Trevor Loudon has researched the left extensively, and has a new blog here. While I don’t get too heated up about Keith Locke’s indiscrepancies from the past – after all he deserves credit for defending Ahmed Zaoui in my book, and his support for the Khmer Rouge was thirty years ago – it is important to note these, and after all any National MP who once warmed to the Ian Smith regime of Rhodesia would get a LOT of shit from the left. Trevor’s outing of the idiot Rodolfo Stavenhagen who thinks he can judge New Zealand race relations for the UN (and of course National Radio cowtows to anyone from the UN, because the UN MUST be good) is well worth a read.
Welcome Trevor, as others have said, you will be a great contributor to the blogosphere.
22 November 2005
School of depravity!!
Ferguson Intermediate School in Upper Hutt is facing a new depravity, that is completely inappropriate for 10-12 year olds. It appears it is a same sex activity between girls that is causing grave concern among staff, something even Queen Victoria would not believe existed. No, not drugs, no they are not pulling knives on each others, not beating each other up, not even masturbating each other, they are…. hugging. Yes I kid you not, it is reported here that the school is taking action - with an image of the brazen hussies performing such a lewd and lascivious act.
You know what comes of inappropriate hugging – just like washing nude, it encourages other behaviour – some of the girls might become not just friends, but CLOSE friends. They might enjoy the warmth, comfort and affection of another – the hugging isn’t forced, thank Clark, and it isn’t from teachers, after all teachers who want to give children any physical contact must be perverted!
Hopefully they will create cubicles for all pupils to change in when they do PE, and that ankles will be covered soon, and of course there is no holding hands, you know how intimate THAT is.
We ought to ban images and videos of them hugging too, I bet they see older teenagers and adults doing it – that’s where it all went wrong.
If not stamped out, hugging will lead to kissing, which will lead to French kissing and then touching legs and arms and bellies, and you know what comes from that AIDS and pregnancy! After all, girls should be told to save themselves for their husbands and wear burkhas so that they don’t get any bright ideas, and so boys and, eventually, men don’t. Thank Blair I’m in the UK where the main problem is that 70% of schoolkids report having been bullied – as least they are not behaving like perverts with each other!
You know what comes of inappropriate hugging – just like washing nude, it encourages other behaviour – some of the girls might become not just friends, but CLOSE friends. They might enjoy the warmth, comfort and affection of another – the hugging isn’t forced, thank Clark, and it isn’t from teachers, after all teachers who want to give children any physical contact must be perverted!
Hopefully they will create cubicles for all pupils to change in when they do PE, and that ankles will be covered soon, and of course there is no holding hands, you know how intimate THAT is.
We ought to ban images and videos of them hugging too, I bet they see older teenagers and adults doing it – that’s where it all went wrong.
If not stamped out, hugging will lead to kissing, which will lead to French kissing and then touching legs and arms and bellies, and you know what comes from that AIDS and pregnancy! After all, girls should be told to save themselves for their husbands and wear burkhas so that they don’t get any bright ideas, and so boys and, eventually, men don’t. Thank Blair I’m in the UK where the main problem is that 70% of schoolkids report having been bullied – as least they are not behaving like perverts with each other!
21 November 2005
Sprawl, transport and choice
PC has a wonderful series on why sprawl is good and the abolition of town planning even better. Most of the links are on his latest post on the topic, here.
The crux of so much of this is that planners get concerned about traffic congestion (which is a result of roads not being managed or charged like private property), insufficient use of public transport, energy use in homes and the disorder of capitalist societies. Most of this is out and out nanny statism.
To those who espouse this, they look at figures for energy use, public transport use and for them the less energy and more public transport the better- in short, Pyongyang in North Korea is the ideal city.
Frankly, who cares if people use more or less energy in their homes, or whose homes are energy efficient or otherwise? It doesn’t matter any more than whether those people buy a new pair of shoes every week or every year, or have a huge collection of CDs. The key is- as long as they PAY for it, a person should be able to consume whatever they wish. Pay meaning, the cost to purchase it and dispose of it, and that means no subsidies for production or distribution and no subsidies for rubbish collection or disposal or recycling. Remember how in so many countries energy and rubbish are run by central or local government, and are directly or indirectly subsidised.
