Nobody does of course, which makes it unusual that Lesley Caudwell does, which is why after being drunk and killing another woman while driving, she is only getting 12 months home detention and losing her driving licence for four years, according to the NZ Herald.
Yes she plead guilty and yes she is looking after her cancer stricken mother, though another woman is now dead - and Lesley Caudwell appears to be an alcoholic from the story. She was driving at 100 km/h when she went through an urban intersection killing 36-year-old Tara Groenestein.
So that's nice, Lesley Caudwell fears prison, has panic attacks and bipolar disorder. She should at least have a life ban from driving, but no she has a chance, and Tara Groenestein doesn't. She can be rehabilitated, and go do it again, and Tara wont. Lesley gets a year at home, and four years getting driven around by others or catching the bus - life's hard when you recklessly take someone else's life isn't it?
01 August 2008
Wanna bet?
NZ Herald reports "National is brushing off suggestions it is not very different from Labour and promises voters that coming policy releases on tax, health, education, energy and law and order will clearly differentiate it from its rival."
So it's going to eliminate the top income tax rate or declare a tax free threshold?
So it's going to announce full tax deductibility for private health insurance?
So it's going to announce all education funding follows the child?
So it's going to announce National will advance new electricity generation by selling up to 49% of the government's three power companies by issuing new capital?
So it's going to announce that recidivist violent and sexual criminals will be denied welfare and custody of children?
Just a few ideas... none of them radical at all.
Then Key has the audacity to say "National believed in greater freedom, smaller government and less interference". Which is seen where John? Nice words but why are your policies involving LESS freedom, MORE government and MORE interference compared with the last time National was in power? In other words, Labour increases the role of the state and National basically rolls over and maybe throws a few crumbs, but doesn't roll things back to at least what they were like when National last governed?
Dr Cullen is more optimistic than me though - well in the sense that National will be a change. he says that National would lead the country down a fundamentally different path with "creeping privatisation of health and education". Well if you consider the path to privatisation to be as long as from here to the Moon and National's creeping at the pace of a snail.
Don't fret about the speed wobbles Michael.
So it's going to eliminate the top income tax rate or declare a tax free threshold?
So it's going to announce full tax deductibility for private health insurance?
So it's going to announce all education funding follows the child?
So it's going to announce National will advance new electricity generation by selling up to 49% of the government's three power companies by issuing new capital?
So it's going to announce that recidivist violent and sexual criminals will be denied welfare and custody of children?
Just a few ideas... none of them radical at all.
Then Key has the audacity to say "National believed in greater freedom, smaller government and less interference". Which is seen where John? Nice words but why are your policies involving LESS freedom, MORE government and MORE interference compared with the last time National was in power? In other words, Labour increases the role of the state and National basically rolls over and maybe throws a few crumbs, but doesn't roll things back to at least what they were like when National last governed?
Dr Cullen is more optimistic than me though - well in the sense that National will be a change. he says that National would lead the country down a fundamentally different path with "creeping privatisation of health and education". Well if you consider the path to privatisation to be as long as from here to the Moon and National's creeping at the pace of a snail.
Don't fret about the speed wobbles Michael.
The left and the Greens cheers the end of Doha
Charming isn't it? The left cheers the end of the Doha WTO trade talks, preferring powerful economies negotiating bilateral preferential trade arrangements than a multilateral agreement to open up trade in primary products (primarily in Europe, Japan and the USA), manufactured goods (primarily in the richer developing countries) and services (also developing countries).
The benefits Doha could have brought to the world have been estimated in a range from US$84 billion a year to US$574 billion. It could have helped ease world food prices by freeing up the production and sale of food across the globe, and eliminating distorting subsidies, tariffs and non tariff barriers that hurt farmers in countries from Argentina to Gabon to Thailand to New Zealand.
Idiot Savant cheers on the collapse because, as usual, anyone rich is to blame and the "poor" countries (most with far bigger economies than New Zealand) were the "victims". He supports India and China holding things up, even though what both countries wanted was to restrict imports of agricultural goods whilst demanding the US and Europe open up, and to essentially inflate the price of food for their own people.
He then quotes George Monbiot, as if he is an authority on trade and agriculture, whose article says Mugabe is right in "democratising ownership of agricultural ownership", of course Monbiot didn't say Mugabe did it right because "He has failed to support the new settlements with credit or expertise, with the result that farming in Zimbabwe has collapsed." that's right. So after stealing the land, the fact the expertise went with the former owners who left, and that credit can't be printed is irrelevant to Monbiot the imbecile. He argues that we would all be better off with smaller farmers and that governments should intervene to require this. You see to the left free trade strangely means subsidised agriculture - a distortion Sue Kedgley perversely argues.
Speaking of which, the Greens are quietly cheering the failure of negotiations that could have given the New Zealand economy a boost - because after all, producers of wealth are really beside the point for the Greens. The Greens BLAME NEW ZEALAND, for treating services as being commodities bought and sold (which they are) rather than the "integral public infrastructure", which implies not that the Greens want the services delivered the best means possible, but that it must fit the socialist ideology of nationalised services that are effectively subsidised. The WTO of course doesn't require that anything be privatised.
