banality of politics.
I've written here, here, here, here, and here about my hesitancy about both sides on this issue. I despise Sue Bradford's desire to nationalise parenting, as epitomised by her embrace of Cindy Kiro's Orwellian proposals, but also despise the minority in the "pro-smacking" camp who embraced corporal punishment. Notwithstanding that, I believe most parents don't like smacking kids, but also they want to have the option without the Police treating them as abusers. Most parents would do virtually anything for their kids - it is the ones who treat their kids as a nuisance that are the problem.
So what ARE good parenting techniques? Not PC has lifted the debate, and produced an excellent post with many links (and comments) which is worthy of a read by any parent or prospective parent.
So if you don't think the best way to raise kids is to fill them with shivering fear of your violent punishment of them, OR that kids should be allowed to do whatever they like with no boundaries or guidance (except Nanny State), then go have a good read. It's called taking an issue beyond the banality of politics.
30 August 2009
James Murdoch: libertarian hero?
Authoritarianism
That's how he describes the British broadcasting regulatory environment in the MacTaggart lecture he gave to the British television industry.
and he's right. A system that coerces all people with a TV set to pay up under threat of prosecution to fund a non-commercial broadcaster that is ever expanding its TV channels and radio stations, and which pays enormous salaries to attract popular stars from going to commercial TV - but thinks it is special and always demands to force the public to give it more money. The BBC. He decries the "land grab" this compulsorily funded state broadcaster has made to be everything to everyone, whilst the private broadcasting sector has strained to compete. Indeed, the decline of regional news on commercial TV whilst the BBC well funds its own equivalent is telling. Meanwhile, many do not know that Lonely Planet is now owned by the BBC - at what point should the state own a travel publishing operation?
Meanwhile, commercial broadcasting is heavily regulated as to the amount and types of advertising, so much that one channel cannot show an Indian show because of product placement of a company that doesn't operate in the UK.
In a brilliant speech he attacks OfCom, the UK's broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, effectively implying it is useless by deciding whether it is ok to describe Middlesbrough as the worst place to live in England, or this brilliant piece of sarcasm about how Ofcom published:
"the no doubt vital guide on ‘How to Download’, which teenagers across the land could barely have survived without."
He decries how the state is more concerned with throttling capitalism and spreads fear of its influence whilst "Nearly all local authorities already publish their own newspapers with flattering accounts of their doings. Over 60% of these pocket-Pravdas carry advertising, weakening the local presence of more critical voices". This, he argues, undermines independent journalism in towns and cities struggling to make a living which CAN impartially report on how local government operates.
He argues that people should be trusted to make good choices:
"People are very good at making choices: choices about what media to consume; whether to pay for it and how much; what they think is acceptable to watch, read and hear; and the result of their billions of choices is that good companies survive, prosper, and proliferate.
However, that debate rarely happens, and one reason is because the chief beneficiary of the status quo dominates the entire broadcasting sector - the BBC. The BBC can't be trusted to impartially engage a debate about its future, if it risks coming to the answer that the BBC is unnecessary, or should be a fraction of its current size. However, it is up to politicians and the rest of the media - the media that rises or falls on attracting audiences, customers and advertisers - to hold that debate.
For otherwise, the broadcaster that runs seven TV channels and ten national radio networks (plus numerous regional stations) will continue to say it is good for us, and please can it make us pay it more.
So James Murdoch is the libertarian hero of the day - confronting the authoritarian regulatory structure of broadcasting in the UK, which stifles the private sector, whilst allowing the BBC to be an ever growing leviathan of unaccountability. The BBC isn't good for us, just because it is convinced that it is, and makes us pay for the privilege of seeing and hearing it say so.
UPDATE: Amanda Andrews in the Sunday Telegraph says the BBC budget should be cut by a third. A good first step, I'd sell all BBC regional radio, BBC Asian Network. Radio 5 and 5xtra, Radio 1, 1 xtra, Radio 2 and CBBC. Cbeebies and BBC3.
That's how he describes the British broadcasting regulatory environment in the MacTaggart lecture he gave to the British television industry.
and he's right. A system that coerces all people with a TV set to pay up under threat of prosecution to fund a non-commercial broadcaster that is ever expanding its TV channels and radio stations, and which pays enormous salaries to attract popular stars from going to commercial TV - but thinks it is special and always demands to force the public to give it more money. The BBC. He decries the "land grab" this compulsorily funded state broadcaster has made to be everything to everyone, whilst the private broadcasting sector has strained to compete. Indeed, the decline of regional news on commercial TV whilst the BBC well funds its own equivalent is telling. Meanwhile, many do not know that Lonely Planet is now owned by the BBC - at what point should the state own a travel publishing operation?
Meanwhile, commercial broadcasting is heavily regulated as to the amount and types of advertising, so much that one channel cannot show an Indian show because of product placement of a company that doesn't operate in the UK.
In a brilliant speech he attacks OfCom, the UK's broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, effectively implying it is useless by deciding whether it is ok to describe Middlesbrough as the worst place to live in England, or this brilliant piece of sarcasm about how Ofcom published:
"the no doubt vital guide on ‘How to Download’, which teenagers across the land could barely have survived without."
He decries how the state is more concerned with throttling capitalism and spreads fear of its influence whilst "Nearly all local authorities already publish their own newspapers with flattering accounts of their doings. Over 60% of these pocket-Pravdas carry advertising, weakening the local presence of more critical voices". This, he argues, undermines independent journalism in towns and cities struggling to make a living which CAN impartially report on how local government operates.
He argues that people should be trusted to make good choices:
"People are very good at making choices: choices about what media to consume; whether to pay for it and how much; what they think is acceptable to watch, read and hear; and the result of their billions of choices is that good companies survive, prosper, and proliferate.
That is a great story and it has been powerfully positive for our society.
But we are not learning from that. Governments and regulators are wonderfully crafted machines for mission creep. For them, the abolition of media boundaries is a trumpet call to expansion: to do more, regulate more, control more"
Furthermore he decries the idea that independent balanced news comes from a state broadcaster:
"On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.
Independence of faction, industrial or political.
Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage.
