Tim Blair in the Sydney Morning Herald asks why this is the case. However he did also find that the Japanese are laughing at him - though, admittedly, if you know Japanese this will be funnier for more than 30 seconds.
(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)
19 February 2009
Yes we can!
As US comedians find it hard to parody the new personality cult President, it is unclear exactly why other than sympathy, fear of being called racist or just not being imaginative.
Tim Blair in the Sydney Morning Herald asks why this is the case. However he did also find that the Japanese are laughing at him - though, admittedly, if you know Japanese this will be funnier for more than 30 seconds.
(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)
Tim Blair in the Sydney Morning Herald asks why this is the case. However he did also find that the Japanese are laughing at him - though, admittedly, if you know Japanese this will be funnier for more than 30 seconds.
(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)
Aviation security call unnecessary
I'm hardly surprised at the report in the Dominion Post of a recommendation to introduce security screening of all domestic passenger flights. The Police and Aviation Security Service have strong vested interests in expanding any security operation, even regardless of the miniscule risk.
The report says there is a "very low threat from terrorists, moderate risk from acutely disaffected people drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges".
Yes seriously, there is a bigger threat from car bombs in built up areas. However, I don't notice security screening of private cars in built up areas. A similar threat for bombing trains and buses, because there is NO screening of who people are before trains and buses are boarded.
The "moderate risk" from acutely disaffected people, drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges, is something that might be picked up on check in, and frankly "moderate" is nonsense. According to the report 3.7 events per year happen.
The review is entirely because of the case of Asha Ali Abdille who took knives on a Beech 1900 light and attacked the crew. This sort of risk could be better addressed by having lockable doors on the plane, instead of subjecting hundreds of thousands of travellers every day to a search. Don't forget that all aircraft above 19 seats have at least one member of cabin crew. Better yet, sue this mad woman for the cost she imposed on all of the passengers and the airline.
You see, the sense of perspective about security and terrorism is completely skewed by the narrow minded attitude of those only working in aviation. Has the report analysed the cost in delay, frustration and additional costs for making purchases at destinations for toiletries etc, because of the ridiculous restrictions on hand luggage? What are the costs to business and travellers of this? Those in security care next to nothing about that, remember how they goose stepped everyone into only carrying toiletries in little containers. These are on the same flights that have hot beverages, glass, shoes, belts, rope and any other kind of potential weapon.
To take a clear example - it's remarkable how in the UK iIwas always screened for flying on 50 seat regional flights, but those boarding trains going at 125mph from Euston, Kings Cross or Paddington (or arriving there) faced absolutely nothing. Much like those catching the tube or buses, because they couldn't function with the restrictions. Instead, there is the use of CCTV, the physical presence of security staff and the use of intelligence to monitor security.
Of course you wont 100% ensure there are no incidents. After all, there was security at US domestic airports before 9/11. There could still be incidents, but it is like other human activities. Driving is risky, walking in the street it risky, life is risky. It's about time that the endless call to impose delays, inconvenience and cost upon the 99% of those who fly, in a country with next to no risk of terrorist attack, be resisted. International flights obviously must face security screening, given the profile and realistic danger of terrorism. Domestic jet flights are barely understandable, given the speeds and fuel carried, but provincial flights?
The truth is that you are at far more danger walking around the streets of Whakatane, Wanganui, Kaitaia and Timaru at night, than you are risking boarding a plane at the airports there with someone who will kill you.
The government should demand a full benefit/cost assessment, taking into account the costs imposed on travellers (not the NZ$4.66 but the delay, stress and related costs of not carrying what you need in hand luggage) - and compare it to other risks, and propose other options.
The report says there is a "very low threat from terrorists, moderate risk from acutely disaffected people drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges".
Yes seriously, there is a bigger threat from car bombs in built up areas. However, I don't notice security screening of private cars in built up areas. A similar threat for bombing trains and buses, because there is NO screening of who people are before trains and buses are boarded.
The "moderate risk" from acutely disaffected people, drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges, is something that might be picked up on check in, and frankly "moderate" is nonsense. According to the report 3.7 events per year happen.
The review is entirely because of the case of Asha Ali Abdille who took knives on a Beech 1900 light and attacked the crew. This sort of risk could be better addressed by having lockable doors on the plane, instead of subjecting hundreds of thousands of travellers every day to a search. Don't forget that all aircraft above 19 seats have at least one member of cabin crew. Better yet, sue this mad woman for the cost she imposed on all of the passengers and the airline.
