Sell the damned post offices!

So the Royal Mail wants to close around half of all post offices. The Daily Telegraph has a ridiculous campaign to force taxpayers to pay to keep them open. Uneconomic post offices cost everyone else £150 million a year in subsidies, but as I have written before, they are so "core" to communities, that I apparently have to subsidise them.

^

My answer is simple. The Royal Mail should sell all of the post offices it does not believe it can run profitably. If some are franchises, then the current owners should renegotiate their terms or face closure, and perhaps run a competing service (competition has been allowed for the Royal Mail since the beginning of the year, finally!). Otherwise, they should close. Why? Well what is a post office? It is a stamp shop, an envelope shop, a delivery shop. It's a friggin' shop!

^

People don't demand the government do something about grocers, bookshops, shoe shops, so why post offices? It tugs at the strings of the elderly in particular, when the government did so much more, and when transport was poor and more expensive than it is today.

^

Post offices are unprofitable either because they are inefficiently run or not enough people use it. So either have someone else run it, or face use it or lose it. Don't expect taxpayers to pay for something that is so important to your community, that you're not prepared to use it enough to pay for its cost. Frankly, if it isn't important enough for YOU to pay for it, don't expect me to.

You're airline cabin crew what would YOU do?

Rather than be a bureaucrat living off of money taken from others by the state, imagine you work for an airline. You're chief cabin attendant on an international flight, the passengers have boarded and you notice one passenger who had boarded is no longer to be found:

^

- The passenger was wearing full Muslim religious garb;

- The passenger was noticed having gone to the bathroom before takeoff (a practice generally not permitted by most airlines for safety reasons);

- The passenger is in there for a whole 10 minutes and crew are concerned that he is not in the bathroom relieving himself, but is unresponsive;

- The passenger manifest indicates the passenger is travelling on a foreign passport;

- You are responsible for the safety of well over 100 other passengers, at best the passenger is acting unconventionally and delaying the flight departing the gate (passengers are told to be seated), at worst the passenger could be threatening the entire flight.

^

So you decide, faced with a passenger who is acting against strangely, you decide for security reasons to escort him from the aircraft.

^

Then you're accused of being "anti-Muslim". Frankly, if any passenger is found to be acting strangely, and disobeying crew commands then it is up to the crew to act against that passenger. The airline replaced his ticket, compensated him and apologised, and gave staff training on these matters. The Human Wrongs Commissariat, like school prefects, tell off the airline. How about THIS as an alternative?

^

The passenger could have requested the crew whether he could use a bathroom for religious purposes, the crew could have decided whether it was a safe practice or not, or asked him to refrain until the plane had taken off. No, it is the airline's fault. When I fly I follow the rules of the airline, after all, it is not my plane and the airline essentially has the right to exclude me if I may pose a threat to crew or passengers. No, Rosslyn Noonan, who has not actually worked in the productive sector in recent history, can judge how airlines best apply security measures.

^

Of course the Human Wrongs Commissariat is also a great defender of free speech, the same Herald report gives this example:

^

"Numerous complaints were lodged after newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons, linking Islam to terrorism. A meeting was held between the Race Relations Commissioner, Muslim groups and members of the press. The Press and Dominion Post newspapers apologised for any offence caused and promised not to publish the cartoons again. "

^

So, simply because the Human Wrongs Commissariat has NO right to bully any media to not print something because it offends people, here is a link to the cartoons. Am I anti-Muslim? No, Muslims have every right to believe what they wish, and peacefully express their opinions, and I have every right to criticise or ridicule their beliefs, any religious beliefs or any political beliefs. Religion is a choice.