Also who cares if public transport is well used or not, as long as those using it pay for it. Much public transport in the world is not subsidised – think of long distances buses and trains in New Zealand, and most airlines.
Planners are busybodies, they want to nanny us all, because we don’t know what is good for us. They want to protect us from using cars unnecessarily, from wasting energy and eating the wrong foods. They are do-gooders, and many have their hearts in the right place, but they need to be told to “fuck off, leave me alone, it’s my life and my money and I will do what I want with it”. Many of their messages are not bad in themselves – I don’t want to waste power or petrol, but sometimes I want a hot wash in my washing machine, sometimes I want to drive with the accelerator to the floor, sometimes I want to eat fast food. Sue Kedgley is the ultimate nanny – a hypocritical bitch who gets driven around, while calling on people to use public transport. John Prescott was the UK Transport Secretary, and did the same.
I want to live in a house, in the suburbs, with as many rooms as I can afford, as big a car as I can afford, and travel whenever I want in the class I can afford, and buy whatever I want – and live my life the way I want to. I don’t want anyone else’s money to do it. You can suggest ways I could do things better, but if you dare tell me where I should live, in what sort of house, how I must go to work or tax or subsidise things I don’t want to do because you don’t like my choices, then fuck off!
The crux of so much of this is that planners get concerned about traffic congestion (which is a result of roads not being managed or charged like private property), insufficient use of public transport, energy use in homes and the disorder of capitalist societies. Most of this is out and out nanny statism.
To those who espouse this, they look at figures for energy use, public transport use and for them the less energy and more public transport the better- in short, Pyongyang in North Korea is the ideal city.
Frankly, who cares if people use more or less energy in their homes, or whose homes are energy efficient or otherwise? It doesn’t matter any more than whether those people buy a new pair of shoes every week or every year, or have a huge collection of CDs. The key is- as long as they PAY for it, a person should be able to consume whatever they wish. Pay meaning, the cost to purchase it and dispose of it, and that means no subsidies for production or distribution and no subsidies for rubbish collection or disposal or recycling. Remember how in so many countries energy and rubbish are run by central or local government, and are directly or indirectly subsidised.
Also who cares if public transport is well used or not, as long as those using it pay for it. Much public transport in the world is not subsidised – think of long distances buses and trains in New Zealand, and most airlines.
Planners are busybodies, they want to nanny us all, because we don’t know what is good for us. They want to protect us from using cars unnecessarily, from wasting energy and eating the wrong foods. They are do-gooders, and many have their hearts in the right place, but they need to be told to “fuck off, leave me alone, it’s my life and my money and I will do what I want with it”. Many of their messages are not bad in themselves – I don’t want to waste power or petrol, but sometimes I want a hot wash in my washing machine, sometimes I want to drive with the accelerator to the floor, sometimes I want to eat fast food. Sue Kedgley is the ultimate nanny – a hypocritical bitch who gets driven around, while calling on people to use public transport. John Prescott was the UK Transport Secretary, and did the same.
I want to live in a house, in the suburbs, with as many rooms as I can afford, as big a car as I can afford, and travel whenever I want in the class I can afford, and buy whatever I want – and live my life the way I want to. I don’t want anyone else’s money to do it. You can suggest ways I could do things better, but if you dare tell me where I should live, in what sort of house, how I must go to work or tax or subsidise things I don’t want to do because you don’t like my choices, then fuck off!
Jewish Council is wrong
Now I understand why the Jewish Council is calling for a banning of the sale of Nazi memorabilia.
There are a handful of freaks out there who get off draping their bedrooms with swastikas and feeling proud that they can follow someone who tells them what to do and how to run their lives and everyone elses. Fortunately almost all of the those with these views are almost completely incompetent – remember there was a National Front in New Zealand that couldn’t register as a political party and the British equivalents, the National Front and BNP are almost entirely a rabble of semi-insane losers who can barely organise themselves. A club of mostly useless men (and their vile female companions).
David Harcourt, a Wellington antiques dealer is rightfully defending his right to sell Nazi material. Banning it would of course raise the price for such stuff, and the claim that making money from it glorifies it is nonsense – the same claim can be made for selling t-shirts with Che Guevara on it, or Castro, or the mountains of communist era junk that gets sold in eastern European markets. I bought a few bits and pieces in Bratislava when I was there a year ago, out of curiosity and because, one day, I want to show my children and grandchildren the sort of crap that evil regimes gave to people – to show appreciation, while they oppressed them and denied their individuality.