The Greens give cop-outs for the EU, USA, India and China. You see WE were pushing things too fast, because funnily enough demanding that trade in agriculture be at least as liberalised as trade in manufactured goods (which was substantially liberalised through the 50s-70s) is "lacking credibility". The only good chance New Zealand has at influencing global trade collapses and it is New Zealand's fault.
Well we know where the Greens stand -they wanted it to fail, supported our trade enemies and rivals against agricultural liberalisation. Lied or is just plain stupid about free trade, when New Zealand's position was even shared by the UN Secretary General. The Greens prefer that Europeans, Americans, Asians grow their own food, even with heavy subsidies and can dump their products on foreign markets and shut out imports, and New Zealand can go to hell because, after all, that's "democracy and community".
The Green view of "community" is of course not people choosing what they want to buy at market prices, but the state "protecting" consumers from imports, protecting domestic producers, and taking from taxpayers to support who they think is good for the community. When in fact the best representation of the "community" are people making their own choices, not the state taxing, subsidising, banning or compelling them to do so.
The Greens call for an alternative. However what does that mean? There is only one alternative to a gradual process of liberalising global trade, irreversibly, and that is state intervention. The case for liberalisation is clear, it allows the most efficient producers of products consumers want to buy to thrive, whilst those who are expensive, inefficient (that means wasting resources, something the Greens claim to care about) and produce products that consumers would not otherwise choose to fail or choose to invest in other goods and services. Trade barriers put up prices for consumers, they hinder the growth and prosperity of producers, and often involve taxpayers being forced to pay for goods and services they may not consume - meaning overproduction of that which people don't want.
The Greens are happy New Zealand's GDP will grow by 1-2% less thanks to the failure of the Doha round. At best they are confused on trade, at worst they are traitors to the New Zealand economy who speak approvingly of the French position, which more than any other has undermined the EU dismantling its obscene Common Agricultural Policy. I expect they will cheer the status quo and the creation of more privileged trading agreements that shut out New Zealand - and hope that the mainstream media might actually quiz the Greens as to why they don't want New Zealand goods to have open access to foreign markets.
The benefits Doha could have brought to the world have been estimated in a range from US$84 billion a year to US$574 billion. It could have helped ease world food prices by freeing up the production and sale of food across the globe, and eliminating distorting subsidies, tariffs and non tariff barriers that hurt farmers in countries from Argentina to Gabon to Thailand to New Zealand.
Idiot Savant cheers on the collapse because, as usual, anyone rich is to blame and the "poor" countries (most with far bigger economies than New Zealand) were the "victims". He supports India and China holding things up, even though what both countries wanted was to restrict imports of agricultural goods whilst demanding the US and Europe open up, and to essentially inflate the price of food for their own people.
He then quotes George Monbiot, as if he is an authority on trade and agriculture, whose article says Mugabe is right in "democratising ownership of agricultural ownership", of course Monbiot didn't say Mugabe did it right because "He has failed to support the new settlements with credit or expertise, with the result that farming in Zimbabwe has collapsed." that's right. So after stealing the land, the fact the expertise went with the former owners who left, and that credit can't be printed is irrelevant to Monbiot the imbecile. He argues that we would all be better off with smaller farmers and that governments should intervene to require this. You see to the left free trade strangely means subsidised agriculture - a distortion Sue Kedgley perversely argues.
Speaking of which, the Greens are quietly cheering the failure of negotiations that could have given the New Zealand economy a boost - because after all, producers of wealth are really beside the point for the Greens. The Greens BLAME NEW ZEALAND, for treating services as being commodities bought and sold (which they are) rather than the "integral public infrastructure", which implies not that the Greens want the services delivered the best means possible, but that it must fit the socialist ideology of nationalised services that are effectively subsidised. The WTO of course doesn't require that anything be privatised.
The Greens give cop-outs for the EU, USA, India and China. You see WE were pushing things too fast, because funnily enough demanding that trade in agriculture be at least as liberalised as trade in manufactured goods (which was substantially liberalised through the 50s-70s) is "lacking credibility". The only good chance New Zealand has at influencing global trade collapses and it is New Zealand's fault.
Well we know where the Greens stand -they wanted it to fail, supported our trade enemies and rivals against agricultural liberalisation. Lied or is just plain stupid about free trade, when New Zealand's position was even shared by the UN Secretary General. The Greens prefer that Europeans, Americans, Asians grow their own food, even with heavy subsidies and can dump their products on foreign markets and shut out imports, and New Zealand can go to hell because, after all, that's "democracy and community".
The Green view of "community" is of course not people choosing what they want to buy at market prices, but the state "protecting" consumers from imports, protecting domestic producers, and taking from taxpayers to support who they think is good for the community. When in fact the best representation of the "community" are people making their own choices, not the state taxing, subsidising, banning or compelling them to do so.