France 24 is launched - more than just anti-American

Good job we didn’t have to wait till the French government got its act together for global news channels. CNN International was the first, and entirely the creation of a leftwing entrepreneur, Ted Turner. Its ubiquity was sealed in the Gulf War that repelled Saddam’s Iraq from Kuwait. This was followed by an entirely commercially funded BBC World. NBC established its global business news channel CNBC commercially, and since then Al Jazeera has also entered the global TV news market, again privately funded. The German government has quietly fully funded Deutsche Welle, which broadcasts news and cultural/current affairs programmes in German and English around the clock. I need not also mention Foxnews, Bloomberg business news, MSNBC etc.
^
However, the French government, ever looking for a way to prove how utterly unresponsive government is to what people actually are willing to pay for, has funded and launched France 24, a global TV news channel in French and English. The concern has been that the other channels reflect an Anglo-Saxon view of the world. Well, had the French government not taxed and regulated its own broadcasters into submission, this could have happened spontaneously, but France and entrepreneurial flair are words that don’t go together often. However, it is clear that France 24 can't be accused of simply being anti-American.

^

The Guardian reports:

"Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Centre on the United States, said: "It's not an anti-American operation. It's more than that."
^
Of course another reason for France 24 is basically to assuage French speakers about the fact that French is not the most universal global language. It is undoubtedly more beautiful than English, as I experience daily hearing English butchered by native speakers. However, France 24 is in French and English, as France has clearly figured out that a French only channel is only preaching to the choir so to speak. However, I doubt France 24 will have much influence, except perhaps beyond Francophone African opinion makers. You see even the website doesn't help when you click "how to watch". The incentives around a state run channel! I assume it will be on Sky and cable networks in the UK, but it is not yet distributed via satellite to the South Pacific.

God exists does it?

God either does not exist, is sadistic or hardly worthy of the title “God”
^
I don’t know who once said it, but the point came to me reading about Josie Grove in The Times.
^
She is:
- 16 years old;
- A champion swimmer and apparently talented artist;
- Has leukaemia;
- Has endured two unsuccessful bone marrow transplants and a course of anti-cancer drugs. One transplant from her 8 year old brother.
- Has decided that since the cancer is terminal, she would rather not undergo further treatment that means she spends long periods in hospital feeling sick. She’d rather spend what little time she has with her family.
^
So go on, defend that god followers. PROVE how much love and compassion your God has, how much mercy that God gives to a talented happy young woman that she has to endure invasive surgery and drugs, to have to die. Defend it by saying how much “good” she brought her family and friends, and how much “hope” she offers with her bravery – in other words, defend her sacrifice. Defend it by saying that, despite her suffering, her short life, the short time she spends with people who love her, despite her parents and siblings going through this, it is all fucking worthwhile, because there is “heaven”, though you can’t really say anything about this except it’s “really really good” and I should just “believe” this, even though there is not a shred of evidence for it. There is just a desperate hope that there should be “heaven” because if there isn’t, then surely it proves that God is weak or sadistic for letting this young woman go through hell.
^
It is rather simple you see either:
- God does not exist, meaning this is a tragedy, but all the best of science and technology has been applied to extend this young woman’s life and help her enjoy what time she has; or
- God does exist, but does not have the power to change anything on earth – but somehow created it, life etc. This is entirely contradictory. God by definition is all powerful, after all if God created the universe (except himself which means God created less than the universe), it is illogical for God to be unable to destroy cancer cells in one person, or indeed all people. You can start creating new theories as to why this may not be, but they are not consistent with any religion; or
- God does exist and is all powerful, but chooses not to intervene. This is either because God likes human beings suffering (which is immoral) or is nonchalant towards human beings suffering (which is also immoral), and likes holding out, through some ancient texts and the utterings of large numbers of questionable people, some hope of “heaven” without directly presenting the opportunity to those who are suffering (and those who are not), In short, God has a perverted sense of morality. The same sense of morality of those who get pleasure out of punishment, a God who hates human beings and plays them as toys. If true, then the universe is bleak and those who follow God do so out of fear, not out of an objective belief in the morality of God.
^
So which one is it? Methink non-existence is the most logical.