I shouldn’t have to even state the obvious, the Holocaust was an absolute abomination, particularly as it was so carefully calculated, ordered and ran in what had been considered a civilised, modern Western society. Nazi Germany was one of the most evil regimes to have existed in modern times – but so was the Soviet Union, Ceaucescu’s Romania, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Saddam’s Iraq, Hoxha’s Albania, Mengistu’s Ethiopia, Bokassa’s CAR, Amin’s Uganda. Banning anything from any of the above is no better than what those regime’s did – they banned what they didn’t like. The USA does not ban Nazis, in fact they are easy to find, but there are very very few of them, and there is no chance whatsoever that they will gain the means to do evil.
The Jewish Council’s sensitivity towards anything from the Nazi era is understandable – but the answer is not to ban it, but to ignore it. We are not ever served by banning that we find most offensive, but by exposing it for what it is. Banning it and focusing on the misfits who get excited by swastikas gives those misfits, and Nazism more excitement, attention and allure to the few who may also find some thrill in the forbidden. That is the least thing the Jewish Council should be encouraging.
There are a handful of freaks out there who get off draping their bedrooms with swastikas and feeling proud that they can follow someone who tells them what to do and how to run their lives and everyone elses. Fortunately almost all of the those with these views are almost completely incompetent – remember there was a National Front in New Zealand that couldn’t register as a political party and the British equivalents, the National Front and BNP are almost entirely a rabble of semi-insane losers who can barely organise themselves. A club of mostly useless men (and their vile female companions).
David Harcourt, a Wellington antiques dealer is rightfully defending his right to sell Nazi material. Banning it would of course raise the price for such stuff, and the claim that making money from it glorifies it is nonsense – the same claim can be made for selling t-shirts with Che Guevara on it, or Castro, or the mountains of communist era junk that gets sold in eastern European markets. I bought a few bits and pieces in Bratislava when I was there a year ago, out of curiosity and because, one day, I want to show my children and grandchildren the sort of crap that evil regimes gave to people – to show appreciation, while they oppressed them and denied their individuality.
I shouldn’t have to even state the obvious, the Holocaust was an absolute abomination, particularly as it was so carefully calculated, ordered and ran in what had been considered a civilised, modern Western society. Nazi Germany was one of the most evil regimes to have existed in modern times – but so was the Soviet Union, Ceaucescu’s Romania, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Saddam’s Iraq, Hoxha’s Albania, Mengistu’s Ethiopia, Bokassa’s CAR, Amin’s Uganda. Banning anything from any of the above is no better than what those regime’s did – they banned what they didn’t like. The USA does not ban Nazis, in fact they are easy to find, but there are very very few of them, and there is no chance whatsoever that they will gain the means to do evil.
The Jewish Council’s sensitivity towards anything from the Nazi era is understandable – but the answer is not to ban it, but to ignore it. We are not ever served by banning that we find most offensive, but by exposing it for what it is. Banning it and focusing on the misfits who get excited by swastikas gives those misfits, and Nazism more excitement, attention and allure to the few who may also find some thrill in the forbidden. That is the least thing the Jewish Council should be encouraging.
What the Police want - more speeding tickets
David Farrar has already demonstrated that the Police are back on about speeding again. The Police briefing for incoming minister has asked for them to get a lot more money and people, surprise surprise. This is something the public tend to LIKE, but is also fraught with danger.
Now, as everyone says, the Police have a hard job, but politicians have a harder job making them accountable. The Police are not easy for accountability, partially because:
1. Most people love them, they perform duties few of us would want to do ourselves, and they are essential to a peaceful and free society – and they know it and they know how to pull on public heartstrings. Much of the time they do their job very well;
2. It is a highly unionised profession, meaning they stick together to protect each other. This is a mentality that suits the job they do, but means when anyone is out of line, there is some willingness to cover each other’s trails. This is not a place to be too independently minded.
3. Management of the Police is in house. In other words, military like, every level of the Police hierarchy is managed by cops – not managers. Companies run by the core staff are often far from successful – airlines used to be run by airline people until it was realised that professional managers were needed – people who are not sentimentally attached to parts of the operation and who can ask the hard questions. Hospitals are the same by the way, they shouldn’t be run by GPs.
