Kedgley peddles more hysteria

Like some parroting hysteric, Sue Kedgley has found a new conspiracy which threatens the health and lives of us all. It is the possibility that telecommunications transmitters might be installed, of all places, on top of power poles. Her reaction tells all about the use of language as propaganda.
~
The tenor of her press release is seriously unhinged and outright scaremongering with statements such as “telecommunications companies will be able to clutter power poles in residential areas and next to schools and childcare centres with new cellular and wireless technologies”.
~
In that once sentence she loads so much evidence absent value judgments to frighten the ill informed, i.e. those who vote for her. “Clutter” apparently implying that somehow we’re all using the top of power poles now, and will be interfered with, or that it will be ugly. I am willing to wager than in one day, Sue Kedgley would be unable to identify every single telecommunications transmitter site in Wellington City – because so many of them are unobtrusive, and plenty are on top or on the side of building with nobody noticing them. However, I am sure it wouldn’t be “clutter” if they were broadcasting a free to air commercial free channel of leftwing doggerel.
~
Then she talks of “next to schools and childcare centres”, implying, though not saying, that transmitters are “unsafe”. She likes claiming new technologies are unsafe, it gives her something to regulate, something to blame at and it looks like she is saving us all from the evil companies who don’t care. The truth is that she is an unscientific busybody who prefers fear and hysteria to science and balanced debate – she squawks like a parrot, happily stirring fear to gain votes.
~
She continues "We have set up a power pole in Mount Victoria with antennae and masts, to demonstrate how visually intrusive power poles around New Zealand could become”. No doubt using the latest technology with every incentive to make it work efficiently and be unobtrusive right? Of course most homes in New Zealand already have antennae, masts, some have satellite dishes. Perhaps they are visually intrusive too, as are the trolley bus wires that provide a 550v netting over many major arterial routes and city streets in Wellington – but that’s ok, because electric buses are good – telecommunications companies are bad. Of course she has a cellular phone and rarely catches a trolley bus – funny that.
~
She continues her rant “there will be no restrictions on the number of masts and antennae hanging on poles outside homes and bedrooms, regardless of concerns about the health effects of increased exposure to radio frequency radiation”. Forgetting that the laws of physics do impose such restrictions, given poles can’t carry unlimited numbers of these things, and there are serious issues of avoiding harmonics and interference between antennae, and if you have a bedroom next to a power pole then more fool you. More importantly the “health effects” are largely a beat up by her. She completely ignores that every single radio and TV transmits non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, she also ignores the proliferation of home wifi systems as well – presumably this is all good, or because it isn’t an evil entity (telecommunications companies fit that category), it isn’t worth her attention.
~
Finally she says “There is no obligation under the proposed national standard for the companies to pay rentals for the usage of power poles, which in many cases are owned by state-owned enterprises”. Again, her lack of command of the facts says a bit about her. Very very few power poles are owned by state-owned enterprises, largely because most are owned by electricity lines companies. These are not retail companies (which SOEs most certainly own). The implication here is that the beloved warm embracing state that she loves is being “robbed” because of a lack of rentals. She should relax. Not only are they not owned by state owned enterprises in almost all cases (and transmitters on top of Transpower masts are likely to be hardly an issue for numerous reasons), but the issue should be whether owners of poles should be allowed to.
~
So there it is, a press release of hysterical assertions, and leading value judgments with next to no evidence. It bears a mild resemblance to the sort of nonsense that passes for news from North Korea – blurting out fear, blame and demands that something be done – when scratching the surface it is just a grasp for attention, pleading to the ignorant by the power hungry and envy ridden.