You see, the sense of perspective about security and terrorism is completely skewed by the narrow minded attitude of those only working in aviation. Has the report analysed the cost in delay, frustration and additional costs for making purchases at destinations for toiletries etc, because of the ridiculous restrictions on hand luggage? What are the costs to business and travellers of this? Those in security care next to nothing about that, remember how they goose stepped everyone into only carrying toiletries in little containers. These are on the same flights that have hot beverages, glass, shoes, belts, rope and any other kind of potential weapon.
To take a clear example - it's remarkable how in the UK iIwas always screened for flying on 50 seat regional flights, but those boarding trains going at 125mph from Euston, Kings Cross or Paddington (or arriving there) faced absolutely nothing. Much like those catching the tube or buses, because they couldn't function with the restrictions. Instead, there is the use of CCTV, the physical presence of security staff and the use of intelligence to monitor security.
Of course you wont 100% ensure there are no incidents. After all, there was security at US domestic airports before 9/11. There could still be incidents, but it is like other human activities. Driving is risky, walking in the street it risky, life is risky. It's about time that the endless call to impose delays, inconvenience and cost upon the 99% of those who fly, in a country with next to no risk of terrorist attack, be resisted. International flights obviously must face security screening, given the profile and realistic danger of terrorism. Domestic jet flights are barely understandable, given the speeds and fuel carried, but provincial flights?
The truth is that you are at far more danger walking around the streets of Whakatane, Wanganui, Kaitaia and Timaru at night, than you are risking boarding a plane at the airports there with someone who will kill you.
The government should demand a full benefit/cost assessment, taking into account the costs imposed on travellers (not the NZ$4.66 but the delay, stress and related costs of not carrying what you need in hand luggage) - and compare it to other risks, and propose other options.
What privatisation can do
Remember the Ministry of Works? Built roads and dams, maintained them too. The stereotype of an expensive, not very clever, lazy organisation.
It became Workscorp under Roger Douglas, you know that man that terrifies National and Labour so much with all those policies he implemented that neither have reversed. In 1996 the Nats sold the consultancy arm to a Malaysian firm, which invested in it Now it is one of New Zealand's most successful companies exporting services under the name Opus. Its head office is in Wellington, still.
The NZ Herald notes:
"Infrastructure consultant Opus International Consultants has exceeded expectations with increased revenue and profits, up around 25 per cent for 2008.
Could you have seen Workscorp doing that, let alone the Ministry of Works?
Hardly.
Given some SOEs are world class in their field (e.g. Airways Corporation, NZ Post) you might wonder how, with private investment, some of our constrained state owned enterprises might perform if let off the leash. Ironically, with the money governments are pouring into infrastructure, as a panacea to recession, Opus is probably a company in one of the best places to grow from strength to strength.
Good job Roger Douglas ignored Jim Anderton. Good job Jim Bolger ignored Helen Clark, Winston Peters and Jim Anderton - and frankly the majority of you out there.
Yes, it is Malaysian owned, but almost its entire management is New Zealand based, and much of its staff are New Zealanders.
It became Workscorp under Roger Douglas, you know that man that terrifies National and Labour so much with all those policies he implemented that neither have reversed. In 1996 the Nats sold the consultancy arm to a Malaysian firm, which invested in it Now it is one of New Zealand's most successful companies exporting services under the name Opus. Its head office is in Wellington, still.
The NZ Herald notes:
"Infrastructure consultant Opus International Consultants has exceeded expectations with increased revenue and profits, up around 25 per cent for 2008.
Revenue was $371.5 million, up 25.4 per cent on 2007, and the net surplus after tax was $17.5 million, up 23.4 per cent, for the year ended December 31, 2008, the company announced to the stock market today"
"Business acquisitions in the United Kingdom and in Canada increased Opus' total staff from 2236 to 2563, and it now operated from 81 offices world-wide."Could you have seen Workscorp doing that, let alone the Ministry of Works?
Hardly.
Given some SOEs are world class in their field (e.g. Airways Corporation, NZ Post) you might wonder how, with private investment, some of our constrained state owned enterprises might perform if let off the leash. Ironically, with the money governments are pouring into infrastructure, as a panacea to recession, Opus is probably a company in one of the best places to grow from strength to strength.
Good job Roger Douglas ignored Jim Anderton. Good job Jim Bolger ignored Helen Clark, Winston Peters and Jim Anderton - and frankly the majority of you out there.
