After hearing countless diatribes about the Exclusive Brethren "scandal" I am intensely pissed off that there appears to be NO coverage on TV about Labour's "eviction" notice letters to state house tenants in Dunedin. TVNZ and TV3 should be ashamed.
There is plenty about this scandal, which scares state house tenants through propaganda, on Aaron Bhatnagar's blog here and here.
So has David Farrar here
Gman has a good summary as well of the double standards
I believe all state houses should be flogged off, the state shouldn't be providing housing, the accommodation supplement should be phased out too. I couldn't care less what happens to state housing - but I do care that the media does not seek out stories of the Labour Party scaring the people it is meant to care about. It proves to me that TVNZ is largely run by a bunch of statist sycophants to its owner and TV3 news are even bigger arse lickers to the status quo than TVNZ (I gave up on John Campbell when he admitted he supported the Alliance).
TV3, of course, is entitled to have any bias it wants, it is privately owned. TVNZ on the other hand should provide even handed coverage - the Brethren matter was not a "debacle" it was an issue. At worst, Brash did not admit that he had a hunch who was responsible for "shock horror" anti-government leaflets.
One point - anyone who thinks the Exclusive Brethren influence National Party policy is clearly nuts or creating mischief, unlike the CTU which DOES influence Labour policy.
This is NOT North Korea (see my links list), anti-government leaflets are legal, and who really cares who Don Brash meets and gets support from? This is a liberal democracy, it is ok, get over it!
Libertyscott
11 September 2005
Labour's commitments
What I think of them...
1. No interest on student loans for NZ based graduates. Oh there is no money for tax cuts! Why should students get interest free loans, why not young people who set up businesses, own farms? Why should students get money they can use for holidays, deposits on buying houses, cars? Why should they get to borrow for free? How good a deal is it to get an interest free loan and pay 33% on every extra dollar you earn when you graduate to your first job at $38000 p.a.?
2. 7500 more cataract operations and 10000 extra major joint operations in the next term. So no commitment on other medical procedures? How about heart bypasses? How about glue ear? Maybe they will be cut, as productivity in the health sector continues to plummet as Labour feeds the unionised monopolised public health behemoth. Besides, since when do we know that that is the right number, and couldn't more people buy health insurance if you gave them their money back?
3. Final date for lodging historical Treaty claims by 1 September 2008, and commit to finish all settlements by 2020. Notice the word "historical". There will be modern day ones, like claims for radio spectrum, so they will continue. Besides, isn't this sort of policy "racist" to post-modernist cultural relativist lefties like Helen Clark? How can Labour commit the government to 2020? Would Labour have done this had Brash not made his Orewa speech?
4. Increase the maximum rates rebate to $500 and increase income eligibility thresholds. This wouldn't be an issue if Labour hadn't taken local government off its leash with the "power of general competence". Councils can now enter into any legal activity they wish, giving them carte blanche to waste ratepayers money, and compete with the private sector. Rates are inherently unfair, and bear little relationship to what local authority services you consume - user pays is fairer, and capping council spending would help.
5. $1000 kick start for everyone joining Kiwisaver and up to $10000 as a grant for couples ($5000 for single people) saving to buy their first home. Welfare for everyone, why first home? Why continue to fuel demand for housing as an investment? Easier and fairer to give people their money back in decent tax cuts, instead of a new bureaucratic system for helping people - Nanny State par excellence!
6. 5000 extra modern apprenticeships. Nanny State increasing her grip on education. This is something that the private sector COULD and WOULD do, if taxes were lower and the regulatory compliance hassles of IRD and OSH didn't make it costly to do. The demands for tradespeople are high, and the supply can be met privately - however it wont happen if the state does it.
7. 250 extra community police on the streets. Actually agree with this, as long as they aren't pursuing adult cannabis users or growers, or other victimless crimes. 1 out of 7 Labour!
1 out of 7 for Labour.
National's commitments tomorrow.
1. No interest on student loans for NZ based graduates. Oh there is no money for tax cuts! Why should students get interest free loans, why not young people who set up businesses, own farms? Why should students get money they can use for holidays, deposits on buying houses, cars? Why should they get to borrow for free? How good a deal is it to get an interest free loan and pay 33% on every extra dollar you earn when you graduate to your first job at $38000 p.a.?
2. 7500 more cataract operations and 10000 extra major joint operations in the next term. So no commitment on other medical procedures? How about heart bypasses? How about glue ear? Maybe they will be cut, as productivity in the health sector continues to plummet as Labour feeds the unionised monopolised public health behemoth. Besides, since when do we know that that is the right number, and couldn't more people buy health insurance if you gave them their money back?