Independence is sustained by true accountability – the accountability owed to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the television subscription – people who deliberately and willingly choose a service which they value"
You see public broadcasters have only accountability to politicians who decide whether to force the public to fund them - that's it. It is time that there was a proper debate about the role of the state in broadcasting in the UK.However, that debate rarely happens, and one reason is because the chief beneficiary of the status quo dominates the entire broadcasting sector - the BBC. The BBC can't be trusted to impartially engage a debate about its future, if it risks coming to the answer that the BBC is unnecessary, or should be a fraction of its current size. However, it is up to politicians and the rest of the media - the media that rises or falls on attracting audiences, customers and advertisers - to hold that debate.
For otherwise, the broadcaster that runs seven TV channels and ten national radio networks (plus numerous regional stations) will continue to say it is good for us, and please can it make us pay it more.
So James Murdoch is the libertarian hero of the day - confronting the authoritarian regulatory structure of broadcasting in the UK, which stifles the private sector, whilst allowing the BBC to be an ever growing leviathan of unaccountability. The BBC isn't good for us, just because it is convinced that it is, and makes us pay for the privilege of seeing and hearing it say so.
UPDATE: Amanda Andrews in the Sunday Telegraph says the BBC budget should be cut by a third. A good first step, I'd sell all BBC regional radio, BBC Asian Network. Radio 5 and 5xtra, Radio 1, 1 xtra, Radio 2 and CBBC. Cbeebies and BBC3.
28 August 2009
For those want to "invest" in public transport
You believe the price of petrol is going to go sky high. As a result people will drive a lot less and want a cheaper alternative.
Really?
So here's a way you can do it, without force.
Take your savings, in fact set up a company, and speculate on oil futures. Buy as much as you can. It must be a safe investment, and watch your capital grow.
From the massive windfall profits you make from this, use it to invest (you always say invest) in public transport. Hybrid buses or indeed new trains. By then peak oil will be so obvious, that you could have borrowed from the bank to do so. People will be gagging for public transport so much, you'll get many investors willing to join you. New Zealand has a free market in public transport, just set up a bus company and go for it. In fact, the government may be happy for you to buy trains and run them on its track.
Run services, charging fares to cover costs (you're not into profits), so that people get the alternative you care so much about. Yes the trains may take longer, but surely with the empty roads you predict, the hybrid buses will operate with ease, quickly and efficiently, full of eager fare paying passengers.
Not willing to put your money where your mouths are? Well keep your hypocritical hands off of everyone else's.
Really?
So here's a way you can do it, without force.
Take your savings, in fact set up a company, and speculate on oil futures. Buy as much as you can. It must be a safe investment, and watch your capital grow.
From the massive windfall profits you make from this, use it to invest (you always say invest) in public transport. Hybrid buses or indeed new trains. By then peak oil will be so obvious, that you could have borrowed from the bank to do so. People will be gagging for public transport so much, you'll get many investors willing to join you. New Zealand has a free market in public transport, just set up a bus company and go for it. In fact, the government may be happy for you to buy trains and run them on its track.
Run services, charging fares to cover costs (you're not into profits), so that people get the alternative you care so much about. Yes the trains may take longer, but surely with the empty roads you predict, the hybrid buses will operate with ease, quickly and efficiently, full of eager fare paying passengers.
Not willing to put your money where your mouths are? Well keep your hypocritical hands off of everyone else's.
So what's the transport funding about?
The NZ Transport Agency (yes it used to be Land Transport New Zealand, and before that Transfund) has announced its three year funding programme for roads and public transport. It used to be an annual announcement, so it is a positive change to announce three years worth of spending, which given the length of transport project makes some sense. Bear in mind that the whole legal and bureaucratic arrangements are ones set up under the previous government.
The government's announcements are telling. There has been a boost for roads compared to public transport, but nothing like what the opposition are saying. Given virtually all of the money being spent comes from road users it should hardly be a big deal to have most of it going on roads or services related to roads. Steven Joyce's press release lists a number of projects that are to be progressed, none of which are bad projects, though I note that Transmission Gully has no additional construction funding. The programme itself lists the construction costs of Transmission Gully at over NZ$1.4 billion. A ridiculous sum when upgrading the existing road would be unlikely to cost NZ$1 billion. Steven Joyce himself appears to be warming up the public to Transmission Gully being dumped. Good.
Anyway, so what is worth noting?
The proportion of spending on state highways is 59% up from 51% under Labour. There are big new projects, like committing money to build the Waterview Connection in Auckland, over the property rights of locals, the Te Rapa Bypass north of Hamilton and the Tauranga Eastern motorway (which will be tolled to pay part of the cost). Most of the rest of the spending is on already committed projects and maintenance. Notably, funding for Police enforcement of traffic laws is not increasing beyond inflation. I expect better performance will be sought under THAT contract. No, the Police don't get revenue from traffic fines either.
Money to subsidise public transport is becoming more focused, on projects that actually reduce traffic congestion, optimise service operation (?) and improve fare recovery from passengers (in other words wean services off of subsidies). 57% of public transport money is spent in Auckland, although 48% of public transport usage is there. Think about whether that's working.
From my perspective it is largely business as usual. The good thing is that all taxes from motorists are now spent through this, although it was Labour that introduced that, after National campaigned on it in 2005. It is also good that roads now get more of the money, 86% of spending is on roads or road related activities (planning roads, operating and policing them). However, this bureaucratic system still doesn't provide a link between users and the supply of roads. How do we know the projects are worth building? From a bureaucratic cost/benefit exercise and judgment. The fact remains all the money from road users goes into a pool and it is spent based on how users are perceived to "benefit" from the spending, not whether the money raised in an area or on a road is spent on that road or nearby network. There are huge cross subsidies, users in some areas undoubtedly pay too little, others pay too much, and demand isn't influenced by price - for example, it should be very cheap to use roads at the quietest times, but expensive when they reach capacity.
However, as long as government builds things, most people are happy. For now. Also, to be fair, New Zealand does this bureaucratic funding of roads far far less politically and more objectively than most countries. Bridges don't collapse due to lack of maintenance, and big new roads to nowhere don't get built, anymore. It's just the railway that's the biggest drain of pointless spending now, but most of the money on that comes from taxpayers directly, not motorists.