4. There is no competition or threat of competition.
Having said that the NZ Police are light years ahead of many of their overseas counterparts, although in some cases that hasn’t been hard.
The main risks that the Police present are:
1. Poor performance: Not responding to what the public – taxpayers- demand of them. This is responding to incidents that threaten themselves, their families or their property. This does not mean sending for a taxi for a distressed woman or not responding to 111 calls. The flak over this is a systematic lack of performance incentives – and the union and organisation will say this is too hard.
2. Lack of budget control: What the Police want, the Police get. The INCIS project is the classic example, no proper management and money just going down the plughole to IBM for a system that ultimately was not delivered. Anytime a politician considers making the Police more efficient, the Police stick together and say “that means removing a community constable from Manurewa” or whatever. The Police always say budget cuts affect the frontline, so the administrative overheads continue to blowout.
3. Police threat to individual liberty: As the frontline of the monopoly of legitimised state violence, the Police have powers to initiate force against New Zealanders. They should, of course, do this very sparingly, with priority on cases when there are victims or potential victims – and not at all in other cases. The Police always claim they enforce the law, but for many many years they have done this selectively. They are tough on drugs, but I don’t see them following around teenage girls to check if their boyfriends are 16 and over and breaking the Crimes Act with them. They ceased routinely enforcing the law against homosexual acts a few years before it was repealed. The Police can change their law enforcement emphasis – but all in all, they always advocate more power and discretion. If the Police had their way we would all have ID cards, electronic tracking devices attached to us at all times that they could check up on, and CCTV cameras on every street corner. The Police would also change the burden of proof so you are guilty till proven innocent. Don’t have any doubts about it, the term Police state isn’t something many of them think is a bad thing, and if you spent half your day dealing with lowlifes, you might have some sympathy for that.
So what have the cops asked for?
A need to increase frontline response and investigator numbers.
Attrition is 350-400 a year, so the Police propose double that recruitment rate per annum. Of course the actual numbers needed are not suggested, so that the numbers could presumably grow ad infinitum, along with the budget. Of course, they could stop enforcing victimless crimes, though Libertarianz is not in government.
A need to reduce staff safety risks, bolster field supervision and improve investigation file quality for Court with more sworn positions at Sergeant and Senior Sergeant level.
These are several different things, but this means more money to promote experienced cops.
Considering next steps in areas of road policing enforcement alongside education and engineering options
Here the cops take the easy out – lowering speed limits, blood alcohol limits and more use of speed enforcement and tougher sanctions. Now given Transit and the Police recently admitted that in one location (Tokoroa-Taupo) speed wasn’t the key factor, it seems that as speed enforcement is really easy, they want to slow everyone down.
My view is that the biggest road safety problem comes down to punishment – people who kill others on the road due to stupidity should be banned from driving, for life. If you can’t stay on your side of the road, or obey a red light – then tough – and if you are caught driving again, you get imprisoned, for trespass. In a world of private roads, an unauthorised driver would be trespassing – but in New Zealand, it is a far bigger offence to be smoking cannabis than it is to be an idiot driving a car and killing someone. Speeding is an issue, on some roads in some conditions, but it is an attitude in New Zealand that you can’t punish bad driving – but you can punishing breaking rules. I don’t care if this means underprivileged stupid people are in prison for reckless driving causing death – better that than them being in prison for having the odd joint!
and the Police? Abolish victimless crimes, to give the Police more chance to follow real crimes -and make them locally accountable. Split the Police into several dozen precincts, each individually accountable to an electable sheriff - maybe not as many precincts as there are local authorities, but somewhere around 40. Then bulk fund according to the local population, let the Police pursue the local priorities, and anything that goes across precincts can remain the purview of a centralised investigation unit. Now that would be a change!
Now, as everyone says, the Police have a hard job, but politicians have a harder job making them accountable. The Police are not easy for accountability, partially because:
1. Most people love them, they perform duties few of us would want to do ourselves, and they are essential to a peaceful and free society – and they know it and they know how to pull on public heartstrings. Much of the time they do their job very well;
2. It is a highly unionised profession, meaning they stick together to protect each other. This is a mentality that suits the job they do, but means when anyone is out of line, there is some willingness to cover each other’s trails. This is not a place to be too independently minded.