3. Final date for lodging historical Treaty claims by 1 September 2008, and commit to finish all settlements by 2020. Notice the word "historical". There will be modern day ones, like claims for radio spectrum, so they will continue. Besides, isn't this sort of policy "racist" to post-modernist cultural relativist lefties like Helen Clark? How can Labour commit the government to 2020? Would Labour have done this had Brash not made his Orewa speech?
4. Increase the maximum rates rebate to $500 and increase income eligibility thresholds. This wouldn't be an issue if Labour hadn't taken local government off its leash with the "power of general competence". Councils can now enter into any legal activity they wish, giving them carte blanche to waste ratepayers money, and compete with the private sector. Rates are inherently unfair, and bear little relationship to what local authority services you consume - user pays is fairer, and capping council spending would help.
5. $1000 kick start for everyone joining Kiwisaver and up to $10000 as a grant for couples ($5000 for single people) saving to buy their first home. Welfare for everyone, why first home? Why continue to fuel demand for housing as an investment? Easier and fairer to give people their money back in decent tax cuts, instead of a new bureaucratic system for helping people - Nanny State par excellence!
6. 5000 extra modern apprenticeships. Nanny State increasing her grip on education. This is something that the private sector COULD and WOULD do, if taxes were lower and the regulatory compliance hassles of IRD and OSH didn't make it costly to do. The demands for tradespeople are high, and the supply can be met privately - however it wont happen if the state does it.
7. 250 extra community police on the streets. Actually agree with this, as long as they aren't pursuing adult cannabis users or growers, or other victimless crimes. 1 out of 7 Labour!
1 out of 7 for Labour.
National's commitments tomorrow.
Why I am voting Libertarianz and it is not a wasted vote
I am voting Libertarianz for my party vote, and Bernard Darnton for my electorate vote for Wellington Central. Why? Most people would say I am wasting my votes in both cases.
For the electorate vote it is relatively easy - either vote to oust Marian Hobbs as local MP (but not list MP) and vote for Mark Blumsky, or vote for someone I like. Given that Marian and Mark are both assured election under the party vote (assuming the Nats pull in 35% plus), and that I don't think Blumsky is much more than a marketing showman (though a clever one and certainly with more neurons than Hobbs), it was easy to choose Bernard. He's a nice guy, I like him a lot and he has had the balls to run in an electorate where the Greens get over 10% of the vote as a matter of course - and I want him to beat Stephen Hay the Communist, and hopefully the Social Credit, Progressive and Alliance candidates too - though it might be a big call. Stephen Franks honestly doesn't want the electorate vote, so I think it is time for every liberal rightwing voter to tick Bernard - Blumsky is in anyway.
For the party vote- the argument usually is "if you are so against the Clark government, why don't you vote National to change the government?" ACT supporters also ask, why not support ACT - ACT has more often than not led support for a liberal view in Parliament.
To that I say, hmmm sometimes.
I'm voting Libertarianz because I believe the only legitimate role of the state is to protect citizens from each other and invasion - in other words, defence, justice, police. I am willing to debate ways of transitioning to that - about privatisation, education, health, welfare - as long as the trend is for the state to get out of the way. I want a shrinking government, central and local, and I want to elect politicians who will do that, consistently, in ALL areas. Economic, social and personal freedom being enhanced.
I am NOT voting ACT because, despite Rodney Hide being a man who I respect and trust, and who is light years ahead of Richard Prebble (who I did vote for in 1996 and 1999 for my electorate candidate), because ACT does NOT believe the state should shrink in all areas of life. ACT MPs in the last term voted on the civil union bill and prostitution reform bill by conscience - never did ACT state that prostitution (adults only) should not be a matter for the criminal law, never did ACT state that marriage or civil unions should not be a matter for state prescription, but simply contracts between consenting adults, of EITHER sex. ACT does not support the decriminalisation of cannabis.
So why does that matter? I don't use prostitutes or work as one, I am not gay, and I'm not a drug user. However, all of these are very important as they cut to the heart of being libertarian and being human - it is about the state telling adults what to do with their bodies or their relationships, and that offends me more intensely than having public hospitals, owning Air New Zealand or the 111 system. How DARE politicians tell me I cannot act in a way that does not hurt or harm anyone else- it is NOT their business whether I want to pay for or sell sex, get married or ingest something into my body. How COULD it be? If ACT declared that, I'd feel Libertarianz had done its job. I know ACT has done much to outline poor government spending, but it never says the state should get out of so many areas - have you heard ACT advocating an end to state funding for the arts and broadcasting?
