The Maori Party unsurprisingly condemns the Business Roundtable calling for the abolition of the racially determined Maori seats, because without them, it may not be in Parliament.
It says "A recent Business Round Table report tries to rein in the resurgent political power of tangata whenua. It recommends abolishing the Maori seats out of pure self-interest, and definitely not for the good of Maori"
The Maori Party isn't self interested in defending the Maori seats? It never polls over the 5% threshold for party representation, and would fight to get maybe 1 or 2 electorates if the Maori seats were abolished (Maori votes changing the dimensions of general electorates like East Cape and Northland).
Parliament is not about representing races, it is about representing the views of individuals who vote. It does so in two ways, by representing communities defined by location and by representing parties that people want represented in Parliament. The Maori seats balkanise the country into Maori locations and non-Maori.
They are racist, they have no place in a modern 21st century liberal democracy, and no collectivised mumbo-jumbo can disguise that they are racist. The Maori Party wants to entrench this racism, rather than let Maori stand tall as people, as individuals with a shared national/ethnic identity, that don't need to be treated differently from everyone else. It could embrace the opportunity for electorates with high Maori populations to have Maori MPs, but no - it wins out of the current system, and will defend it to the end, and call anyone opposing it to be selfish and racist - which is so ironic.
30 May 2008
Lorries protest fuel tax
Thousands of lorries blockaded streets around
You see in the
- Fuel tax is easy to collect and hard to evade (although having different coloured fuel for road and offroad use with different taxes is a problem);
- Increasing fuel tax looks like it’s environmentally friendly, although if the fuel tax was only charging for CO2 emissions it would be far lower, and it does not reflect exposure to emissions. You pay the same whether you drive round the Highlands of Scotland or if you drive in suburban
- Increasing fuel tax has a modest effect on congestion by keeping the cost of using cars up. However, given this has paralleled a paucity of road building, the
Fuel tax in the
One problem faced by trucking companies (road hauliers as they are called in the
The
So what SHOULD it do? First it should define why it is taxing fuel at all. If it is about paying for roads then part of the tax should be dedicated to funding roads (and there should be an independent non-political funding agency set up to manage that). The UK Treasury hates hypothecation because it fears waste, and loses control, but it has worked in
Sadly the UK is stuck in a bureaucratic arrogance that “nobody else in the world does it better” and wouldn’t look to NZ, or even to France and Italy which run motorways as private and government run businesses (with tolls). It taxes bluntly, it runs roads as political driven bureaucracies and decides road funding on a loose economic appraisal approach, whilst funding roads barely higher than it subsidises rail transport. The cost this underfunding of roads and blunt overtaxing of road users upon the
Tax on fuel is only justified as a transition to proper road pricing. It should be capped, roads should be privatised, and motorists able to contract with road providers for road use, and opt out of paying fuel tax in exchange. It is technically feasible, the problem is the political instransigence that treats roads as special. Roads are a network that needs maintenance and investment, and provide an economic good. Is it any wonder people complain about them when their management is subject to the appalling incentives of politics and bureaucracy, rather than investors, producers and consumers.
Kedgley's latest brainless rant
The government announces a trial whereby existing trucks (not bigger ones) might be able to fill up more capacity to carry more freight! What a travesty, time to wide up Sue Kedgley and have her spew forth a press release of absolute brainless emotive nonsense.
Give me strength! The same woman who constantly claimed the two-lane one way street in Wellington called the Inner City Bypass would be a “motorway”, now claims that letting existing trucks carry 50 tonnes instead of 44 tonnes (when their design weight allows it) will be juggernauts (they are the same trucks as we use now you dizzy bitch) and “endanger lives”.
According to the government's own study in 2003, 5.5% of road accidents are the fault of trucks, a rather more relevant figure than Kedgley’s unsourced claim that they are involved in 23% of crashes.
She claims that you have less chance surviving a 50 tonne truck crash than 44, well Sue much like you have less chance surviving a bus hitting you than a car, but it doesn’t stop you promoting buses does it? However, trucks baaad, trains good.