Other comments?
Darren Hughes says local roads will suffer, as they get no real additional money. The reason given is because councils have to increase rates for government to match more spending on roads. There is a serious issue here, but it would be better fixed by allowing councils to set charges for using their roads and replace rates funding with property access levies on roads where charges don't pay enough for maintenance. Hughes is talking nonsense on public transport though. Surely if public transport patronage rises, higher fare revenue should mean lower subsidies, although Labour's subsidy scheme encourages the opposite. The truth is Labour can criticise little, since National has largely continued Labour's funding allocation process. All it has done is scrap the pointless rail and sea freight spending and directed that and some public transport funding allocations to state highways.
Sue Kedgley of course talks mindless nonsense about the announcement:
- More than half of the NLTP budget ALWAYS went into state highways Sue, but then half the money came from motorists USING state highways.
- Yes every $7 spent on roads (including maintenance) $1 is spent on public transport, forgetting that another $1 is spent by ratepayers and yet another $2 is spent by the fare paying public. You see Sue, with one exception, roads aren't tolled. Oh by the way, for every person riding public transport, another 18 or so are driving or riding in a car.
- "It is especially disturbing to see almost no funding going into rail and sea freight - we have to shift our freight to these modes or else risk serious damage to our economy when the price of oil rises" What do you call subsidising Kiwirail from taxpayers Sue, and do you think Queenstown, which has no rail or sea freight at all, has been seriously damaged as a result?
The economic illiteracy and complete factual evasion of the Greens continues to astound.
ARC Chairman Mike Lee is cheering it on, proving it still has too much money for public transport.
ex. ACT MP and Rodney Mayor Penny Webster is upset that the dog of a project, the Penlink bridge, wont be getting special subsidies. So it either stands on tolls and property levies or wont be built. Good.
So let's not get too excited because reporters just report on press releases. Be grateful your motoring taxes are mostly going on roads, and if you are interested look here for your region to see what you'll be getting or not getting. Don't get excited if you're in Invercargill though, move along, nothing to see here (quite right too).
The government's announcements are telling. There has been a boost for roads compared to public transport, but nothing like what the opposition are saying. Given virtually all of the money being spent comes from road users it should hardly be a big deal to have most of it going on roads or services related to roads. Steven Joyce's press release lists a number of projects that are to be progressed, none of which are bad projects, though I note that Transmission Gully has no additional construction funding. The programme itself lists the construction costs of Transmission Gully at over NZ$1.4 billion. A ridiculous sum when upgrading the existing road would be unlikely to cost NZ$1 billion. Steven Joyce himself appears to be warming up the public to Transmission Gully being dumped. Good.
Anyway, so what is worth noting?
The proportion of spending on state highways is 59% up from 51% under Labour. There are big new projects, like committing money to build the Waterview Connection in Auckland, over the property rights of locals, the Te Rapa Bypass north of Hamilton and the Tauranga Eastern motorway (which will be tolled to pay part of the cost). Most of the rest of the spending is on already committed projects and maintenance. Notably, funding for Police enforcement of traffic laws is not increasing beyond inflation. I expect better performance will be sought under THAT contract. No, the Police don't get revenue from traffic fines either.
Money to subsidise public transport is becoming more focused, on projects that actually reduce traffic congestion, optimise service operation (?) and improve fare recovery from passengers (in other words wean services off of subsidies). 57% of public transport money is spent in Auckland, although 48% of public transport usage is there. Think about whether that's working.
From my perspective it is largely business as usual. The good thing is that all taxes from motorists are now spent through this, although it was Labour that introduced that, after National campaigned on it in 2005. It is also good that roads now get more of the money, 86% of spending is on roads or road related activities (planning roads, operating and policing them). However, this bureaucratic system still doesn't provide a link between users and the supply of roads. How do we know the projects are worth building? From a bureaucratic cost/benefit exercise and judgment. The fact remains all the money from road users goes into a pool and it is spent based on how users are perceived to "benefit" from the spending, not whether the money raised in an area or on a road is spent on that road or nearby network. There are huge cross subsidies, users in some areas undoubtedly pay too little, others pay too much, and demand isn't influenced by price - for example, it should be very cheap to use roads at the quietest times, but expensive when they reach capacity.
However, as long as government builds things, most people are happy. For now. Also, to be fair, New Zealand does this bureaucratic funding of roads far far less politically and more objectively than most countries. Bridges don't collapse due to lack of maintenance, and big new roads to nowhere don't get built, anymore. It's just the railway that's the biggest drain of pointless spending now, but most of the money on that comes from taxpayers directly, not motorists.
Other comments?
Darren Hughes says local roads will suffer, as they get no real additional money. The reason given is because councils have to increase rates for government to match more spending on roads. There is a serious issue here, but it would be better fixed by allowing councils to set charges for using their roads and replace rates funding with property access levies on roads where charges don't pay enough for maintenance. Hughes is talking nonsense on public transport though. Surely if public transport patronage rises, higher fare revenue should mean lower subsidies, although Labour's subsidy scheme encourages the opposite. The truth is Labour can criticise little, since National has largely continued Labour's funding allocation process. All it has done is scrap the pointless rail and sea freight spending and directed that and some public transport funding allocations to state highways.
Sue Kedgley of course talks mindless nonsense about the announcement:
- More than half of the NLTP budget ALWAYS went into state highways Sue, but then half the money came from motorists USING state highways.
- Yes every $7 spent on roads (including maintenance) $1 is spent on public transport, forgetting that another $1 is spent by ratepayers and yet another $2 is spent by the fare paying public. You see Sue, with one exception, roads aren't tolled. Oh by the way, for every person riding public transport, another 18 or so are driving or riding in a car.
- "It is especially disturbing to see almost no funding going into rail and sea freight - we have to shift our freight to these modes or else risk serious damage to our economy when the price of oil rises" What do you call subsidising Kiwirail from taxpayers Sue, and do you think Queenstown, which has no rail or sea freight at all, has been seriously damaged as a result?
The economic illiteracy and complete factual evasion of the Greens continues to astound.