So I cannot vote for ACT. I voted ACT for party vote in 1996 because it had a flat tax policy, and had been saying most of the right things up to that point, and I wanted to give Prebble's lot a chance. They delivered on responding to the left, but not in advocating freedom - I voted ACT for the party vote because Libertarianz did not stand (the Secretary of the day was incompetent with the paperwork) and there was some hope that Rodney Hide would shift ACT closer to individual freedom, he sort of did - but not enough for me.
PC has suggested what ACT could do now to gain some true freedom credentials, but I doubt it will happen. It would grab some headlines, and make me think carefully about voting ACT, because ACT would truly believe in freedom then. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not voting National because I want more than shifts in tax scales, I want a commitment to getting rid of the envy tax rate of 39%, I want schools to be controlled locally by parents and teachers, and the state to work its way out of its social engineering through that system. I want a commitment to shrinking the state, and I do NOT agree with toughening up the war on drugs. Don Brash is a good man, who would be the best Prime Minister in many years, but he is surrounded by too many petty fascists - like Nick Smith, Tony Ryall and Brian Connell - men who don't understand freedom one little bit. National is a conservative party led by a liberal man, advised by conservative pragmatists.
So back to the main point - why isn't a vote for a party with bugger all chance of getting into Parliament this time, a wasted vote? The only reason it is seen as wasted is because of what others do - for your vote not to be "wasted" around 100,000 others have to vote the same way - your individual vote makes virtually NO difference to the election, the marginal effect is tiny. The total effect of all votes cast is immense - so your vote is a chance to be honest with yourself and what you believe in. Many people will decide whether or not to vote ACT PURELY on the polls - If ACT rises to around 5% or Rodney looks like he will win Epsom, more will vote ACT than otherwise. If ACT looks like a lost cause, it wont do more than 1% - sort of where Libertarianz is aiming at. If Libertarianz get 1% this time I will be thrilled, though 0.5% is a more realistic goal. Think that is a joke? Peter Dunne's United Party got about that in 1999, barely enough to justify him not being an overhang MP.
So I am voting Libertarianz because it is what I believe in - in its own marginal way, I am telling the main parties that I believe in freedom, and I know several thousand other New Zealanders will do the same - at a time when there is immense pressure to vote for National to get rid of the People's Republic of Clarkistan - I will vote according to what I want, not third best!
Libertyscott
For the electorate vote it is relatively easy - either vote to oust Marian Hobbs as local MP (but not list MP) and vote for Mark Blumsky, or vote for someone I like. Given that Marian and Mark are both assured election under the party vote (assuming the Nats pull in 35% plus), and that I don't think Blumsky is much more than a marketing showman (though a clever one and certainly with more neurons than Hobbs), it was easy to choose Bernard. He's a nice guy, I like him a lot and he has had the balls to run in an electorate where the Greens get over 10% of the vote as a matter of course - and I want him to beat Stephen Hay the Communist, and hopefully the Social Credit, Progressive and Alliance candidates too - though it might be a big call. Stephen Franks honestly doesn't want the electorate vote, so I think it is time for every liberal rightwing voter to tick Bernard - Blumsky is in anyway.
For the party vote- the argument usually is "if you are so against the Clark government, why don't you vote National to change the government?" ACT supporters also ask, why not support ACT - ACT has more often than not led support for a liberal view in Parliament.
To that I say, hmmm sometimes.
I'm voting Libertarianz because I believe the only legitimate role of the state is to protect citizens from each other and invasion - in other words, defence, justice, police. I am willing to debate ways of transitioning to that - about privatisation, education, health, welfare - as long as the trend is for the state to get out of the way. I want a shrinking government, central and local, and I want to elect politicians who will do that, consistently, in ALL areas. Economic, social and personal freedom being enhanced.
I am NOT voting ACT because, despite Rodney Hide being a man who I respect and trust, and who is light years ahead of Richard Prebble (who I did vote for in 1996 and 1999 for my electorate candidate), because ACT does NOT believe the state should shrink in all areas of life. ACT MPs in the last term voted on the civil union bill and prostitution reform bill by conscience - never did ACT state that prostitution (adults only) should not be a matter for the criminal law, never did ACT state that marriage or civil unions should not be a matter for state prescription, but simply contracts between consenting adults, of EITHER sex. ACT does not support the decriminalisation of cannabis.