Bush's final state of the union address

I don't go along with the views of most people I meet about Bush. It is almost de riguer to treat Bush as an unmitigated disaster. When you probe as to why, the comments tend to be "Iraq" or "foreign policy" or climate change. You see it's trendy to bash Bush. Michael Moore made it an art form, or indeed a multi-million dollar business, ironically - funny how little of that he uses to buy poor people health insurance isn't it?
^

So I react to that, not because I think the Bush administration is an overwhelming success. However, I do acknowledge what has happened. Afghanistan and Iraq have been partial successes, and quite principled too (and contributed to Libya coming out from the cold). It has also been a relatively friendly administration for free trade, challenging Europe to match it on slashing agricultural subsidies at WTO talks - which the EU promptly said "no" to. Yes I can criticise Bush for excessive spending, and for the erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terror, but I don't doubt that Bush believes in Western civilisation. He called Islamism Islamo-fascism, and he was dead right - you wont hear Gordon Brown say that, let alone Helen Clark, Anyway, so what of his final state of the union address? What DID he say?

^

• He called for a balanced budget, and not by increasing taxes. Good.
• He wants to save Social Security. Bad, but hardly surprising.
• He believes "Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools". Bad, public schools are the problem.
• He wants public school control to be further devolved, and effectively endorsed education vouchers. Good, but it wont happen. Democrats don't like school choice or performance monitoring of schools or teachers.
• He wants standard tax deductibility for health insurance. As far as this reduces taxes for those looking after themselves then good.
• He wants to subsidise state programmes to fund private health insurance. Bad, it undermines the earlier programme, states should raise their funds locally.
• He wants to establish a temporary worker programme for foreigners. Good.
• He wants to use taxpayers' money to subsidise alternative fuels. Bad, let the market decide based on price signals.

None of this excites me particularly, in fact, sadly I can say at best it could be worse. However, Bush does inspire me in one direction - his response to Islamofascism. He said:

"Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent. Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Take that "death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us". THAT is the enemy, as cold and murderous as that. THAT is who is appeased by withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and by befriending Islamism. Bush continues:

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom"

Indeed. It is as clear and stark as that. You wont hear this from Helen Clark, Ken Livingstone, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In fact you wont hear it from the Green Party either. Listen carefully from the Presidential candidates this year, as to who talks of freedom, and who really believes it.

As Bush continues, talk of withdrawal from Iraq, like the left wants to do unconditionally is a nonsense:

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. "

Islamist Iraq would be a disaster for Iraq, and its neighbours (except Iran), and the West.

Beyond that Bush talks of freedom elsewhere, although saying "We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur." may be too short a list. I'd add Saudi Arabia, Russia and China as well. Realpolitik means it is easy to support freedom in relatively weak states, it takes more courage to confront Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

^

You see, flawed though he may be, Bush more than many of his critics, understands that the battle against Islamism is a battle for freedom, and a battle for Western civilisation. It is for this he should be remembered. His domestic record is not inspiring, and on balance perhaps mildly positive. However, internationally Bush has adopted a foreign policy that at best has overthrown evil murderous dictatorships, and at worst had mistakenly replaced them with democracies, not guided by secularism or freedom, but by milder forms of Islamism.

^

The world is a dangerous place, but a withdrawn USA that ignored the hosts of its enemies would not make it safer. Beyond the rhetoric of the centre-left chattering classes, Bush understands that. Islamism is our most real and present enemy, confronting it not appeasing it is critical.

Who's lying John Minto?

The story of John Minto's rejection of an alleged award from the near to one party state South African government has, of course, been well covered. Minto generated plenty of publicity through his open letter to President Thabo Mbeki, himself a man with a flexible view of reality. Minto basically condemns the democratically elected South African government for not being more Marxist, which perhaps says more about what he thinks of democracy - he presumably thought the ANC would be far closer to its communist allies than it actually is (it's already far too close for my liking). As fragile and questionable as South African democracy and freedom is, it is still better than it was under apartheid - but Minto wanted a full revolution.

^

One South African journalist (Mike Trapido) has stuck it to Minto clearly by saying:

^

"Now he wants to thumb his nose at authority again; this time at our expense — build the Minto legend. All he has achieved is to show South Africans that we were misguided in trying to give him the award in the first place — what he actually represents is exactly what we were trying to get away from. Ironically he, despite his views, played a part in that."

^

However the real rub is that Reuters has reported that he was never offered the award in the first place. A statement from the office of the President of South Africa states:

^

"The Presidency has noted publication of an open letter addressed to President Thabo Mbeki written by Mr. John Minto of New Zealand.

