Green's racist towards America

No, not about Iraq, or global warming - it's Sue Kedgley on TVNZ.

.

Racist bitch!
.
In response to the announcement about the government backed consortia launching free to air digital television, moanin Minnie Sue “I hate those fucking Americans and their clothes, and hair styles and..” Kedgeley has come out with a xenophobic tirade on TVNZ saying:
.
"I'm worried that with 18 free-to-air channels we're just going to see more and more American crappy programmes on our television”
.
What if she said Maori, Jewish, Indian, French, Samoan or Arab? A bloody uproar - but Americans are fair game - shame if you ARE American and feel insulted by this bottle blonde bitch. Are there crappy American programmes? Of course. Are there crappy New Zealand programmes? Oh hell yes – Melody Rules is now the stereotype for it, and there are plenty more. There are crappy Australian, British, Swiss, South African and Maori programmes. Besides the gutter language she used, what’s wrong with the USA Kedgley? There are EXCELLENT programmes made in the USA as well - but I guess Sue doesn't look at the 75 channels available in most homes over there, Americans make crappy programmes clearly because they have crappy taste - nice language Sue! Yes of course there are trendy lefty chardonnay socialists who agree - let's bash America rah rah rah!
.
The Greens put out a press release with better language calling for more of your money to be spent compulsorily on subsidising the local TV production industry, actors and directors. Hopefully none have anything to do with “crappy America”. With huge capacity for new channels, the supply of channel space will be enormous, meaning the cost of new production should come down – and people who want to produce local content will have an outlet. Subsidising local TV content is about as dumb as subsidising local newspapers or books – people will watch local TV programmes if they like them – more often than not, they aren’t very good. When they are, people will pay for them.
.
Then Kedgley witters on “This is why TVNZ needs to take this opportunity to differentiate itself from all these new channels by having a genuinely ad-free public service channel” Why doesn’t she set one up, call for donations and see how she goes? There will be channel space – or is it too easy to force everyone else to pay for it?
.
She is concerned about the cost of set top boxes, and if people can’t afford them (hey Sue, 40% of households can afford Sky and they aren’t the top 40% by income that’s for sure) then “the Government should provide assistance to New Zealanders who cannot afford to buy the new equipment”. Why? The government doesn’t help people buy radios, or newspapers, why is TV so fucking sacred? (I’m furious now). Why can’t children play instead of watch TV, why can’t adults talk, play games and enjoy life instead of getting some taxvictim funded fucking TV box? Get your filthy racist hands out of people’s bank accounts Sue.
.
She finishes off with more xenophobic nonsense “I am pleased that New Zealand is retaining the option of New Zealand based terrestrial infrastructure and not relying exclusively on satellite transmission owned by an overseas company. We wouldn’t want to see our entire television network relying on an foreign-owned satellite”. Oh Optus - those Australians – so dodgy – they’ll just wake up one morning and switch off the satellite to say “fuck those Kiwis they'll have no telly because the All Black’s beat us last night, screw the millions in compo we'll have to pay for breach of contract”. Foreign owned – damned different looking bastards with horns growing out of their heads who don’t care about us or our kulcha or the kids.

.

The Greens and Winston Peters - so much in common at times.