So why does that matter? I don't use prostitutes or work as one, I am not gay, and I'm not a drug user. However, all of these are very important as they cut to the heart of being libertarian and being human - it is about the state telling adults what to do with their bodies or their relationships, and that offends me more intensely than having public hospitals, owning Air New Zealand or the 111 system. How DARE politicians tell me I cannot act in a way that does not hurt or harm anyone else- it is NOT their business whether I want to pay for or sell sex, get married or ingest something into my body. How COULD it be? If ACT declared that, I'd feel Libertarianz had done its job. I know ACT has done much to outline poor government spending, but it never says the state should get out of so many areas - have you heard ACT advocating an end to state funding for the arts and broadcasting?
So I cannot vote for ACT. I voted ACT for party vote in 1996 because it had a flat tax policy, and had been saying most of the right things up to that point, and I wanted to give Prebble's lot a chance. They delivered on responding to the left, but not in advocating freedom - I voted ACT for the party vote because Libertarianz did not stand (the Secretary of the day was incompetent with the paperwork) and there was some hope that Rodney Hide would shift ACT closer to individual freedom, he sort of did - but not enough for me.
PC has suggested what ACT could do now to gain some true freedom credentials, but I doubt it will happen. It would grab some headlines, and make me think carefully about voting ACT, because ACT would truly believe in freedom then. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not voting National because I want more than shifts in tax scales, I want a commitment to getting rid of the envy tax rate of 39%, I want schools to be controlled locally by parents and teachers, and the state to work its way out of its social engineering through that system. I want a commitment to shrinking the state, and I do NOT agree with toughening up the war on drugs. Don Brash is a good man, who would be the best Prime Minister in many years, but he is surrounded by too many petty fascists - like Nick Smith, Tony Ryall and Brian Connell - men who don't understand freedom one little bit. National is a conservative party led by a liberal man, advised by conservative pragmatists.
So back to the main point - why isn't a vote for a party with bugger all chance of getting into Parliament this time, a wasted vote? The only reason it is seen as wasted is because of what others do - for your vote not to be "wasted" around 100,000 others have to vote the same way - your individual vote makes virtually NO difference to the election, the marginal effect is tiny. The total effect of all votes cast is immense - so your vote is a chance to be honest with yourself and what you believe in. Many people will decide whether or not to vote ACT PURELY on the polls - If ACT rises to around 5% or Rodney looks like he will win Epsom, more will vote ACT than otherwise. If ACT looks like a lost cause, it wont do more than 1% - sort of where Libertarianz is aiming at. If Libertarianz get 1% this time I will be thrilled, though 0.5% is a more realistic goal. Think that is a joke? Peter Dunne's United Party got about that in 1999, barely enough to justify him not being an overhang MP.
So I am voting Libertarianz because it is what I believe in - in its own marginal way, I am telling the main parties that I believe in freedom, and I know several thousand other New Zealanders will do the same - at a time when there is immense pressure to vote for National to get rid of the People's Republic of Clarkistan - I will vote according to what I want, not third best!
Libertyscott
10 September 2005
Great questions
PC has some questions that are pretty good -
I am sick and tired of the concern about the Exclusive Brethren - weird fuckers as they are - there is nothing wrong with anti-government leaflets, just like there is nothing wrong with pro-government leaflets. It is ok for the union movement to pour vast amounts of money from its members to keeping the Labour party in power, but somehow wrong for a religious group to do the opposite. grrrr.
The Families Commission is useless - we have had families for thousands of years and they are not more functional because a bunch of bureaurats have been hired to advise on family policy. One of the reasons I would PREFER National governing with just Rodney Hide and a couple of friends for a majority, would be to get rid of this stupid entity. Peter Dunne is NOT commonsense, he is headline grabbing opportunist pablum - he merges with a new party every year on average- no times does it do his party any good - United Future will hopefully be back to a reasonable level of support - 1% - this time round.
My extra questions:
Where is Mary Varnham, and why am I so happy she is invisible?
Whatever happened to Alan Duff?
Why does Headliners still get broadcast?
Who lets their twelve year olds go out at 1am in Courtenay Place unaccompanied?
Why don't Aucklanders tell their local politicians that they wont pay for the billion dollar passenger train system they wont use?
Why doesn't Don Brash point out that Labour were quite happy to have him look after inflation and interest rates for the first two years of their government, but say he can't be trusted on the economy now?
