More air security for what?

Airlines and airports think it's unnecessary, but it doesn't matter. Government security goons are keen on it, because it will mean they get more money and more power, growing in influence.

According to the NZ Herald up to 14 extra airports could get security screening, but it isn't for terrorists. No. It is to cover drunk people (who surely can be dealt with without everyone being screened), the mentally ill (who airlines should be able to discriminate against, if it weren't for the Human Rights Act) and the disaffected.

I called for a serious cost/benefit analysis of the measure, if only because I believe the delays, and inconvenience to travellers (simple things like stopping people taking water on flights) will outweigh the risk, particularly if other options are selected.

Take this comment from Ray Dumble, chief executive of Tauranga Airport Authority, who said the government is "using a boulder to crush an ant".

"To me the action is potentially disproportionate to the actual problem. But, like anything, it's a business cost which will be passed on ... in the end it will be the poor old passenger who pays."

It's simple. In the UK thousands of trains travel every day without ANY security screening, some go up to 125 mph carrying over 250 passengers at a time - and passengers are screened for nothing. If this can be sustained every day in a country with far more serious terrorism (and domestic anti-social behaviour) problems than NZ, then we can let people fly from Napier, New Plymouth, Tauranga and Nelson without being harassed because 1 in 10,000 people who fly are mad or drunk.

What business should run for free?

The news from the NZ Herald that TV3 faces fines of up to NZ$300,000 because it broadcast advertising - its primary source of revenue on a Sunday morning should raise a more serious question.

Why should any privately owned broadcasters broadcast for free?

The laws restricting when TV broadcasters can broadcast advertising are a little recognised but very real limit on free speech. Why should the government dictate when a broadcaster can sell the only thing that broadcaster has to make money? Advertising.

Imagine a cinema that had to offer free tickets on a Sunday morning, or any other business that was told if it opened on a Sunday morning, everything would be free. Indeed, imagine the internet without ads on Sunday morning - um yes, got the point?

Of course look at who brought the case - the cheerless Ministry of Culture and the Arts. People who produce nothing, who risk nothing, but use your money to promote their view of what culture and arts should be subsidised. Not the culture and arts you consume and want, no. You're forced to pay for a statist view of the world. It's wrong, and the Ministry of Culture and the Arts should be disbanded.

Meanwhile, a small step forward would be to end restrictions on advertising on Sunday mornings, as well as Good Friday and Christmas Day (the only days radio stations cannot broadcast advertisements, but I doubt most of you even notice).

If you don't like advertising on TV on certain days then you can avoid it - do something else, turn it off.

What do you want councils to do then?

Given this news

You might ask why National and ACT are doing nothing to constrain the powers of the new Auckland mega city.

You want the new mega city to get involved in promoting shows with your money?

Well National and ACT don't care if it does.

So if the council will do what it likes
Wont reduce rates
It wont fix transport

What's the point? Especially when it makes some on the left get excited about the possibilities.

Iran's benign proxy?

Leave it to Trevor Loudon to post to remind us how an Imam from Hamas calls for extermination of all Jews.

Then wonder why, with this rhetoric, Israelis and Jews generally should "get over" the Holocaust, as so many leftwing commentators say.

While Palestinians support the likes of this, is it any wonder Israel wont compromise?

Oh and Iran funds and arms Hamas. However, you never hear calls for Iran to end its imperialist ambitions do you?

IRD cuts seen differently by Labour

250 jobs to be axed from the Department of Legalised Theft - which can only help boost the economy, as there are less claws trying to clasp money from the productive.

However, I found it funny that Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson on Twitter said:

"250 jobs to go at IRD. apparently its a good time to ask people to take voluntary redundancy! services we get from IRD will suffer."

Services? What are they Grant?

IRD is the state institution that says you're guilty and you have to prove your innocence to it. It harasses people to pay for what they never asked for, for services whether they deliver what you want or not, all without asking - it takes.

I've never understood the mindset of someone who would work for IRD - what joy is there is forcing people to pay for government? What joy is there is forcing people to surrender between 20 and 40% of their income for monopoly education, health and pension schemes which are never accountable if they fail you, and which you can't opt out of?