Record turnout in US election

The Daily Telegraph is predicting 65% turnout, well above that of 55% in 2004, 51% in 2000, 49% in 1996.

That is a good thing.

It's either a massive turnout for the rockstar Obama, or a massive turnout to reject him. Methinks the former.

Most African Americans are, understandably, voting for the candidate who represents their aspiration. However, it is remarkably sad that beyond that, so many are choosing based on style - and that goes for both sides. Substance is sadly lacking.

Green policy means keeping kids indoors

It's so stupid it is worth highlighting again:

The Green Party electromagnetic policy includes "Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children and pregnant women."

Electromagnetic radiation includes visible light.

So the Greens presumably want kids keep indoors during the day, and at night, keep the lights out.

Oh and if that isn't good enough for you, it would include wifi internet, it would include all computer monitors, TV screens, and even radios - they all emit electromagnetic radiation.

Do you still trust the Greens on anything scientific?

Anderton right to call Key's approach Muldoonist

Yep more stinking pork, now it is National promising Tauranga money for a road - like the very worst in politics, without even knowing the cost and without knowing how worthwhile that project is compared to others - or even whether those who use it would pay for it. Like a King going round making promises to the little people.

Anderton says "There may well be a good case for the road in Tauranga, but it needs to be transparently compared to the business case for other possible infrastructure uses for $100 million, and there needs to be a very transparent total pool of funding available" which there is, and in fact another use is to give it back to those who paid it. If National simply applied its policy from the 1990s, it would be just as Anderton describes - even though he opposed it at the time.

Funny old world politics isn't it? It isn't about policies - it is about being scoundrels to principle.

Will John Key announce National will fund the much needed widening of the Victoria Park Viaduct ( now foolishly an overly ambitious tunnel project) in Auckland? That is one of the best road projects in the country - objectively speaking - but clearly winning votes among Auckland commuters is less important that beating Winston.

Or maybe he will announce funding the Kapiti Western Link Road, one of the best projects in Wellington, or maybe he'll announce the Schedewys Hill realignment north of Auckland? Maybe he hasn't heard of any of these? Because he's a politician and if you rely on politicians to make decisions on things like this, they'll make mistakes, they'll spend money to get votes, not to deliver best outcomes.

That's Muldoonism and oh John, it's Winston Peters, Peter Dunne and the Labour party too.

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians admitted they DON'T know what's best for everyone?

I mean other than Libertarianz of course.

Greens have another anti-science policy

I blogged about this a couple of months ago - the scaremongering hysteria of Sue Kedgley about cellphone towers.

Now it is Green Party policy - a policy on electromagnetic radiation!

Kedgley barked:

"Communities all over New Zealand are fighting the construction of cell towers. Many are desperate as some towers are near their homes and even children's bedrooms, and they are worried about the potential health effects - as well as the effect on their property values."

Only because you're scaring them you evil conniving bitch. How utterly despicable she is, "children's bedrooms". Have you mapped all of the TV translator locations near "children's bedrooms"? Have you told them the REAL evidence you have of health effects?

No.

You go around the country scaring the scientifically dumb, scaring them for votes. Painting the telecommunications industry as evil, threatening the health of children and with what evidence?

Nothing.

However, big foreign telecommunications companies are an easy target for a mediocre, scientifically illiterate socialist.

Do you talk about the effect of broadcasting transmitters? No. Even though they have been around a lot longer, have far higher powers. Because you couldn't tell people TV and radio is harming them could you.

Do you talk about the effect of EMR from electric railway catenary? No - because you like electric trains. After all, there couldn't be EMR from

Do you stop using your cellphone? No of course not, don't be silly.

Oh and Sue? You're bathed in electromagnetic frequencies every day - in fact you're about to hit the period of the year when it gets most intense. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation you ignorant twit.

So what WOULD this policy mean?

It would ban any new TV or radio stations, the sale of home wireless routers, laptops with wifi capability, cellphones. Because:

"protecting public health and taking preventative action before certainty of harm is proven must be the basis of decision making" (sic) would mean no more EMR".

Kids wont use laptops, wont use radios (they emit EMR as well as receive it), will stay indoors, and will not use lights because the Greens will "Minimise exposure to electromagnetic radiation especially for children". After all light, infrared, ultraviolent, radio waves (which is what cellphone towers emit) are all forms of EMR.

You might find you can't use your cellphone at all in many areas because the Greens would "Not permit cell phone towers in residential areas or near schools and childcare centres, and ensure communities get to decide where they go".

So that's it - why have a cellphone? You wont have coverage near your home.

The policy is utterly brainless, it is completely divorced from science and evidence, and shows exactly where reason and the Greens are located - on other planets. The worst part of the policy is how the despicable scaremongering Sue Kedgley scares ignorant mothers to think their children are at risk from cellphone transmitters.

That is simply plain evil.

Maori Party want more welfare too

Yes it's not just abolish the dole, according to the NZ Herald, it's also give $500 to the poorest families - taken of course from everyone else.

What do they get that for?
What did they do to earn it?
What will they spend it on?

The Herald asks Adelaide Wharakura, a mother working part time, who would get the money if she backs it, she obviously says yes, but even so she is wiser than the Maori Party. She said:

"Who it makes a difference to depends on which families you give it to. There are a lot of drugs and alcohol. If I'm being honest [there are some who would] rather spend money on things like that. This money shouldn't be spent like that - there should be some checks or rules"

Yes, money taken from hard working taxpayers as a handout, which some will use on drugs and alcohol.

Even the Maori Party's candidate for Hauraki-Waikato said "it was likely that for some children the money wouldn't trickle down and the majority would miss out"

So a bit of theft and giving money for nothing is still ok - take from more successful families to pay for less successful ones.

Marxist Maori Party nonsense - it wants to take your money and give it away for nothing.

and Labour and National will both go to bed with it for power. So why would you vote for them?

UPDATE: Not PC posts eloquently on the nonsense of the "multiplier effect" of boosting the economy by taking money from people in the first place.