ARC Chairman Mike Lee is cheering it on, proving it still has too much money for public transport.
ex. ACT MP and Rodney Mayor Penny Webster is upset that the dog of a project, the Penlink bridge, wont be getting special subsidies. So it either stands on tolls and property levies or wont be built. Good.
So let's not get too excited because reporters just report on press releases. Be grateful your motoring taxes are mostly going on roads, and if you are interested look here for your region to see what you'll be getting or not getting. Don't get excited if you're in Invercargill though, move along, nothing to see here (quite right too).
High speed rail not environmentally friendly
It's curious that the government backed private company that runs Britain's rail infrastructure - Network Rail - is promoting an extremely grand plan to make taxpayers pay for a high speed rail line from London to Edinburgh. £34 billion is the cost of a line from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. It would cut travel time from London to Edinburgh by rail to 2 hours 9 minutes.
See according to the Guardian, a consultancy report 2 years ago said there would be similar CO2 emissions from building and operating a high speed railway between London and Manchester as there would be to fly the route. The difference being that aviation on the route needs no subsidy. It would be better to improve capacity on the existing line through removing bottlenecks and improved signalling.
So the environmental advantages are at best dubious, and the economic costs are enormous. A massive transfer from taxpayers to business users of trains.
If there is congestion on the current rail network, that simply means fares are too low at busy times, so they should be raised so overcrowding can be reduced and revenue raised to put in extra capacity as it is needed. New lines when existing lines have ample capacity most of the day are unlikely to be particularly a good choice.
Of course the fetish for the moment is that flying is evil, as is driving, despite people continuing to choose those options. The truth is flying is largely a commercially run private business. Road transport involves privately provided vehicles paying excessive taxes to use roads managed bureaucratically. Railways involve a mix of commercial and subsidised services on subsidised tracks. Maybe of the highways were privatised, and charged commercial tolls reflecting demand, the excuses to subsidise railways would start to evaporate?
See according to the Guardian, a consultancy report 2 years ago said there would be similar CO2 emissions from building and operating a high speed railway between London and Manchester as there would be to fly the route. The difference being that aviation on the route needs no subsidy. It would be better to improve capacity on the existing line through removing bottlenecks and improved signalling.
So the environmental advantages are at best dubious, and the economic costs are enormous. A massive transfer from taxpayers to business users of trains.
If there is congestion on the current rail network, that simply means fares are too low at busy times, so they should be raised so overcrowding can be reduced and revenue raised to put in extra capacity as it is needed. New lines when existing lines have ample capacity most of the day are unlikely to be particularly a good choice.
Of course the fetish for the moment is that flying is evil, as is driving, despite people continuing to choose those options. The truth is flying is largely a commercially run private business. Road transport involves privately provided vehicles paying excessive taxes to use roads managed bureaucratically. Railways involve a mix of commercial and subsidised services on subsidised tracks. Maybe of the highways were privatised, and charged commercial tolls reflecting demand, the excuses to subsidise railways would start to evaporate?
Daily Telegraph columns of the day
Janet Daley on the Kennedy legacy, the truth behind the higher profile Kennedy men that seemed to go largely ignored, how one could have a private life of intense shallowness, whilst opining the highest moral standards publicly. Political hypocrisy came of age, was known and ignored.
Philip Johnston on the failure to address welfare. Instead of tackling the problems of an underclass dependent on the welfare state, Labour tinkled "From 1999 onwards, the government – ie the Treasury – abolished family credit, introduced working families' tax credit, introduced the disabled person's tax credit, introduced a childcare tax credit, introduced an employment credit, abolished the married couple's tax allowance, introduced the children's tax credit, introduced a baby tax credit, abolished the working families' tax credit, abolished the disabled person's tax credit, abolished the children's tax credit, abolished the baby tax credit, introduced a child tax credit, abolished the employment credit and introduced a working tax credit" so that "five per cent of British men aged under 50 are still classified as ill or disabled – three times higher than in Germany".
Doesn't matter, people on welfare all vote Labour anyway don't they?
Philip Johnston on the failure to address welfare. Instead of tackling the problems of an underclass dependent on the welfare state, Labour tinkled "From 1999 onwards, the government – ie the Treasury – abolished family credit, introduced working families' tax credit, introduced the disabled person's tax credit, introduced a childcare tax credit, introduced an employment credit, abolished the married couple's tax allowance, introduced the children's tax credit, introduced a baby tax credit, abolished the working families' tax credit, abolished the disabled person's tax credit, abolished the children's tax credit, abolished the baby tax credit, introduced a child tax credit, abolished the employment credit and introduced a working tax credit" so that "five per cent of British men aged under 50 are still classified as ill or disabled – three times higher than in Germany".
Doesn't matter, people on welfare all vote Labour anyway don't they?
Call to privatise UK motorways
Yes, the RAC Foundation has suggested that the English Highways Agency be privatised, which would raise as much as £85 billion, as a way of both improving road management and providing a hefty injection of funds to help repay public debt.
I wouldn't care whether individual motorways are sold, or the whole network, but it could make an enormous difference. The key though, is how it would be paid for.
You see British motorists pay fuel tax and annual vehicle ownership taxes (road tax), and none of the money is dedicated to roads. Of that revenue raised, only a quarter of that amount is spent on roads, almost as much as railways. So a key first step would be to dedicate a portion of that tax to the privatised road companies, who would get money on a per vehicle km basis. Then the company could raise tolls to replace such taxes, moving people towards user pays.
Of course it still leaves local authority roads, but they could be the next step.
Professor Stephen Glaister made this presentation about how poorly transport policy in the UK responds to the road sector.
I wouldn't care whether individual motorways are sold, or the whole network, but it could make an enormous difference. The key though, is how it would be paid for.
You see British motorists pay fuel tax and annual vehicle ownership taxes (road tax), and none of the money is dedicated to roads. Of that revenue raised, only a quarter of that amount is spent on roads, almost as much as railways. So a key first step would be to dedicate a portion of that tax to the privatised road companies, who would get money on a per vehicle km basis. Then the company could raise tolls to replace such taxes, moving people towards user pays.