3. Management of the Police is in house. In other words, military like, every level of the Police hierarchy is managed by cops – not managers. Companies run by the core staff are often far from successful – airlines used to be run by airline people until it was realised that professional managers were needed – people who are not sentimentally attached to parts of the operation and who can ask the hard questions. Hospitals are the same by the way, they shouldn’t be run by GPs.
4. There is no competition or threat of competition.
Having said that the NZ Police are light years ahead of many of their overseas counterparts, although in some cases that hasn’t been hard.
The main risks that the Police present are:
1. Poor performance: Not responding to what the public – taxpayers- demand of them. This is responding to incidents that threaten themselves, their families or their property. This does not mean sending for a taxi for a distressed woman or not responding to 111 calls. The flak over this is a systematic lack of performance incentives – and the union and organisation will say this is too hard.
2. Lack of budget control: What the Police want, the Police get. The INCIS project is the classic example, no proper management and money just going down the plughole to IBM for a system that ultimately was not delivered. Anytime a politician considers making the Police more efficient, the Police stick together and say “that means removing a community constable from Manurewa” or whatever. The Police always say budget cuts affect the frontline, so the administrative overheads continue to blowout.
3. Police threat to individual liberty: As the frontline of the monopoly of legitimised state violence, the Police have powers to initiate force against New Zealanders. They should, of course, do this very sparingly, with priority on cases when there are victims or potential victims – and not at all in other cases. The Police always claim they enforce the law, but for many many years they have done this selectively. They are tough on drugs, but I don’t see them following around teenage girls to check if their boyfriends are 16 and over and breaking the Crimes Act with them. They ceased routinely enforcing the law against homosexual acts a few years before it was repealed. The Police can change their law enforcement emphasis – but all in all, they always advocate more power and discretion. If the Police had their way we would all have ID cards, electronic tracking devices attached to us at all times that they could check up on, and CCTV cameras on every street corner. The Police would also change the burden of proof so you are guilty till proven innocent. Don’t have any doubts about it, the term Police state isn’t something many of them think is a bad thing, and if you spent half your day dealing with lowlifes, you might have some sympathy for that.
So what have the cops asked for?
A need to increase frontline response and investigator numbers.
Attrition is 350-400 a year, so the Police propose double that recruitment rate per annum. Of course the actual numbers needed are not suggested, so that the numbers could presumably grow ad infinitum, along with the budget. Of course, they could stop enforcing victimless crimes, though Libertarianz is not in government.
A need to reduce staff safety risks, bolster field supervision and improve investigation file quality for Court with more sworn positions at Sergeant and Senior Sergeant level.
These are several different things, but this means more money to promote experienced cops.
Considering next steps in areas of road policing enforcement alongside education and engineering options
Here the cops take the easy out – lowering speed limits, blood alcohol limits and more use of speed enforcement and tougher sanctions. Now given Transit and the Police recently admitted that in one location (Tokoroa-Taupo) speed wasn’t the key factor, it seems that as speed enforcement is really easy, they want to slow everyone down.
My view is that the biggest road safety problem comes down to punishment – people who kill others on the road due to stupidity should be banned from driving, for life. If you can’t stay on your side of the road, or obey a red light – then tough – and if you are caught driving again, you get imprisoned, for trespass. In a world of private roads, an unauthorised driver would be trespassing – but in New Zealand, it is a far bigger offence to be smoking cannabis than it is to be an idiot driving a car and killing someone. Speeding is an issue, on some roads in some conditions, but it is an attitude in New Zealand that you can’t punish bad driving – but you can punishing breaking rules. I don’t care if this means underprivileged stupid people are in prison for reckless driving causing death – better that than them being in prison for having the odd joint!
and the Police? Abolish victimless crimes, to give the Police more chance to follow real crimes -and make them locally accountable. Split the Police into several dozen precincts, each individually accountable to an electable sheriff - maybe not as many precincts as there are local authorities, but somewhere around 40. Then bulk fund according to the local population, let the Police pursue the local priorities, and anything that goes across precincts can remain the purview of a centralised investigation unit. Now that would be a change!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)