Greens want look at political addiction to gambling

Sue Bradford is right.

~

There is a political addiction to gambling, it is gambling with OTHER people's money.

~

Sue Bradford is concerned about those who gamble with their own money (and their families), which is at best just stupidity, and at worst a sad reflection of a deeper affliction. However, the enjoyment of thousands should not be sacrificed because a small number can't control their behaviour.

~

Sue Bradford is in a political party that gushes at the chance to gamble other people's money, taken by force through taxes, at any pet project that their own faith calls them to support. The Greens want to gamble money on "renewable energy", rail based public transport, state broadcasting, recycling, state health care, state education, increased welfare benefits and state housing. This is far more insidious that private gambling because the money is taken by force from taxpayers, and there is no accountability for those taking it. At least those wasting their own money on gambling miss it, they could have bought something else with it. In addition, those spending the proceeds received the money by choice, not force.

~

The Greens are ever addicted to taking more and more, regardless of how badly it performs. Their faith based initiatives on pouring money into rail completely ignore economics, but cost people their money - but the Greens ignore that. They are so addicted to gambling with other people's money they don't realise it IS other people's money and that the Greens want to use force to take it for their purposes.

~

So go on Sue, stop the political addiction to gambling, look in the mirror and stop advocating gambling with the money of other people.

Rudd apologises

Australian PM Philip Rudd is to say sorry for past treatment of the Aborigine communities, in particular “the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country”.
~
The move is controversial. Some argue that there wasn’t a stolen generation at all, although there is certainly evidence of there being a discriminatory policy towards targeting particularly so called “half caste” aboriginal children through much of the 20th century, and evidence of disconcerting practices and policies towards them.

~
As a result I don’t know what is truth and what is not, but one thing is clear, if it were true, it would a damning indictment upon Australian federal and state governments. Saying sorry would be the right thing to do.
~
What? Me an objectivist libertarian believing in collective guilty? No. It is the guilt of the state, the Australian federal and state governments in what was theft, theft of people. Australian governments nationalised children. The Director of Native Affairs in Queensland literally was guardian of all indigenous people under 21 after 1939. He had complete authority over them all. What is this other than the racist nationalisation of children?
~
It is also difficult to escape the testimony of some of those who talk of being taken from their parents, and how they were treated. Yes, some were taken from abusive environments, some were given up by their families, but some were not. My question for those denying it is simply this : do you trust the federal and state governments to be parents?
~
It is fair to acknowledge that in some cases the removal benefited some children, as the odds are that some were in abusive or negligent families, and that they benefited from removal. However, that is what the state should do regardless of race, remove abusive parents from their children, not remove children completely from families.
~
It is also fair to acknowledge that materially some of the children were better off because of it, but this does not make it right. It is not right for the state to break up families when there is no evidence of criminal abuse or neglect of the children. The ends do not justify the means. Children are not the property of the state.
~
The stories that some have told are gut wrenching and vile. It went on up through to the 1960s. This isn’t concern about what happened before people were born, there are generations today who were stolen, and no doubt people alive who were part of this bureaucratic process.
~
The “Bringing them home” report commissioned by the Federal government notes the attitudes of the 1930s were not dissimilar to those of South Africa at the time:
~
“Mr Neville [the Chief Protector of WA] holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population.”
~
A problem based on race.
~
Statements like “We was bought like a market. We was all lined up in white dresses, and they'd come round and pick you out like you was for sale.” ( New South Wales: woman fostered at 10 years in the 1970s; one of a family of 13 siblings all removed; raped by foster father and forced to have an abortion)
~

So let's say for argument's sake, the woman concerned had abusive parents, or their parents gave them up willingly, does it absolve the government from placing them with an abusive foster father with no checking?

~

Beyond the apology and acknowledgement that wrong was done, needs to be acceptance that the appropriate process for compensation is through the courts and proving harm was caused. It is not a reason to grant blanket compensation that could be fraudulently claimed, it is also not a reason to engage in additional racism. However, when governments act as it appears happened in Australia it is wrong – pure and simple.

~

Those of conservative bent should think very carefully about this. Statements like:

~

"The truth is that "reconciliation" already took place thirty years ago. This took place at the time of the Constitutional referendum in 1967, in which certain constitutional changes were proposed, allegedly for the benefit of aborigines. Many Aborigines campaigned for a Yes vote at this referendum, and were ecstatic when a staggering 97% of Australians voted "Yes". This was a recognition that Australians wanted one people, treated fairly and equally, and were fully prepared to extend the hand of brotherhood, citizenship and reconciliation to aboriginal Australians."