Why does Fiona Mckenzie get excited about United Future at Wellington Central candidate's meetings, when her party doesn't care which party leads the government?
Why do the Greens enjoy oil prices being high, do they just want to feel righteous or do they really hate the private car that much?
I am sick and tired of the concern about the Exclusive Brethren - weird fuckers as they are - there is nothing wrong with anti-government leaflets, just like there is nothing wrong with pro-government leaflets. It is ok for the union movement to pour vast amounts of money from its members to keeping the Labour party in power, but somehow wrong for a religious group to do the opposite. grrrr.
The Families Commission is useless - we have had families for thousands of years and they are not more functional because a bunch of bureaurats have been hired to advise on family policy. One of the reasons I would PREFER National governing with just Rodney Hide and a couple of friends for a majority, would be to get rid of this stupid entity. Peter Dunne is NOT commonsense, he is headline grabbing opportunist pablum - he merges with a new party every year on average- no times does it do his party any good - United Future will hopefully be back to a reasonable level of support - 1% - this time round.
My extra questions:
Where is Mary Varnham, and why am I so happy she is invisible?
Whatever happened to Alan Duff?
Why does Headliners still get broadcast?
Who lets their twelve year olds go out at 1am in Courtenay Place unaccompanied?
Why don't Aucklanders tell their local politicians that they wont pay for the billion dollar passenger train system they wont use?
Why doesn't Don Brash point out that Labour were quite happy to have him look after inflation and interest rates for the first two years of their government, but say he can't be trusted on the economy now?
Why does Fiona Mckenzie get excited about United Future at Wellington Central candidate's meetings, when her party doesn't care which party leads the government?
Why do the Greens enjoy oil prices being high, do they just want to feel righteous or do they really hate the private car that much?
08 September 2005
Hooters
Killjoy Kedgley has slammed the plan to open an Auckland branch of the Hooters restaurant and bar chain. Al Bundy's favourite place.
Now the question is - would the Greens regulate this or allow local government to do so? Why is it wrong for adult women to wear hotpants and tanktops while in someone's private property serving drinks and food for good wages?
The neo-conservatism of the "liberal" left merges with the fundamentalist right on this - Brian Tamaki no doubt loathes such blatant displays of human beauty (as did Graham Capill - these girls are adults after all), but I am sure Rodney Hide and Don Brash wouldn't object.
Does it exploit women? Well ask those who work there, and who were not forced to sign a contract and do the job. It is their choice after all - just as it is your choice to not go, or even protest about it.
Andrea Black from Rape Crisis claims that it perpetuates the myth than women are purely there for men's sexual pleasure. Some men think like that, some women think men are like that too, and some men think men are like that - but the bottom line is that adults can choose what to do with their bodies and what to wear. Any other approach is going down the path of the Taliban or Iran.
Women's sexuality is something to be celebrated, be it straight, bi or lesbian - as much as men's is. Most people feel if they are gorgeous, they are proud of it and feel great, and are not ashamed, nor should they be - as long as everything is consensual it is part of being human.
Would the Greens and Rape Crisis regulate what women wear in the street, on a Friday night, in a bar? What would they call men who want to regulate that?
You got the picture! So does David Farrar
Now the question is - would the Greens regulate this or allow local government to do so? Why is it wrong for adult women to wear hotpants and tanktops while in someone's private property serving drinks and food for good wages?
The neo-conservatism of the "liberal" left merges with the fundamentalist right on this - Brian Tamaki no doubt loathes such blatant displays of human beauty (as did Graham Capill - these girls are adults after all), but I am sure Rodney Hide and Don Brash wouldn't object.
Does it exploit women? Well ask those who work there, and who were not forced to sign a contract and do the job. It is their choice after all - just as it is your choice to not go, or even protest about it.
Andrea Black from Rape Crisis claims that it perpetuates the myth than women are purely there for men's sexual pleasure. Some men think like that, some women think men are like that too, and some men think men are like that - but the bottom line is that adults can choose what to do with their bodies and what to wear. Any other approach is going down the path of the Taliban or Iran.
Women's sexuality is something to be celebrated, be it straight, bi or lesbian - as much as men's is. Most people feel if they are gorgeous, they are proud of it and feel great, and are not ashamed, nor should they be - as long as everything is consensual it is part of being human.
Would the Greens and Rape Crisis regulate what women wear in the street, on a Friday night, in a bar? What would they call men who want to regulate that?
You got the picture! So does David Farrar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)