The Greens call for an alternative. However what does that mean? There is only one alternative to a gradual process of liberalising global trade, irreversibly, and that is state intervention. The case for liberalisation is clear, it allows the most efficient producers of products consumers want to buy to thrive, whilst those who are expensive, inefficient (that means wasting resources, something the Greens claim to care about) and produce products that consumers would not otherwise choose to fail or choose to invest in other goods and services. Trade barriers put up prices for consumers, they hinder the growth and prosperity of producers, and often involve taxpayers being forced to pay for goods and services they may not consume - meaning overproduction of that which people don't want.
The Greens are happy New Zealand's GDP will grow by 1-2% less thanks to the failure of the Doha round. At best they are confused on trade, at worst they are traitors to the New Zealand economy who speak approvingly of the French position, which more than any other has undermined the EU dismantling its obscene Common Agricultural Policy. I expect they will cheer the status quo and the creation of more privileged trading agreements that shut out New Zealand - and hope that the mainstream media might actually quiz the Greens as to why they don't want New Zealand goods to have open access to foreign markets.
31 July 2008
Why I don't give to Amnesty anymore
Idiot Savant blogs about "Freedom week" when Amnesty International seeks to raise money for its campaigns.
I wont be giving, even though Amnesty has done much good work in the past. Why?
1. Amnesty doesn't pay any attention to terrorists, organisations engaging in bombings in Iraq, Israel, Turkey, Spain, the UK or anywhere else. Its concern about governments is right and appropriate, but ignores how militia like Hamas, Al Qaeda and the like effectively take over, run and oppress whole areas of countries, and more importantly, wage war on others.
2. Despite the mountains of evidence of young children and pregnant women being enslaved by the state in gulags, execution of political prisoners en masse, starvation as a tool of political oppression, medical experimentation on political prisoners, chemical weapon tests on political prisoners, all in North Korea - Amnesty International spends mountains more effort on Islamists in Guantanamo Bay. The worst human rights abuses carried out by any government today are stark and plain in North Korea - Amnesty knows this, comments on it, but does not lead a major campaign against it. This is at best negligent, at worst deliberately evasive.
Its biggest campaigns are to control arms (which in some cases has caused more deaths than it has saved, e.g. Bosnia Hercegovina), concern about civil liberties eroded by what it calls the "so-called "war on terror"", implying terrorism isn't a problem, and to stop violence against women (which is often neglected and which I fully support).
It's about time that its biggest campaigns included eliminating political imprisonment. For that is, after all, what the organisation was once focused on. Until its voice is as loud on North Korea as any of the other issues, I'd rather give to organisations that fight for those in the most oppressed prison state there is.
I wont be giving, even though Amnesty has done much good work in the past. Why?
1. Amnesty doesn't pay any attention to terrorists, organisations engaging in bombings in Iraq, Israel, Turkey, Spain, the UK or anywhere else. Its concern about governments is right and appropriate, but ignores how militia like Hamas, Al Qaeda and the like effectively take over, run and oppress whole areas of countries, and more importantly, wage war on others.
2. Despite the mountains of evidence of young children and pregnant women being enslaved by the state in gulags, execution of political prisoners en masse, starvation as a tool of political oppression, medical experimentation on political prisoners, chemical weapon tests on political prisoners, all in North Korea - Amnesty International spends mountains more effort on Islamists in Guantanamo Bay. The worst human rights abuses carried out by any government today are stark and plain in North Korea - Amnesty knows this, comments on it, but does not lead a major campaign against it. This is at best negligent, at worst deliberately evasive.
Its biggest campaigns are to control arms (which in some cases has caused more deaths than it has saved, e.g. Bosnia Hercegovina), concern about civil liberties eroded by what it calls the "so-called "war on terror"", implying terrorism isn't a problem, and to stop violence against women (which is often neglected and which I fully support).
It's about time that its biggest campaigns included eliminating political imprisonment. For that is, after all, what the organisation was once focused on. Until its voice is as loud on North Korea as any of the other issues, I'd rather give to organisations that fight for those in the most oppressed prison state there is.
As oil prices settle back
Will the Greens end their armageddon like cheerleading about "Peak Oil" which is simultaneously seen as disaster, and a wonderful opportunity?
Will the ease in the price, inevitable as the high price was choking off demand, mean the Greens will see it as a victory, but a disaster now? Of course!! Lower oil prices will be seen as "no reason to be complacent", and "fueling climate change" and "we still need to worship subsidised collectivised transport that isn't necessary more environmentally friendly than cars and trucks".
Will the ease in the price, inevitable as the high price was choking off demand, mean the Greens will see it as a victory, but a disaster now? Of course!! Lower oil prices will be seen as "no reason to be complacent", and "fueling climate change" and "we still need to worship subsidised collectivised transport that isn't necessary more environmentally friendly than cars and trucks".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)