The proposal is simply a trial existing trucks that are designed to handle heavier loads filling up their capacity to carry 50 tonnes instead of 44. In other words the truck will be more fuel efficient, and more productive, but it’s a truck – and in the faith based world of Green transport policy trucks are baaaadd like brainless sheeple worshipping a religion.
She bleets out the discredited “rail is five times more fuel efficient” piece of history ignoring the fact that rail and road freight have similar environmental impacts on average per tonne km, because it doesn’t suit her creed of truck baaaaad, train good. She then argues that "We need to get freight off our roads and onto rail where it belongs, and invest in building more track to places not currently serviced." What Sue? All freight? Why does it belong on rail, what would YOU know, you don't consign freight, you don't operate any sort of business involving goods or trading? What the fuck do you know about transport in the real world instead of your maniacal ramblings like some sort of fundamentalist worshipping at the side of a railway track? When was the last time you consigned 100 tonnes worth of goods?
According to the government's own study in 2003, 5.5% of road accidents are the fault of trucks, a rather more relevant figure than Kedgley’s unsourced claim that they are involved in 23% of crashes.
She claims that you have less chance surviving a 50 tonne truck crash than 44, well Sue much like you have less chance surviving a bus hitting you than a car, but it doesn’t stop you promoting buses does it? However, trucks baaad, trains good.
The proposal is simply a trial existing trucks that are designed to handle heavier loads filling up their capacity to carry 50 tonnes instead of 44. In other words the truck will be more fuel efficient, and more productive, but it’s a truck – and in the faith based world of Green transport policy trucks are baaaadd like brainless sheeple worshipping a religion.
She bleets out the discredited “rail is five times more fuel efficient” piece of history ignoring the fact that rail and road freight have similar environmental impacts on average per tonne km, because it doesn’t suit her creed of truck baaaaad, train good. She then argues that "We need to get freight off our roads and onto rail where it belongs, and invest in building more track to places not currently serviced." What Sue? All freight? Why does it belong on rail, what would YOU know, you don't consign freight, you don't operate any sort of business involving goods or trading? What the fuck do you know about transport in the real world instead of your maniacal ramblings like some sort of fundamentalist worshipping at the side of a railway track? When was the last time you consigned 100 tonnes worth of goods?
What's this abuse of the term "invest in more track to places not currently serviced"? What everywhere? Nelson, Kaitaia, Waimate, Queenstown, Taupo, Havelock North, Raetihi, Akaroa, Te Anau, Roxburgh, Alexandra, Murchison, Opunake, Foxton, Miramar, Takapuna, Kerikeri? You mean like roads?
She is either seriously unhinged, or just a purveyor of manipulative hysteria, trying to scare families into thinking enormous trucks are going to bear down on their children? Either way, she ought not to be in Parliament -
29 May 2008
Apologise to Vietnam
Both Idiot Savant at No Right Turn, and Catherine Delahunty, a Green candidate believes the NZ government should apologise to Vietnam for the Vietnam War.
Such a suggestion is morally bankrupt.
The Vietnam War came about after the decolonisation of the country by the French. The Geneva conference was meant to see elections held throughout both north and south Vietnam, but as the north set up a communist one-party state and started purging political opponents. "Land reform" saw peasant revolts put down in the north. Meanwhile, the south also refused to hold elections. From this Vietnam became a frontline for the Cold War, with the communist north backed by the USSR and China (despite long standing ethnic rivalries and mistrust), and the non-communist south backed by the USA. They started fighting.
Both sides were corrupt, and abused human rights. By no means was the Republic of Vietnam (RoV) regime in the south a great example of freedom and democracy. It imprisoned political opponents and executed some, whilst of course the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) in the north did the same. However, for the US and its allies, including Australia and NZ, there was a fear of what was underneath the "Domino theory" that if Vietnam was communist, then it would spread to Cambodia (correct), Thailand and the rest. So backing was given to the RoV government against the communists. The DRV spread insurgency in the south flagrantly, and found supporters amongst those hurt and affected by the incompetence and repression of the RoV.