Of course it still leaves local authority roads, but they could be the next step.
Professor Stephen Glaister made this presentation about how poorly transport policy in the UK responds to the road sector.
Sadly most respondents to this issue on the Daily Telegraph website are more friends of Marx than the market. Whinging about the roads and how they are managed, but terrified of the market providing solutions.
30 years ago today: Mountbatten murdered
Today, 30 years ago, a bomb went off in a boat off the coast of County Sligo in Ireland. On board was Louis Mountbatten, Nicolas Knatchbull (his 14 year old grandson), Paul Maxwell (a boy of 15) and Baroness Brabourne (the 83yo mother in law of Mountbatten's daughter Patricia). All would die as a result of that bombing, by the IRA.
The IRA called it an act of war, brave little men that they are. The man who planted the bomb, Thomas McMahon, is today living free, as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mountbatten's life was a full one. He had a distinguished naval career that took him into World War 2, although the military disaster at Dieppe, with particularly heavy casualties for Canadian forces would be a minor blot on his career. He oversaw the recapture of Burma from the Japanese and the surrender of Japanese forces in Singapore.
However, it is perhaps for his role as last Viceroy and first Governor General of India that he may be best remembered. He accepted early that India would have to be granted independence swiftly, and although he argued strongly for a united independent India, he faced the dogged determination of Muhammed Ali Jinnah, who pushed for partition. That partition, which Gandhi equally doggedly resisted, would see unforeseen bloodshed and dislocation. Whether Mountbatten could have insisted on a unified non religious India is a matter of conjecture, but his promotion of Indian independence saw him fall out with Winston Churchill at the time. Yes he was ambitious, and yes he was vain, but he was a significant figure in history - who fought for freedom against Japanese imperialism, and the rolling back of British colonialism in India.
The IRA called it an act of war, brave little men that they are. The man who planted the bomb, Thomas McMahon, is today living free, as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mountbatten's life was a full one. He had a distinguished naval career that took him into World War 2, although the military disaster at Dieppe, with particularly heavy casualties for Canadian forces would be a minor blot on his career. He oversaw the recapture of Burma from the Japanese and the surrender of Japanese forces in Singapore.
However, it is perhaps for his role as last Viceroy and first Governor General of India that he may be best remembered. He accepted early that India would have to be granted independence swiftly, and although he argued strongly for a united independent India, he faced the dogged determination of Muhammed Ali Jinnah, who pushed for partition. That partition, which Gandhi equally doggedly resisted, would see unforeseen bloodshed and dislocation. Whether Mountbatten could have insisted on a unified non religious India is a matter of conjecture, but his promotion of Indian independence saw him fall out with Winston Churchill at the time. Yes he was ambitious, and yes he was vain, but he was a significant figure in history - who fought for freedom against Japanese imperialism, and the rolling back of British colonialism in India.
The anniversary of the murder of Mountbatten will, of course, largely go unnoticed.
Zuma tells Mugabe off
Now I have no sympathies for Jacob Zuma, South Africa is very badly served by its politicians who have lied about HIV, interfered with the judiciary to save themselves, and used the state to enrich themselves and their families on a substantial scale.
However, he deserves credit for criticising Robert Mugabe. Zuma may be a step ahead of the odious and gutless Thabo Mbeki in that respect. According to The Times Zuma said Mugabe must curb deviant behaviour and work with the coalition government. In other words, power-sharing must be real and not just the appearance of reality.
Zimbabwe meanwhile remains a woeful place, although the shops are full, it is still not a place to safely own a business. The best that can be said is that things have stopped getting worse, but there remains significant restrictions on freedom of speech, and the cronies of Zanu-PF still profit from the state theft of land and businesses. It is at least positive that Jacob Zuma appears to have grown weary of South Africa propping up the disaster next door. News that Mugabe has been getting medical treatment may be the best news though, for the death of the murderous Mugabe would be the greatest leap forward for Zimbabwe in a generation.
However, he deserves credit for criticising Robert Mugabe. Zuma may be a step ahead of the odious and gutless Thabo Mbeki in that respect. According to The Times Zuma said Mugabe must curb deviant behaviour and work with the coalition government. In other words, power-sharing must be real and not just the appearance of reality.
Zimbabwe meanwhile remains a woeful place, although the shops are full, it is still not a place to safely own a business. The best that can be said is that things have stopped getting worse, but there remains significant restrictions on freedom of speech, and the cronies of Zanu-PF still profit from the state theft of land and businesses. It is at least positive that Jacob Zuma appears to have grown weary of South Africa propping up the disaster next door. News that Mugabe has been getting medical treatment may be the best news though, for the death of the murderous Mugabe would be the greatest leap forward for Zimbabwe in a generation.
British link to North Korean slave labour
The BBC reports on the Russian Timber Group, a company founded by a British businessman with a Russian business partner using North Korean slave labour - workers who work every day except 2 days a year off.
It remains remarkable at the lack of international attention this slave state gets, and its Nazi like treatment of most of its population. It remains a disgusting shame that human rights groups don't treat this place as the number one priority in the world.
However, Kim Jong Il will die soon, so there may hope for positive change...
It remains remarkable at the lack of international attention this slave state gets, and its Nazi like treatment of most of its population. It remains a disgusting shame that human rights groups don't treat this place as the number one priority in the world.
However, Kim Jong Il will die soon, so there may hope for positive change...
Another reason to avoid Cadbury
Not only has it always been a sweet masquerading as chocolate, Opinionated Mummy shares my views on this, but is now pandering the the fatuous Fairtrade fad.
Let's not forget what Fairtrade is, a branded payment of more than the market price of a product to engage in a transfer to those who sell the product.
Yes people can choose Fairtrade, but with fair trade comes one assertion, one assumption and one deception.
The assertion is fair trade is good for people in developing countries. Paying people more than the market price for something is good for them. This of course encourages them to produce more, putting more pressure on the market price. You see, the market price is a signal of demand compared to supply. Interfering with that means overproduction, further distorting what people produce. It's basic economics, but it is hardly surprising the do-gooding left don't understand that.
