Greens prefer tax cuts over roads

Yes!! Believe it or not, the Green hatred for asphalt and concrete, and presumably cars (and trucks) is greater than a hatred for people getting their own money back.

.

Jeanette said "But if the battle is between tax cuts and a massive spending splurge on new roads in the middle of a long term oil crisis, we might even go for the tax cuts. " (though the context is that more money on social spending would be better).

.

As Labour embarks on the biggest road building programme in New Zealand since the 1960s, aided and abetted by the Land Transport Management Act, supported by the Greens, you wonder where they got it all wrong? You see it is what happens when you politicise road funding and water down the need for efficiency in spending decisions. It is also what the public wants.

Gillian McKeith - so vile

Today I'm going let out my invective about a fraud -Gillian McKeith, host of the popular show "You are What you Eat". She used to be referred to as "Doctor". Doctor my arse.

.

Irish Comedian Dara O'Briain said "if you are what you eat then she must have eaten a shrew" he also said "she is the kind of person that as a catholic we were warned - this is what protestants look like". There are few people on television who are so self-satisfied sanctimonious and judgmental, and banal to boot. She finds overweight people who eat vast amounts of unhealthy food, and pretends to be a qualified nutritionist teaching them to (shock!) eat less, eat more vegetables and fruit, and eat less sugar and fat. Brilliant! Who would have thought...

.

Her "Ph.D" was through a distance learning programme from the (New Zealanders older than 35 will understand) Claytons College of Natural Health. The accreditation of this "college" is not recognised by the US Department of Education. She once claimed to have received it from the American College of Nutrition, but doesn't anymore. What a liar.

.

She is a member of the American Association of Nutritionist Consultants, an accreditation that has so much value that several people have managed to get their pets membership.

.

On top of all that is the drivel she spouts about nutrition. Drivel that is at best harmless, but for a woman who has made a fortune selling herself as some kind of expert, deserve to be derided. Take this:

.

"[Because] chlorophyll is high in oxygen [eating dark green leaves will] really oxygenate the blood." Huh? We get oxygen from breathing not eating Gillian.

.

"Skid mark stools [...are...] a sign of dampness inside the body - a very common condition in Britain." Um yes, we are 70% water. The skid mark stool is inside her head.

.

"All molecules have an electrical charge and a vibrational energy. Therefore, all foods, which are made up of molecules, contain these vibrational charges. The colours of foods represent vibrational energies [...] foods which are orange in colour [...] have similar vibrational energies and even similar nutrient makeup." What the hell is "vibrational energy"? Similar coloured food has similar nutrient makeup?? So butter and lemons? Salt and sugar? .

.

Why the hell does anyone give this woman the credibility of anything other than a spaced out hippy charlatan? She is thoroughly fisked in this article which is quite comprehensive about what an unscientific phony she is. The Guardian has also done a great job on her.

.

On top of that, I just loathe her superiority complex which she deserves to have none. She touts a combination of common sense and quackery, and criticises people like children for not doing what she says. There is a place for a show where stupid people are taught to eat well, especially in the UK - but not her nonsense.

.

It just encourages me to have a plate of chips and tell her to bugger off, and don't you dare look at my poo.

Russel Norman, ecologically, economically vapid

So Russel (he had to have one “l” makes him a bit more alternative) Norman is the Green’s new co-leader. Shame. His speech says a lot about what he thinks about individual freedom and the world around it, and it doesn’t say a lot about his ability to go beyond Green rhetoric and actually think.
.
His speech is full of the childlike analysis that so permeates much of the ecological left thinking. The notion that growth in GDP is necessarily at the cost of the environment. Statements like “Every year we must consume more of resources available from the planet in order to expand our material consumption” are not only untrue, but go completely contrary to the spin that renewable and sustainable development is possible. Consuming paper and wood from renewable pinus radiate forests is hardly a non-renewable resource. Water, which is constantly recycled through the atmosphere, is hardly non-renewable either. Capitalism means a constant striving for more efficient production and consumption as people maximise their own welfare – and that efficiency is only enhanced if people pay the market price for resources, which, by the way, “we” do not own. They are owned by those who discover or create them.
.
“And our society is building its great memorials to the folly of short-sighted resource use and these memorials have four lanes and are made of tarmac and the great priests of the cult of GDP growth will cover the land with their roads as a memorial to their folly.” This brings up the complete utter banality of the Green argument on oil and transport. Besides the nonsense about oil running out “Our geologists tell us that the oil is close to half used up already, and yet still we are consuming it as if it were infinite”. Actually no “we’re” not, commercial vehicle owners and operators, airlines, shipping companies are all investing in more fuel efficient vehicles, all the time. The Boeing 747 of today consumes 40% less fuel than the first one, and that isn’t because of any government decree, or even environmental concern, it is because airlines don’t want to waste fuel. People ARE driving less with high petrol prices, government petrol tax revenue is tracking downwards as a result. At such high prices, oil companies are scrambling to find more oilfields to exploit, so it wont run out, and alternatives are thriving – it’s called the market, don’t worry your empty little head Russel, it will be ok. The same thing happened once before with firewood and coal.
.
So once you get over oil running out, the notion that roads wont be needed anymore is truly antediluvian. The land is hardly getting “covered with roads”, and roads will always be needed for buses, trucks and cars!! Yes cars!! Personal transport is NOT going anywhere. Cars started becoming seriously popular in the 1930s, when the cost of owning and running a car was many times higher as a proportion of one’s income than it is today. Traffic is not going to subside to pre 1930s levels – ever!! The Greens wont admit it, but most of the lower income people they claim to care about LOVE cars, they own them and use them. Maybe in the longer term, they will be hybrids, or powered by other fuels if oil does become too expensive to use (it wont "run out"), but there will always be private transport because it is the most convenient, most comfortable and most flexible, as well as ensuring you travel with who you want - not the random roulette wheel of whether you sit next to someone nose picking, with BO or who takes up two seats.