NZ to get 3rd digital TV platform

New Zealand has had digital TV for around seven and a half years, so the government’s announcement of what it is doing to bring digital TV to the public is somewhat laughable. It needn’t have done anything besides sell the radio spectrum necessary for digital terrestrial TV to be an option. However, Steve Maharey’s well publicised announcement shows that this isn’t about broadcasters doing something they think viewers are willing to pay for – it is something government thinks is good for you.
.
You see, Sky TV introduced digital TV at the end of 1998, and it has been a stunning success. In the past year, Telstra Clear converted its cable TV network in Wellington, Christchurch and Kapiti to digital. Combining them both, all in all, just over 40% of New Zealand households now have digital TV - the difference is, they pay for it.
.
Why do they pay for it? Because it is digital? Because of picture quality? Do they bollocks! The only reason most choose digital is because of the range of channels. When Sky launched its digital satellite service it was because it could increase the number of channels it broadcast from 5 on UHF analogue to over a hundred. Digital allows far more efficient use of radio spectrum. Telstra Clear has gone to digital partly for the same reason, it can fit far more channels using less capacity on the cable. Digital interactivity is nice and can generate some revenue with pay per view events, but it is really peripheral compared to choice. People, by and large, don’t give a damn about slightly better pictures or sound – look at the iPod revolution. That is about convenience and choice, not quality of sound, just like cassettes were.
.
So the terrestrial free to air broadcasters have caught up. A consortium of TVNZ, Canwest, Maori TV, Trackside and Radio New Zealand are launching it next year – but there is a catch. It’s not commercially driven – it is not because you want it and are willing to pay for it – it is because THEY want it and it is being directly, and indirectly subsidised. Directly because the government is putting $25 million into this new TV platform – whereas Sky TV actually made the government money by paying for the spectrum it uses. Indirectly, because TVNZ will pay less dividends and you can be sure Maori TV and Radio NZ are paying for their “broadcaster’s contribution” from taxpayer funding, since neither make a profit before subsidies. Trackside and Canwest do, but are no doubt thrilled to be riding on the back of the state in delivering a digital TV platform. Notably absent is Prime TV, which is likely to dedicate itself to Sky’s satellite platform over time. Note also that while Sky had to pay to use its spectrum, these broadcasters will get their spectrum for free – great that!

.

According to the government, a failure to move to free-to-air digital would put the future viability of public broadcasting television, and other free-to-air services, at risk. What nonsense - public broadcasting television isn't viable anyway - it is subsidised, and why should the government care if private broadcasters don't do what they need to be viable? As long as spectrum is available then Canwest and others can get together and figure out what to do.
A cost benefit study concluded that without a full transition to free-to-air digital TV (as a viable alternative to Pay TV digital), the net cost to the country could be as high as $156 million - I'll be looking at THAT in the next week.
Without a transition to digital, the free-to-air broadcasters’ audience share could also fall from 80 to 50 per cent, or even lower, if digital pay TV options grow at an accelerated rate. This would mean fewer options available on free-to-air. So free to air broadcasters could lose audience, so why not let THEM invest in digital to compete - why skew the field?
.
Now I agree that a shift to digital TV is inevitable. It is well apace in the UK, with a majority of households now watching digital TV of one kind or another (including a freeview platform similar to what is proposed in New Zealand). I also agree that it could generate savings for broadcasters and a major increase in choice – but this is something that should be driven from demand – like the internet, mobile phones and Sky TV – not by the government anticipating it.
.
It will mean that all TV sets currently on sale and in use in New Zealand will NOT be able to receive TV signals once analogue TV is switched off in 6-10 years – without either a freeview box, or a Sky or Telstra Clear box. So you’ll need to buy a set top box that will cost something between $60 and $220 depending on how sophisticated a unit you have (I bought a £70 one here in the UK which is good quality). So why would you want this?

.

In the UK it increased the mainstream channels I could watch from 5 to 12, plus 2 news channels, 2 music channels, 3 childrens' channels and a host of damned silly specialist shopping, quiz and other channels. Plus for $24 a month I could pay to subscribe to another 10 channels - it is a pay TV platform competing with Sky and cable. So in the UK, it is worthwhile - it is so successful that now more people have digital than analogue TV. The picture is of the set top box that I have - nothing flash.

.

Unless the NZ broadcasters can offer a compelling set of channels for viewers that they WANT to watch, freeview will be a bit of a flop in NZ – meanwhile by then, maybe 45% of New Zealand households wont care, since they already have digital TV – and not a dollar of taxpayers’ money went into it! 18 new channels are promised - they better be what people want (sport, gossip, music, comedy and some T&A late at night). Oh by the way, 10 main centres will be covered - 10! So Auckland, Waikato, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Manawatu, Southland, Hawke's Bay and Taranaki? OR Nelson, OR Rotorua? So that means a satellite dish for the rest of you.

Power cuts

Not PC has blogged extensively about this, but it is very simple.

.

Transpower lacks capital - the government wont provide it - so the private sector should.

.