The war ensued and the US slowly escalated its support for the RoV. Americans saw the first war televised, saw body bags come home, saw its young men getting conscripted for a war to defend a corrupt autocracy. Life in the communist north was not televised, nobody ever saw the brutality of the DRV insurgency, its oppression of political opponents.
New Zealand became involved because of the belief in the domino theory, genuine fear that communism needed to be fought in our backyard and a belief that it was better to defend the bad but anti-communist RoV regime than let all of Vietnam become Marxist-Leninist. That is not something to apologise for.
The Paris Peace Accords which were meant to end the war, and allow free elections in South Vietnam were breached wholeheartedly by the DRV. The US withdrew and the DRV forces ignored what had been negotiated, and with the backing of the USSR and China (Western opponents of the war claim it was a US imperialist war ignoring the massive Soviet and Chinese support given to the DRV side) Vietnam was taken over by the DRV and it declared the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
.
2 million people fled communist Vietnam, hundreds of thousands dying in boats as they did. 200,000 officials from the RoV government were sent to "re-education camps", a brutal experience for some and many died. That was the legacy of letting Vietnam go.
.
Today Vietnam has no freedom of speech, it imprisons those who criticise government policy, there is no room for human rights organisations to operate or prisons to be inspected.
So what of that which Idiot Savant says? "Vietnam was an unjust war, fought for America's imperial aggrandisement. It caused the deaths of over a million North Vietnamese soldiers and two million civilians - over 10% of the North Vietnamese population. We should not have participated, and that fact needs to be formally acknowledged."
No, Vietnam was a just war fought to prevent the spread of Marxism-Leninism, an evil, murderous and debilitating political philosophy. The North Vietnamese soldiers were no angels, and many civilians died due to the DRV side, as well as the RoV side. Yes the war was fought badly, yes the support for the RoV regime was grossly mishandled, and in retrospect it was a disaster. However it was moral to try to stop Vietnam being communist. How this was done was a mistake, and so many actions by both sides were appalling.
Yet nobody on the left ever criticises the communist forces, never mentions the brutality and cruelty inflicted by the communists on civilians. It is always a US imperialist war, yet the heavy involvement of the USSR and China in funding and arming the communists, and sending small numbers of troops (and air cover) is ignored. Russia always has a "well that was the Soviet Union, it's different now" card that excuses all of its past atrocities.
.
We owe the Vietnamese communist government nothing. It is morally bankrupt to apologise to a authoritarian government. We should be encouraging the promising reforms of opening up the economy to go further, and for political pluralism and free speech.
.
What is particularly morally bankrupt are those who purport to be concerned about human rights and freedoms who say nothing about the Vietnamese communist regime. The Greens would rather apologise to it, but (rightfully) criticise Burma and China. Presumably the Greens think Vietnam becoming communist was a good thing. Idiot Savant has fallen into the same trap.
.
The Vietnam War was a mistake in strategy and tactics, it had half a goal - to stop communism, but its other half - what to have in its place, was absent and what was in its place was nothing to be proud of. However, there is no reason to celebrate communist run Vietnam, and no reason to apologise for trying to stop it.
Such a suggestion is morally bankrupt.
The Vietnam War came about after the decolonisation of the country by the French. The Geneva conference was meant to see elections held throughout both north and south Vietnam, but as the north set up a communist one-party state and started purging political opponents. "Land reform" saw peasant revolts put down in the north. Meanwhile, the south also refused to hold elections. From this Vietnam became a frontline for the Cold War, with the communist north backed by the USSR and China (despite long standing ethnic rivalries and mistrust), and the non-communist south backed by the USA. They started fighting.
Both sides were corrupt, and abused human rights. By no means was the Republic of Vietnam (RoV) regime in the south a great example of freedom and democracy. It imprisoned political opponents and executed some, whilst of course the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) in the north did the same. However, for the US and its allies, including Australia and NZ, there was a fear of what was underneath the "Domino theory" that if Vietnam was communist, then it would spread to Cambodia (correct), Thailand and the rest. So backing was given to the RoV government against the communists. The DRV spread insurgency in the south flagrantly, and found supporters amongst those hurt and affected by the incompetence and repression of the RoV.