The assumption is that free trade is bad. Of course free trade is comparatively rare in agricultural commodities. You can blame the EU first, US second, Japan third and others, but whilst attention is taken away from liberalising trade in agriculture with the Fair Trade trend, it means the gross distortions and subsidies seen in global trade in agricultural commodities continues. These are distortions that increased due to Barack Obama and which the EU shows precious little sign of confronting, largely because of the parasitical French.
The grotesque fraud is Fair Trade diverts attention from trade barriers that impoverish farmers in developing countries, but the economic illiteracy of the left continues to support this nonsense.
So what is the deception? That the premium paid for Fair Trade all goes to the poor farmers. Nonsense. Much of the premium is skimmed off, because Fair Trade products attract people who are less price sensitive, so everyone from retailer back can skim a little more off. It's a nice way of ripping you off under the guise of helping the poor.
You want to know more? Read this IEA report, which exposes Fair trade as being an wholly inappropriate way of helping the poor. Notably 50% of the revenue from Fair Trade levies is spent on the Fair Trade corporate brand itself on self promotion.
"50% of this income was spent on so-called educational activities and most of the remainder was spent on certification, licensing and product development. In fact, the educational activities involve campaigning and promoting the Fairtrade brand through Fairtrade fortnight, promoting Fairtrade schools etc. These are all activities that effectively promote Fairtrade’s own brand....It is most unusual for a charitable foundation whose objectives are to help the poor in under-developed countries to use such a large proportion of its revenues on activities simply designed to increase its own size. It would be surprising if Fairtrade customers were aware of this."
The Adam Smith Institute found that 10% of the Fair Trade premium actually got to the producer.
Indeed. If you want to help people in poorer countries you might do two things:
- Support campaigns for free trade, oppose politicians and lobbyists who oppose it; and
- Donate to charities with sound reputations for high quality development projects. Note, none have the initials UN attached to them.
Meanwhile, Cadbury now sells overpriced poor quality chocolate flavoured candy. I will be even less likely to buy it now.
Let's not forget what Fairtrade is, a branded payment of more than the market price of a product to engage in a transfer to those who sell the product.
Yes people can choose Fairtrade, but with fair trade comes one assertion, one assumption and one deception.
The assertion is fair trade is good for people in developing countries. Paying people more than the market price for something is good for them. This of course encourages them to produce more, putting more pressure on the market price. You see, the market price is a signal of demand compared to supply. Interfering with that means overproduction, further distorting what people produce. It's basic economics, but it is hardly surprising the do-gooding left don't understand that.
The assumption is that free trade is bad. Of course free trade is comparatively rare in agricultural commodities. You can blame the EU first, US second, Japan third and others, but whilst attention is taken away from liberalising trade in agriculture with the Fair Trade trend, it means the gross distortions and subsidies seen in global trade in agricultural commodities continues. These are distortions that increased due to Barack Obama and which the EU shows precious little sign of confronting, largely because of the parasitical French.
The grotesque fraud is Fair Trade diverts attention from trade barriers that impoverish farmers in developing countries, but the economic illiteracy of the left continues to support this nonsense.
So what is the deception? That the premium paid for Fair Trade all goes to the poor farmers. Nonsense. Much of the premium is skimmed off, because Fair Trade products attract people who are less price sensitive, so everyone from retailer back can skim a little more off. It's a nice way of ripping you off under the guise of helping the poor.
You want to know more? Read this IEA report, which exposes Fair trade as being an wholly inappropriate way of helping the poor. Notably 50% of the revenue from Fair Trade levies is spent on the Fair Trade corporate brand itself on self promotion.
"50% of this income was spent on so-called educational activities and most of the remainder was spent on certification, licensing and product development. In fact, the educational activities involve campaigning and promoting the Fairtrade brand through Fairtrade fortnight, promoting Fairtrade schools etc. These are all activities that effectively promote Fairtrade’s own brand....It is most unusual for a charitable foundation whose objectives are to help the poor in under-developed countries to use such a large proportion of its revenues on activities simply designed to increase its own size. It would be surprising if Fairtrade customers were aware of this."
The Adam Smith Institute found that 10% of the Fair Trade premium actually got to the producer.
Indeed. If you want to help people in poorer countries you might do two things:
- Support campaigns for free trade, oppose politicians and lobbyists who oppose it; and
- Donate to charities with sound reputations for high quality development projects. Note, none have the initials UN attached to them.
Meanwhile, Cadbury now sells overpriced poor quality chocolate flavoured candy. I will be even less likely to buy it now.
27 August 2009
Anger management?
Idiot Savant
First he claims the referendum on smacking was about legalising punching your kids.
Now a man who often proclaims how important democracy is, has a hissy fit when it doesn’t go his way.
Let's all just say "fuck you" when we don't get our own way. It shines with reason.
He describes those who support legalised smacking as monsters, how the old law was legal cover for extreme violence and gets progressively more agree. He accuses those who organised the referendum as “hard core child beaters”, which is potentially defamatory (not that he’s stereotyping mind you), calls them believers in “faeries or devils”, but never commented on this case. He calls on the state to protect the children of the referendum holders, and then says “there's an awful lot of you monsters out there. Fortunately, you're dying out. And our country will be a much better place for children when you are gone”.
Do you think he has some issues with anger that he loses perspective?
I've made my distaste about corporal punishment clear, I don't like it, but I don't think very mild use of force should be criminal. That isn't a matter for the state.
By no means do I think most people who voted "no" are monsters. I think they are largely reasonable parents who fear the state taking their kids off them for using mild force that isn't about punching, kicking or thrashing their kids. When the primary argument you have against those you disagree with is abuse and vile accusations with no substance behind them, then you've done nothing for your case - it just looks like sour grapes. Particularly when someone who vents often about civil rights demands the state effectively take the children of the referendum organisers off them.
You can see how liberal he really is. On the bright side, maybe he will learn that democracy isn't a totem to worship - particularly when you think the majority vote for the immoral. Because when you worship democracy and it goes against you, you can either say those who voted "incorrectly" were stupid and "bought" in some way, or say "fuck you".
First he claims the referendum on smacking was about legalising punching your kids.
Now a man who often proclaims how important democracy is, has a hissy fit when it doesn’t go his way.