In the letter, Mr. Minto claims, amongst other things, to have been nominated for the prestigious Order of the Companions of OR Tambo.In this regard, the Presidency wishes to place it on record that Mr. Minto has not, as a matter of fact, been nominated as a candidate for any of our national orders"

^

So the burden of proof is on Minto - come on - prove it! Post the evidence John!

^

UPDATE: So Minto has now been reported in the Dominion Post as saying "South African sports minister Reverend Makhenkesi (Arnold) Stofile told him at his home last year he had been nominated for the award." Oh so no letter John? No written evidence? Funny that. Given this is a man who once said the death of the Kahui twins was "society's" fault, it's no surprise that he has his own portable reality generator. I guess a journalist will now interview the South African sports minister.

^

UPDATE 2: Now Minto has a friend testifying in the NZ Herald:

^

"Kitch Cuthbert, who attended the Auckland dinner with Mr Minto and Mr Stofile, said her recollection of that night was that the award offer had been a "done and dusted scenario".
"My understanding was that an award of some substance was being offered, and Minty said that he would have concerns and issues about accepting such an award," Ms Cuthbert said.
"I didn't hear the preamble to it, but I thought the offer had been made and Minty had basically said thanks but no thanks.""

^

Not that convincing, a good lawyer would be able to tear that evidence down, but still someone needs to ask "Mr Stofile", his contact details are here.

Clinton or Obama then?

No, I haven't gone mad. Supporting a Democrat? Hardly. Both big government statists, who think "change" is about the state doing more, taking more money and regulating more. They are central planners, and about as inspiring as a public servant.

^

What my point is - which one is more likely to lose against a Republican. Not that the Republican options are inspiring. No.

^

Whilst I'd be concerned about Huckabee, being an evangelical, the truth is his campaign is likely to fizzle out after losing Florida. He might pick up a handful of states on Super Dooper Tuesday, but he wont win the nomination (although he could be selected as Vice Presidential running mate).

^

Unless Giuliani can bring in a miracle in Florida (even getting second will save him, third is probably too little too late), he's out of the race. He could have been a strong contender, but has misjudged and has no momentum.

^

So it's Romney vs. McCain. It will be McCain. Why? Romney has at least two characteristics that are against him:

- He's a mormon, which will kill off evangelical support more than McCain's social liberalism;

- He is a flip flopper. He was liberal in Massachusetts, and now claims to be conservative. He will be eaten alive by either Clinton or Obama, and it will be obvious.

On top of that, his charisma largely comprises a smile.

^

McCain for what he is worth has experience, understands foreign policy, is reasonably socially liberal and, well, he's all there is. Not particularly inspiring for one wanting less government, but he should be able to maintain a strong line against Islamism. Most importantly he wont frighten socially liberal voters, and his military record does inspire some admiration.

^

So who can McCain beat? That IS the question.

^

Clinton is a polarising figure.

^

Although she is more mature than Obama, the claims that she is riding on Bill's coattails, that she is cold and calculating remaining married to a misogynist in order to pursue her own ambitions of power, and her tactics against Obama (which indicate a sense of "entitlement" to the Presidency) are likely to ensure a substantial vote for "anyone but Hillary". Stopping Hillary getting elected may encourage enough conservative Republicans to back McCain, whilst McCain himself is socially liberal enough to not scare centrist independents. Quite simply I don't believe Hillary is electable - against McCain.

^

However, Obama is something else. He now has the Ted Kennedy endorsement, which while hardly endearing him to 40% or more of voters, does give him some momentum to build upon his crushing win in South Carolina. His strong victory in South Carolina shouldn't be dismissed as "oh well, it's a black state so no wonder", he won with over 55% of the vote, with Hillary getting only 26.5%, more than double of her vote. The media also are giving him a relatively clear run, and has done so for several years now. His talk of conciliation, and avoiding division sounds good - his talk of anything substantial is difficult to see, but it doesn't matter. He is a media darling, and if Florida goes well for him (not that it officially matters, though it will substantively), then he does have a chance of carrying it off. Especially given that the Clinton technique to respond when threatened is to get nasty - which plays into Obama's hands beautifully.