The war ensued and the US slowly escalated its support for the RoV. Americans saw the first war televised, saw body bags come home, saw its young men getting conscripted for a war to defend a corrupt autocracy. Life in the communist north was not televised, nobody ever saw the brutality of the DRV insurgency, its oppression of political opponents.
New Zealand became involved because of the belief in the domino theory, genuine fear that communism needed to be fought in our backyard and a belief that it was better to defend the bad but anti-communist RoV regime than let all of Vietnam become Marxist-Leninist. That is not something to apologise for.
The Paris Peace Accords which were meant to end the war, and allow free elections in South Vietnam were breached wholeheartedly by the DRV. The US withdrew and the DRV forces ignored what had been negotiated, and with the backing of the USSR and China (Western opponents of the war claim it was a US imperialist war ignoring the massive Soviet and Chinese support given to the DRV side) Vietnam was taken over by the DRV and it declared the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
.
2 million people fled communist Vietnam, hundreds of thousands dying in boats as they did. 200,000 officials from the RoV government were sent to "re-education camps", a brutal experience for some and many died. That was the legacy of letting Vietnam go.
.
Today Vietnam has no freedom of speech, it imprisons those who criticise government policy, there is no room for human rights organisations to operate or prisons to be inspected.
So what of that which Idiot Savant says? "Vietnam was an unjust war, fought for America's imperial aggrandisement. It caused the deaths of over a million North Vietnamese soldiers and two million civilians - over 10% of the North Vietnamese population. We should not have participated, and that fact needs to be formally acknowledged."
No, Vietnam was a just war fought to prevent the spread of Marxism-Leninism, an evil, murderous and debilitating political philosophy. The North Vietnamese soldiers were no angels, and many civilians died due to the DRV side, as well as the RoV side. Yes the war was fought badly, yes the support for the RoV regime was grossly mishandled, and in retrospect it was a disaster. However it was moral to try to stop Vietnam being communist. How this was done was a mistake, and so many actions by both sides were appalling.
Yet nobody on the left ever criticises the communist forces, never mentions the brutality and cruelty inflicted by the communists on civilians. It is always a US imperialist war, yet the heavy involvement of the USSR and China in funding and arming the communists, and sending small numbers of troops (and air cover) is ignored. Russia always has a "well that was the Soviet Union, it's different now" card that excuses all of its past atrocities.
.
We owe the Vietnamese communist government nothing. It is morally bankrupt to apologise to a authoritarian government. We should be encouraging the promising reforms of opening up the economy to go further, and for political pluralism and free speech.
.
What is particularly morally bankrupt are those who purport to be concerned about human rights and freedoms who say nothing about the Vietnamese communist regime. The Greens would rather apologise to it, but (rightfully) criticise Burma and China. Presumably the Greens think Vietnam becoming communist was a good thing. Idiot Savant has fallen into the same trap.
.
The Vietnam War was a mistake in strategy and tactics, it had half a goal - to stop communism, but its other half - what to have in its place, was absent and what was in its place was nothing to be proud of. However, there is no reason to celebrate communist run Vietnam, and no reason to apologise for trying to stop it.
28 May 2008
Castro endorses Obama
There's Florida gone to McCain.
Given Castro at one time was cajoling Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against the USA, this can't give Obama comfort. Whilst you can't control who supports you, you might ask why someone who has operated a dictatorship, who locks away and executes political opponents, and wanted to wage war against your country, thinks you're the best man for the Presidency.
Given Castro at one time was cajoling Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against the USA, this can't give Obama comfort. Whilst you can't control who supports you, you might ask why someone who has operated a dictatorship, who locks away and executes political opponents, and wanted to wage war against your country, thinks you're the best man for the Presidency.
(Full article at the Daily Telegraph)
Meanwhile, Castro's brother is implementing modest economic reforms that seem to have made a positive difference. Now if only Cubans were free to express what they really think...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)