Let's all just say "fuck you" when we don't get our own way. It shines with reason.
He describes those who support legalised smacking as monsters, how the old law was legal cover for extreme violence and gets progressively more agree. He accuses those who organised the referendum as “hard core child beaters”, which is potentially defamatory (not that he’s stereotyping mind you), calls them believers in “faeries or devils”, but never commented on this case. He calls on the state to protect the children of the referendum holders, and then says “there's an awful lot of you monsters out there. Fortunately, you're dying out. And our country will be a much better place for children when you are gone”.
Do you think he has some issues with anger that he loses perspective?
I've made my distaste about corporal punishment clear, I don't like it, but I don't think very mild use of force should be criminal. That isn't a matter for the state.
By no means do I think most people who voted "no" are monsters. I think they are largely reasonable parents who fear the state taking their kids off them for using mild force that isn't about punching, kicking or thrashing their kids. When the primary argument you have against those you disagree with is abuse and vile accusations with no substance behind them, then you've done nothing for your case - it just looks like sour grapes. Particularly when someone who vents often about civil rights demands the state effectively take the children of the referendum organisers off them.
You can see how liberal he really is. On the bright side, maybe he will learn that democracy isn't a totem to worship - particularly when you think the majority vote for the immoral. Because when you worship democracy and it goes against you, you can either say those who voted "incorrectly" were stupid and "bought" in some way, or say "fuck you".
26 August 2009
Killer and former sponsor of terrorism dies
Yep, as Not PC puts it, there is nothing good to say about Ted Kennedy. Had he died sooner then more people would be alive today. He was the senior member of one of the most overhyped familial personality cults in recent US history. His wealthy family went on about poverty so much, because they didn't have any as children, and constantly sought the growth of government interference and influence in people's lives. Chappaquiddick was a disgrace, that should have send him humbly into a quiet life, but no. He helped raise money for the IRA in the 1970s.
For all of the bile thrown at the last Bush Administration, you can see no further example of hypocrisy from Democrats, and the US left, than the fawning adulation for this misogynistic lying fraud and sponsor of killers.
I said before: "Ted Kennedy exemplifies the worst of politics in the United States - a fraud, a thieving conniving pork barrel peddling image merchant who has supported murder and violence. A nasty piece of work if ever there was one."
May his kind never be seen again.
Oh by the way, you can judge people by the company they keep, and so now watch the roll of dishonour:
Of course the Demogoguecrats will compete for who can do the best KCNA type sycophancy about the man. Kim Il Sung would have been proud of the official statement reported by the BBC.
BBC notes Time Magazine called him one of the Ten Best Senators, which either is appalling misjudgment or a grand indictment on the corrupt unprincipled vileness of Senators from both parties.
Of course the BBC in noting Chappaquiddick ignored that he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die, she drowned in the car than the coward fled.
Gordon Brown said "I am proud to have counted him as a friend".
Politicians stand together as rogues. Ask yourself if Ted Kennedy hadn't been a Kennedy, whether he would have had any hope of a political career after Chappaquiddick?
UPDATE: Oh he cheated at Harvard and was expelled as well, (got someone else to do his Spanish exam), but no doubt the family connections helped him return. The Daily Telegraph's obituary tells more details than most and is least fawning. His ongoing misogyny of course is par for the course for the Kennedys, but the feminists of the Democratic Party forgive him, like they forgave Bill Clinton.
President Obama is "heartbroken", hardly a surprise really, being politically closely aligned.
UPDATE 2: Skeptical Eye has a helpful view on how to treat the death of politicians. "I have had it with all the airports, museums and roads named after politicians, as if there's anything "noble" about what these little Eichmanns do for a living. Politicians are the most worthless group of hacks, weasels, liars, thieves and murderers in existence on the planet. They contribute absolutely nothing whatsoever to society. When they start dropping like flies, it's more tempting to celebrate than mourn." Though some DID fight for freedom, it is hard to find any like that in the US.
For all of the bile thrown at the last Bush Administration, you can see no further example of hypocrisy from Democrats, and the US left, than the fawning adulation for this misogynistic lying fraud and sponsor of killers.
I said before: "Ted Kennedy exemplifies the worst of politics in the United States - a fraud, a thieving conniving pork barrel peddling image merchant who has supported murder and violence. A nasty piece of work if ever there was one."
May his kind never be seen again.
Oh by the way, you can judge people by the company they keep, and so now watch the roll of dishonour:
Of course the Demogoguecrats will compete for who can do the best KCNA type sycophancy about the man. Kim Il Sung would have been proud of the official statement reported by the BBC.
BBC notes Time Magazine called him one of the Ten Best Senators, which either is appalling misjudgment or a grand indictment on the corrupt unprincipled vileness of Senators from both parties.
Of course the BBC in noting Chappaquiddick ignored that he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die, she drowned in the car than the coward fled.
Gordon Brown said "I am proud to have counted him as a friend".
Politicians stand together as rogues. Ask yourself if Ted Kennedy hadn't been a Kennedy, whether he would have had any hope of a political career after Chappaquiddick?
UPDATE: Oh he cheated at Harvard and was expelled as well, (got someone else to do his Spanish exam), but no doubt the family connections helped him return. The Daily Telegraph's obituary tells more details than most and is least fawning. His ongoing misogyny of course is par for the course for the Kennedys, but the feminists of the Democratic Party forgive him, like they forgave Bill Clinton.
President Obama is "heartbroken", hardly a surprise really, being politically closely aligned.
UPDATE 2: Skeptical Eye has a helpful view on how to treat the death of politicians. "I have had it with all the airports, museums and roads named after politicians, as if there's anything "noble" about what these little Eichmanns do for a living. Politicians are the most worthless group of hacks, weasels, liars, thieves and murderers in existence on the planet. They contribute absolutely nothing whatsoever to society. When they start dropping like flies, it's more tempting to celebrate than mourn." Though some DID fight for freedom, it is hard to find any like that in the US.
UPDATE 3: It appears both CNN and the Times are only posting comments on their websites that are glowing with praise about the man.
UPDATE 4: The Daily Mail isn't so anal about disrespecting the disrespectful.