Yes, it is Malaysian owned, but almost its entire management is New Zealand based, and much of its staff are New Zealanders.
Oh the humanity!
So the left thinks the world will come to an end because the Nats are looking to trim small numbers of people that taxpayers are forced to pay for.
It is most bizarre that the left talk of economic illiteracy from the likes of Roger Kerr, when they seem to think it's ok to keep plundering taxpayers in a recession so that large numbers of effectively unproductive people can remain employed.
Let's make it clear, there are three types of people working for the state:
1. Those undertaking productive activity in enterprises or institutions that could be operated privately. e.g. electricity SOEs, roads, schools, hospitals.
2. Those undertaking core state activities that are necessary for a functioning liberal capitalist economy. e.g. Police, courts, prisons, defence, justice.
3. Everyone else. Who range from regulators to advisors to inspectors.
The first lot could probably do with an efficiency drive, which really only comes most effectively through privatisation, although the SOEs aren't a bad stepping stone to that.
The second lot definitely need a reallocation and focus on protecting citizens, rather than telling them what to do. However, given dissatisfaction over crime, there is more scope to move those people around rather than cut them.
The third lot would mostly be looking for something else to do under a Libertarianz government. There may be a tiny handful of advisors to handle the likes of diplomatic relations with other countries and treaties, and advice on law, justice reform and the like, but the rest? Either sit in the private sector advising private entities or become productive.
The trimming of the Nats will be minor compared to the bloating of the state sector under Labour - something that all taxpayers should be concerned about. I suspect more than few on the left worry because no one else is likely to employ them!
Imagine if, for example, a cost benefit analysis was done for every state sector employee as to whether they generated more net benefits than taxpayers would if you gave them the money back. That is the type of thinking ACT likes.
I just think theft is theft, and you are either honest that you believe in large scale legalised theft or you're not or you disagree with it.
It is most bizarre that the left talk of economic illiteracy from the likes of Roger Kerr, when they seem to think it's ok to keep plundering taxpayers in a recession so that large numbers of effectively unproductive people can remain employed.
Let's make it clear, there are three types of people working for the state:
1. Those undertaking productive activity in enterprises or institutions that could be operated privately. e.g. electricity SOEs, roads, schools, hospitals.
2. Those undertaking core state activities that are necessary for a functioning liberal capitalist economy. e.g. Police, courts, prisons, defence, justice.
3. Everyone else. Who range from regulators to advisors to inspectors.
The first lot could probably do with an efficiency drive, which really only comes most effectively through privatisation, although the SOEs aren't a bad stepping stone to that.
The second lot definitely need a reallocation and focus on protecting citizens, rather than telling them what to do. However, given dissatisfaction over crime, there is more scope to move those people around rather than cut them.
The third lot would mostly be looking for something else to do under a Libertarianz government. There may be a tiny handful of advisors to handle the likes of diplomatic relations with other countries and treaties, and advice on law, justice reform and the like, but the rest? Either sit in the private sector advising private entities or become productive.
The trimming of the Nats will be minor compared to the bloating of the state sector under Labour - something that all taxpayers should be concerned about. I suspect more than few on the left worry because no one else is likely to employ them!
Imagine if, for example, a cost benefit analysis was done for every state sector employee as to whether they generated more net benefits than taxpayers would if you gave them the money back. That is the type of thinking ACT likes.
I just think theft is theft, and you are either honest that you believe in large scale legalised theft or you're not or you disagree with it.
An amendment for three strikes
Here's a thought.
Besides amending three strikes and you're out to being weighted to different crimes, how about excluding it when any crime does not have a specified victim?
That means:
- Consumption of drugs;
- Censorship violations that didn't involve recordings of people being victims;
- All traffic offences when no harm was caused, or likely threat;
- Blasphemy;
- Sex crimes that don't include force or minors;
Or how about simply saying it applies whenever force or fraud is applied to people's bodies or property?
Go on ACT - be the liberal party.
Besides amending three strikes and you're out to being weighted to different crimes, how about excluding it when any crime does not have a specified victim?
That means:
- Consumption of drugs;
- Censorship violations that didn't involve recordings of people being victims;
- All traffic offences when no harm was caused, or likely threat;
- Blasphemy;
- Sex crimes that don't include force or minors;
Or how about simply saying it applies whenever force or fraud is applied to people's bodies or property?
Go on ACT - be the liberal party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)