~

Sorry? Reconciliation started when you granted Aboriginal Australians the full rights of citizenship in the 1960s? I guess all them black fellas should be so grateful it took until 1967 to extend citizenship to them, on the land they were on first. The USA did the same to Native Americans in 1924, and funnily enough Australia granted Maori in Australia the right to vote in 1902. Aborigines got the same in 1962.

BBC kills private broadcaster

OneWord the spoken word private radio station in the UK has closed, largely it seems, because the BBC - using the funds extorted by force from TV owners - launched BBC 7, a digital spoken word network, commercial free.

~

OneWord was available on DAB and on Sky and Digital Freeview, and broadcast audiobooks, drama, comedy, discussion programmes and the like. It attracted an audience of around 300,000 nationwide, but couldn't attract advertisers, but the BBC could attract more and didn't have to care about who it could ask to fund it - it doesn't ask, it demands.

~

The heavy hand of the state funded dominant broadcaster strikes again.

No more short haul business class on Air NZ?

Yes I know most of you don't care, but there is evidence growing that Air NZ is looking to drop business class on its Boeing 767s and Airbus A320s in favour of premium economy. This presumably means a drop in food service and possible drop in food quality as well.

~

Why does it matter? Well some of us pay for business class occasionally for crossing the Tasman, it is more important between Auckland and Perth. Sometimes there is value in using airpoints upgrades as well (useful when flying in the evenings after a long day to get a decent meal and relaxing seat without sitting like cattle). Qantas business class is usually far more expensive (and not any better), and Emirates flights are not at convenient times.

~

I hope it is not true. It would go against the increase in legroom for some rows in the front of 737s on domestic flights, and the reintroduction of a (modest) complimentary food service on domestic 737 and A320 flights.

Planet Green

Jeanette Fitzsimons occupies a strange place, it isn't occupied by reason, it's a curiosity that means that when she "almost buys" a Chinese made drink in Moerewa, she hypothesises (makes up) about how she got that drink and how trade works. It would be funny if she was simply a private citizen, but you pay for her and she wants power over your body and property.

~

Jeanette is the mistress of the"we" word, the word used when someone actually wants to tell you what to do, because she wants to collectivise everyone under some banner. Take this from the Green Party blog post on the subject:

~

"And what benefit do we get from these dairy exports? Cans of water and sugar" which is extrapolated from her not buying a drink, and there being exports of dairy products to China.

~

Hold on. "We" don't get the benefits from dairy exports, the producers (and those supporting them) do. You don't make anything Jeanette ok?

~

The dairy exporters don't import "cans of water and sugar", someone else does that. The world does not operate in the fairytale land of "New Zealand inc" exporting to China and "New Zealand inc" importing. North Korea does, but New Zealand does not.

~

Besides Jeanette, the imports wouldn't be imported if people did not choose to buy them. Now go along and get your dictionary and find the word "choose". It means people have the freedom to say yes or no. You too can "choose" to persuade them to change their habits, and frankly I'd rather you spent all your efforts doing that rather than advocating force, which you do and have done the whole time you've been in Parliament.

~

She goes on: "We pollute and over-allocate our high quality water here in order to pay for importing doubtful quality water from China. Does that make sense?"

~

Paraphrasing what Not PC would say "what's with the "we" white woman?". "We" don't Jeanette. Get that through your collectively muddled head.

~

Having muddled through all that she concludes with the bizarre notion that "we" "swap", which is utter nonsense of course, unless you think New Zealand is, or should be, a highly planned economy:

~

free trade with China means swapping our good quality water and the health of our children and our rivers for their poor quality water, using lots of fossil fuel to arrange the swap and denying the human rights of their workers.

~

It is not "our" good quality water, it is owned by whoever's property it is on. It is not "our" children either. "We" do not deny the human rights of their workers either, it is the government of the People's Republic of China. You might ask why one of your MPs was once a cheerleader for the regime in one of its darker hours - Sue Bradford

~

Free trade with China is about choices. It is a choice to export to China, and a choice to import. A choice for individuals. If you wish to boycott Chinese imports then feel free, it may be perfectly moral to do so in some cases. However don't ban them.

~

However the Green opposition to free trade is not about human rights, it is not about pollution, it is about opposing choice in trade. The "fair trade" euphemism is actually about regulated trade, and is about ignoring price signals about over production. If the Greens are opposed to the dairy industry (which this post also effectively implies) then that is far more serious.