^

Obama is no better than Clinton though. In fact given his campaign is subject to scrutiny only superficially, and he can turn attacks into, implicitly, something about race, and turn any attacks as being against his "collegial" style. It's slick, and it avoids substance. Whilst Obama will, inevitably, encourage a racist minority to turn out to vote against him, he wont invoke the hostility of Hillary Clinton. In short, he could beat McCain.

^

So, given the choice between a McCain Clinton or a McCain Obama contest, I reluctantly pick the former. I would like to see the Democratic race be close, and bitter. I'd like to see Clinton snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but only just, and having done so alienated enough of the Democratic base that they wont turn out for the cold calculating collectivist that she is. Obama wont, after all that, be a Vice Presidential running mate, but John Edwards might be, giving some geographical balance between east coast and the south. Obama wont be gone for good, but Clinton's true colours will be shown.

^

McCain might just win under these circumstances, as Clinton's arrogance in believing in the inevitability of becoming the first female President does not pay off. Of course some will say having a female President would be good, to which I say, it really isn't that important - it could be good, not important or bad. It depends on the person, which is really what this should be about.

Prince Charles wont go to Beijing

The Daily Telegraph reports that Prince Charles is refusing to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, this wouldn't be important really except in two respects:

^

Firstly, if Charles was in the capacity of a private citizen, then good for him. There are good reasons to boycott the Beijing Olympics, notwithstanding the low value that the Chinese communist regime places on human life and ever lower value on freedom. Supporting independence of Tibet is less of a reason, as an independent Tibet per se may not mean a great improvement in freedom there. Nevertheless, the Chinese record is abysmal enough to support independence for Tibet. I don't object to the sentiment or boycotting the games that the vile Communist Party of China and the state it controls will use to paint a rosy picture of how wonderful China is - ignoring how it treats those who disagree, or get in its way.

^

However, the issue is moreso one of the role of a future constitutional monarch, which, notwithstanding accident, Charles will become. The truth is the man is completely unfit for the job. He has laid his cards on the table politically, which, regardless of what views they hold, is utterly contemptible. One can always guess the views of Queen Elizabeth II on politics, she has probably been more comfortable under Conservative administrations than Labour, although Thatcher probably was too liberal and radical for her liking. However, these are matters of hearsay and conjecture, entirely. Not once has the Queen ever expressed a political view of her own. Nor should she. Whatever her views, and she obviously has them, and is entitled to have them, they do not tarnish her role. Charles on the other hand appears to be some sort of muddled up centre-left econut who sympathises with numerous religions.

^

He supports numerous charities, which is, in itself, hardly a problem. Patronage of charities, that do not have a strongly political agenda, are just part of the role. However, he has created several foundations to advance his personal agenda, such as "The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment" to advance his views on architecture and "The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health" to advance his advocacy of unconventional medicine. He has championed climate change and is seen as supporting the likes of Al Gore, hardly an uncontroversial figure. His support for organic farming is well known as well. The big question is when does he cross the line between pursuing personal interests and pursuing political agendas.

^

What happens if a government was ever elected that was negative towards support of organic farming or alternative medicines? What if one was skeptical about man-made climate change? How about one that maintains friendly relations with the People's Republic of China?

^

The decision about whether or not he goes to the Beijing Olympics should be a matter not only of himself, but of the Queen and Cabinet. Clearly, refusing to go will send a negative message, unless it is for non-political reasons.

^

Of course the real solution is simply to let the constitutional monarchy expire when Elizabeth II does. It is time to move on, for the British royal family to be left with whatever assets they hold to manage or mismanage as they see fit, without a single pound of taxpayer's funds. They would remain some sort of tourist attraction no doubt, with pomp and ceremony, but that would be all. Who would be the head of state then? Well that is another matter - but you could do worse than having a written constitution, with a democratically elected President essentially ensuring that the government of the day does not breach its constitutional role.

^

Meanwhile Charles should pull his head in - he must be apolitical - his inherited privilege and influence are such that he is not entitled to anything more.