Gordon Brown's pathetic pre-budget legacy

With Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer and possibly soon to be Prime Minister, I actually wish for Dr Michael Cullen. Besides being a wittier debater, he has, despite massive increases in spending, not put the NZ government into deficit (though he didn’t pull it from deficit, that was Bill Birch in the 1990s). Cullen also has not increased taxes so brazenly as Brown or so regularly. This is not a ringing endorsement of Cullen. Bloody ‘ell I’m a libertarian, and he has increased state spending many times over – but it is an appreciation of how much more advanced fiscal policy is in NZ.
^
Gordon Brown’s pre-budget statement highlights were:
^
- A doubling in air passenger duty (to between £10 and £80) ostensibly to respond to climate change. Given he hasn’t cut other taxes, given this will make virtually no difference to air travel (Will £5 put chavs off their trip to Prague or will £80 put Madonna off of her first class flight to LA? Hardly), it’s about revenue. A BA spokesman said that aviation is the only transport sector in the UK that pays for all of its own infrastructure directly. He is right. It’s also worth nothing that the fuel consumption of the latest aircraft, per passenger km is remarkably low. Lufthansa reports that the latest Boeing 747-8 series, which is has just ordered, burns 3.5 litres of fuel per passenger every 100km. 30km a litre isn’t bad fuel economy for travelling at 90% of the speed of sound. NZ air passenger levies are about paying for security/border control, not the UK.

^
- Inflation indexing fuel taxes once more (increasing petrol by 1.25p/l). Given that no fuel tax in the UK is dedicated to roads or indeed, any transport, this is all about revenue as well. It will have virtually no effect on demand. Now yes, Dr Cullen inflation indexes petrol tax as well, but the indexed amount DOES get dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, most of which goes on roads. Given around 60% of petrol tax (100% of LPG tax and road user charges) is dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, and Dr Cullen spends all of the rest on land transport as well, NZers have little to complain about.

^
- A new welfare benefit giving pregnant women £200 in the final weeks of their pregnancy. That’s nice, it is saying “aren’t you clever? You had sex and want the baby. Here’s some money we took off of everyone else to show you how clever you were getting knocked up”. He could have cut taxes, but no – that just means people get more of what they truly earn. It is unlikely to be enough to encourage middle class couples to have children, but £200 to an inert chav is “well good init?” Sadly Gordon Brown doesn’t mix enough with the rest of the world to know how important it really is to adopt a policy of disincentivising chavs breeding, partly to improve Britain’s reputation in the world.

^
- Zero stamp duty for new “carbon-neutral” homes. Well that’s not a bad thing, except there should be zero stamp duty full stop. Of course there are no "carbon neutral" homes in the UK, so it costs nothing. What does a home changing ownership cost the state?

^
- On the bright side, Brown is pushing for an efficiency campaign in the public service. He is pushing for 5% cuts in admin budgets each year between 2008 and 2011. This is expected to save around £26 billion over that time. The British public service has a long history of obfuscating accountability for expenditure, but the unions are unhappy – which surely must mean Brown is doing something right.

^
- Expenditure on a new literacy campaign. This wont ever be enough, because one in six boys at age 16 are functionally illiterate. The money to subsidise pregnancies wont help.

^
- £9 billion budget deficit by 2010/11, borrowing an extra £1 billion in current financial year over previous forecasts.
^
Gordon Brown has been credited for running a reasonably positive British economy, but as the Times has commented, it is only positive when you compare it to past long term performance (which has been stagnant) and the “sclerotic” economies in continental Europe. 2.75% growth forecast isn’t bad, but it is hardly stuff of wonders. It should also be noted that, despite massive transfers in the form of subsidies to the north and Scotland, Britain’s growth is concentrated in London and the south-east, and much is driven by the City. If London was not such a successful centre for the service sector, Britain would be a sclerotic economy. It is not a message that Brown, Blair or David Cameron mention enough.