UPDATE 5: "As the progressive humankind unanimously praises, Ted Kennedy is the unprecedented great man and the everlasting sun of humankind who was possessed of all characters and qualifications needed for a great man on the loftiest level, glorified his life as the great thinker and theoretician, great statesman and revolutionary, and performed epoch-making exploits shining forever in the era and history" Who's going to run with this?
Moral question of the week: drugs during pregnancy
Having witnessed this myself a couple of days ago...
Should it be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman (assume she knows she is pregnant or should reasonably know she is pregnant and isn't insane) to smoke, take narcotics or alcohol?
FOR: Pregnancy is preventable. Once it occurs, termination on demand is legal up to a certain gestation period. Beyond that it is a fair assumption that the choice has been made to be a parent or to carry the foetus to term to give up for adoption. In such circumstances, reasonable care would be expected of the mother (and both parents after birth) to provide the necessary care and material needs for the child. Emphasis being reasonable. A mother ingesting any toxic substance effectively supplies that substance to the foetus. The dangers of foetal alcohol syndrome are well established and known, as are the dangers of substantial damage to the foetus from smoking or ingestion of hallucinogenics. The foetus is unable to consent to such consumption, and is at its most vulnerable state of growth during gestation. It is, in effect, little different from injecting the child directly. The rights of the child are held in trust by the parents, who are expected to take reasonable steps to protect those rights. Ingesting toxic substances deliberately during gestation does not do this, and is deliberately damaging and harmful to the child. It is an initiation of force.
AGAINST: The mother's body comes ahead of the foetus. With abortion rights, the foetus always comes second to the mother, this includes the mother having the right to ingest whatever she chooses. Risk such a law could be extended to diet, to anorexia, to prohibiting giving children alcohol to taste as they grow up. Many survive unaffected by maternal ingestion of alcohol, drugs or tobacco.
Expected positions?
Feminists: Women first, foetus has no rights.
Conservatives: Yes, prosecute the mother, foetus has more rights than mother.
Marxists: Don't prosecute the mother, she's probably poor, had bad education and doesn't know better.
Criminalising it means the foetus has rights (protected by the state) that can override the mother, the question is when do these rights appear? Not criminalising it means the foetus has no rights at all, and abortion on demand up to birth can surely be legal?
I lean towards criminalisation, admitting there are difficulties, but quite simply deliberate ingestion of drugs during pregnancy is a reckless disregard for the health of a baby that a mother intends to give birth to.
Discuss...
Should it be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman (assume she knows she is pregnant or should reasonably know she is pregnant and isn't insane) to smoke, take narcotics or alcohol?
FOR: Pregnancy is preventable. Once it occurs, termination on demand is legal up to a certain gestation period. Beyond that it is a fair assumption that the choice has been made to be a parent or to carry the foetus to term to give up for adoption. In such circumstances, reasonable care would be expected of the mother (and both parents after birth) to provide the necessary care and material needs for the child. Emphasis being reasonable. A mother ingesting any toxic substance effectively supplies that substance to the foetus. The dangers of foetal alcohol syndrome are well established and known, as are the dangers of substantial damage to the foetus from smoking or ingestion of hallucinogenics. The foetus is unable to consent to such consumption, and is at its most vulnerable state of growth during gestation. It is, in effect, little different from injecting the child directly. The rights of the child are held in trust by the parents, who are expected to take reasonable steps to protect those rights. Ingesting toxic substances deliberately during gestation does not do this, and is deliberately damaging and harmful to the child. It is an initiation of force.
AGAINST: The mother's body comes ahead of the foetus. With abortion rights, the foetus always comes second to the mother, this includes the mother having the right to ingest whatever she chooses. Risk such a law could be extended to diet, to anorexia, to prohibiting giving children alcohol to taste as they grow up. Many survive unaffected by maternal ingestion of alcohol, drugs or tobacco.
Expected positions?
Feminists: Women first, foetus has no rights.
Conservatives: Yes, prosecute the mother, foetus has more rights than mother.
Marxists: Don't prosecute the mother, she's probably poor, had bad education and doesn't know better.
Criminalising it means the foetus has rights (protected by the state) that can override the mother, the question is when do these rights appear? Not criminalising it means the foetus has no rights at all, and abortion on demand up to birth can surely be legal?
I lean towards criminalisation, admitting there are difficulties, but quite simply deliberate ingestion of drugs during pregnancy is a reckless disregard for the health of a baby that a mother intends to give birth to.
Discuss...
25 August 2009
Iran's terrorist defence Minister
Iran's military coup leader, "President" Ahmadinejad has selected his Defence Minister. A man wanted by Interpol for planning the attack on a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.
Christopher Hitchens has some damning words for the Iranian regime and calls upon the Obama Administration, quick to express disappointment at the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, to freeze the overseas bank accounts of the theocratic thugocracy, to deny visas for their politicians to travel and to express disappoinment at the appointment.
After all, Libya once was a major sponsor of terrorism, and now only engages in terrorising its own citizens. Iran on the other hand terrorises its own citizens, those of its neighbours and is pursuing a nuclear programme in full defiance of the IAEA and its members. Perhaps the US Administration will learn that trying to be everyone's friend wont necessarily be returned in kind, and that who it should really be engaging with are the brave Iranian who have fought, been arrested and killed by this illegitimate gangster state of religious thugs.
Iran's future and the security of the region depends on it.
Christopher Hitchens has some damning words for the Iranian regime and calls upon the Obama Administration, quick to express disappointment at the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, to freeze the overseas bank accounts of the theocratic thugocracy, to deny visas for their politicians to travel and to express disappoinment at the appointment.
After all, Libya once was a major sponsor of terrorism, and now only engages in terrorising its own citizens. Iran on the other hand terrorises its own citizens, those of its neighbours and is pursuing a nuclear programme in full defiance of the IAEA and its members. Perhaps the US Administration will learn that trying to be everyone's friend wont necessarily be returned in kind, and that who it should really be engaging with are the brave Iranian who have fought, been arrested and killed by this illegitimate gangster state of religious thugs.
Iran's future and the security of the region depends on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)