49% of Transpower should be privatised - sold to a single buyer or consortium. This would inject new capital into the company, see a revitalised board (with privately chosen businesspeople not politically chosen ones) and wipe some more public debt (reducing interest payments and giving more room for tax cuts).

.

The remaining 51% should be distributed as shares to all citizens equally. This would mean Transpower would be predominantly publicly owned and controlled. The public would receive dividends, and would have a stake in the national grid - and could appoint directors by annual general meeting. Those members of the public so concerned about Transpower could then increase their shareholding and those who are not, could sell it. It would demonstrate whether the public WANT to own it and the private capital would create a company that truly wants to make a profit, provide good reliable service and grow.

World Cup 2006

No escaping the soccer world cup in London, with England in the running there are St. George’s Cross flags flapping on cars, and unfortunate songs, one using the Dad’s Army theme tune with different words. It is rather pathetic that Britain still throws the Nazi and Hitler stereotypes around Germany – there are probably as many racist lowlife here as in Germany, and most Germans alive today weren’t alive during the war and feel some “guilt” for the actions of their ancestors. Yes yes very funny to humiliate the Germans. Meanwhile, enthusiasm for England isn’t much shared by Scotland, Wales or Ireland – but then that bitter childishness will take a lot to erode.
.
Anyway, today it is Germany vs. Costa Rica and Poland vs. Ecuador. I reckon it will be the Europeans that will take both those, but would be nice for Costa Rica if it won against Germany. Tomorrow, England vs. Paraguay, which should be a cinch for England, Argentina vs. Cote D’Ivoire will be a cinch for Argentina, though I’d love Cote D’Ivoire to win, and Trinidad and Tobago are probably a closer match for Sweden.
.
Brazil is getting excited, because this is the one thing in the world it is good at – crime goes down while Brazil watches the World Cup. Meanwhile, many countries will simply stop working when a game is being playe.

Keith Locke is right

You wont see me say that often - but it is true. The man who was once a hardened communist, and still has a lot of Marxism in his veins, has put out a press release calling for review of the sedition laws. He believes more in freedom of speech than Don Brash, Helen Clark, Peter Dunne or Rodney Hide, or indeed Marian Hobbs, Tim Barnett, Phil Goff, Pita Sharples or around another 115 or so MPs.

.

I condemn it when it is far from intellectually robust on economics, or indeed science - but the Green Party is still the party in Parliament that most consistently defends fundamental civil liberties. The Keith Locke press release makes the point clear – as I have mentioned in my earlier post, now updated. The law not only needs review, it needs to be scrapped.

.

Keith said (as mentioned below) "New Zealand has an honourable tradition of civil disobedience against injustice, most notably during the Springbok tour of 1981. Thankfully the sedition laws weren’t used at that time, but the police now seemed prepared to prosecute anyone advocating such resistance. Next thing we might see farmers facing charges for encouraging others not to get their dogs micro-chipped. There is a big difference between inciting the immediate commission a specific criminal act, already covered by Sections 66 and 311 of the Crimes Act, and generalized calls for civil disobedience, which the sedition laws target."

.

Now I wouldn't have agreed with the Springbok tour protestors, though I was young when it was happening, but it is not the point. None of it is - whether you are left, right, libertarian, Christian fundamentalist, ecologist, economic liberal - this matters.

.

National and ACT supporters, particularly those who like to pour scorn all over the Libertarianz, may argue that this “isn’t important”, somehow that publishing a pamphlet calling for illegal action against government policies shouldn’t be allowed. Well then, should it have been a crime to encourage TV owners to evade or avoid paying the TV licence fee, to encourage people to not fill in a census form, to encourage people to walk across the Auckland Harbour Bridge illegally, to encourage a strike that isn’t legal, to call for the government to resign? If you are not going to condemn the law on sedition, then defend it. Don and Rodney, condemn or defend - don't sit on the fence!

As I have said before, David Farrar, as always, has the guts to put out his opinion on this, as a Nat.

.

There are a growing number of blog posts in reaction to this:

Libertarianz Deputy Leader Julian Pistorius

Gman the sort-of libertarian asks whether the charges were driven politically

Nat/ACT supporters:

Whaleoil

Sir Humphrey's and here again

Silent Running and here again