.

Every country in the world has cities with plenty of traffic, except North Korea – I suspect Russel and many of the Greens envy that aspect of North Korea at least. They are crazy if they think roads are going to empty in the next decade or so, I suspect it is more wishful thinking that alarmist warning of what they truly believe.
.
On top of that, the Green’s preference for interfering with market signals is shown with this little statement:

.
“I don't think that a government that just announced a massive increase in road spending while projecting a long term decline in public transport funding really understands the everyday experience of people caught between rising fuel prices and an inadequate under funded public transport system. So I'm going to write a letter to Michael Cullen to invite him over for dinner one night but there is one condition.

He has to join me on the bus home first - the number two at around 5pm on a weeknight. He can see how overcrowded the buses are.

"

.
Well for starters Russel, you live in Mt. Cook, which means it is easily walking distance from Parliament (around 2km), even if you only want to walk part of the way there are countless near empty buses running between Parliament and Courtenay Place. Clearly the fare is too low, because it isn’t incentivising you to be as Green as you should be or raising enough money to fund replacement trolley buses. Russel should save money, walk or bike, and leave room for others on the bus. Public transport isn’t sacred, it uses fuel too, and car users have been subsidising it for years. Public transport subsidies have increased 250% under Labour, but patronage has increased by about 20% - how efficient or environmentally friendly is that? Have a look at Hamilton, where subsidies have more than doubled, patronage hasn’t even increased by 50%.

.
Oh dear… (more on Russell’s simple simon approach to the world later)

.

(Besides, Michael Cullen uses public transport twice a week - it's just a lot faster and generally more comfortable on an Air New Zealand ATR72 than on a bus).

Morrissey incites terrorism?

According to the Sunday Times (UK) (page 27, not on website. This interview says nothing of these views) singer Morrissey (he writes beautiful love songs and also maniacally depressing songs) said at a concert in Oxford "Make no mistake, for anyone working in the labs, we are going to get you". In other words he is supporting terrorism against people working on experiments on animals.

.

Charming... but will he be arrested for "hate speech" like Muslim fundamentalist preachers are? Doubt it. Not that he should be, I disagree with hate speech - but funny how an 80s music icon is immune, when not only has he preached meat is murder (which is not advocating terrorism, but simply expressing a point of view), but that it is ok to intimidate and attack laboratory workers and their families.

.

Think about that next time you consider buying one of his CDs.

.

By contrast Tony Blair has unequivocably supported those who conduct medical experiments on animals, and condemned those who engaged in terrorism against them. This follows prison sentences for animal rights activists who engaged in an ongoing campaigning, including exhuming the remains of the grandmother of one scientist. Nice people those. 70% of people in a recent poll indicated they supported medical experiments on animals as being sometimes essential. 81% said they opposed protests involving shouting abuse at scientists, 88% oppose posting on the internet names and address of scientists involved, 95% oppose vandalism as part of protesting and 97% oppose death threats.

.

On other words, most people have commonsense and morality - Morrissey doesn't.

Cullen lost the plot, has Labour?

I actually have time for Michael Cullen - he's one of the brighter Cabinet Ministers, and frankly injects a great deal of sense at the Cabinet table. He has some understanding of economics and business, and has managed to avoid too much ridiculous spending by Ministers (seriously, if you think it's bad now, it doesn't bear thinking about). Cullen challenged Clark for the Labour leadership almost 10 years ago, and since then has been the rightwing business oriented Deputy Leader to the leftwing social activist Clark. He has made major screwups, failing to agree to Air New Zealand's request for Singapore Airlines to buy 49% of it is one, but he also has been the one person in Cabinet who has said no to more government more often than yes. One reason government spending on roads has gone up so much is because Cullen believes roads are a better investment than spending on the bottomless pit of health. Now, please recognise my compliments are in the context of the Labour Government, which I hardly endorse. He's the best of a bunch that I almost always disagree with.

.

However, I think the wheels are seriously coming off of the well oiled machine that Clark and Heather Simpson, and Cullen have managed well for the last seven to eight years. Michael Cullen's attack on the Press Gallery by claiming that calls for tax cuts come from journalists on the Press Gallery who will benefit from it is utter nonsense. Guyon Espiner is no neo-liberal Austrian economist, and with the exception of one L.Perigo, New Zealand parliamentary correspondents are hardly great friends of capitalism and less government. The latest One News Colmar Brunton Poll puts National on 47% and Labour on 38% - the public wants tax cuts, and the Bludging for Families package doesn't wash, people don't want welfare, they want their own money back.

.

While I could ask Michael to say no more to his colleagues and cut taxes, the reality is that a social-democratic centre-left Labour government will increase spending rather than cut taxes. That is what it is all about, that is a Clark led Labour government is about increasing what the state does, not shrinking it.

.

The difference is that the New Zealand public is increasingly rejecting that, they believe the state takes too much. Matt Robson might buy the argument that foreign owned media are controlling the debate, but last time I looked, TVNZ shares are held by the Minister of Finance. The Labour government is unwinding, and National just has to be a coherent and believable alternative. Is it?

.

Footnote: In March, Libertarianz had 0.2% support in the Colmar Brunton poll, more than Jim Anderton's Progressive Party... admittedly that means 2 people said Libertarianz!