Morrissey incites terrorism?

According to the Sunday Times (UK) (page 27, not on website. This interview says nothing of these views) singer Morrissey (he writes beautiful love songs and also maniacally depressing songs) said at a concert in Oxford "Make no mistake, for anyone working in the labs, we are going to get you". In other words he is supporting terrorism against people working on experiments on animals.

.

Charming... but will he be arrested for "hate speech" like Muslim fundamentalist preachers are? Doubt it. Not that he should be, I disagree with hate speech - but funny how an 80s music icon is immune, when not only has he preached meat is murder (which is not advocating terrorism, but simply expressing a point of view), but that it is ok to intimidate and attack laboratory workers and their families.

.

Think about that next time you consider buying one of his CDs.

.

By contrast Tony Blair has unequivocably supported those who conduct medical experiments on animals, and condemned those who engaged in terrorism against them. This follows prison sentences for animal rights activists who engaged in an ongoing campaigning, including exhuming the remains of the grandmother of one scientist. Nice people those. 70% of people in a recent poll indicated they supported medical experiments on animals as being sometimes essential. 81% said they opposed protests involving shouting abuse at scientists, 88% oppose posting on the internet names and address of scientists involved, 95% oppose vandalism as part of protesting and 97% oppose death threats.

.

On other words, most people have commonsense and morality - Morrissey doesn't.

Cullen lost the plot, has Labour?

I actually have time for Michael Cullen - he's one of the brighter Cabinet Ministers, and frankly injects a great deal of sense at the Cabinet table. He has some understanding of economics and business, and has managed to avoid too much ridiculous spending by Ministers (seriously, if you think it's bad now, it doesn't bear thinking about). Cullen challenged Clark for the Labour leadership almost 10 years ago, and since then has been the rightwing business oriented Deputy Leader to the leftwing social activist Clark. He has made major screwups, failing to agree to Air New Zealand's request for Singapore Airlines to buy 49% of it is one, but he also has been the one person in Cabinet who has said no to more government more often than yes. One reason government spending on roads has gone up so much is because Cullen believes roads are a better investment than spending on the bottomless pit of health. Now, please recognise my compliments are in the context of the Labour Government, which I hardly endorse. He's the best of a bunch that I almost always disagree with.

.

However, I think the wheels are seriously coming off of the well oiled machine that Clark and Heather Simpson, and Cullen have managed well for the last seven to eight years. Michael Cullen's attack on the Press Gallery by claiming that calls for tax cuts come from journalists on the Press Gallery who will benefit from it is utter nonsense. Guyon Espiner is no neo-liberal Austrian economist, and with the exception of one L.Perigo, New Zealand parliamentary correspondents are hardly great friends of capitalism and less government. The latest One News Colmar Brunton Poll puts National on 47% and Labour on 38% - the public wants tax cuts, and the Bludging for Families package doesn't wash, people don't want welfare, they want their own money back.

.

While I could ask Michael to say no more to his colleagues and cut taxes, the reality is that a social-democratic centre-left Labour government will increase spending rather than cut taxes. That is what it is all about, that is a Clark led Labour government is about increasing what the state does, not shrinking it.

.

The difference is that the New Zealand public is increasingly rejecting that, they believe the state takes too much. Matt Robson might buy the argument that foreign owned media are controlling the debate, but last time I looked, TVNZ shares are held by the Minister of Finance. The Labour government is unwinding, and National just has to be a coherent and believable alternative. Is it?

.

Footnote: In March, Libertarianz had 0.2% support in the Colmar Brunton poll, more than Jim Anderton's Progressive Party... admittedly that means 2 people said Libertarianz!

Nandor willing to consider Green support for National

Nandor Tanczos has been, from time to time, one of the more thoughtful Green MPs. I was at the Health Select Committee presenting a submission on the inquiry into the legal status on cannabis, and he was the most polite member of the committee. David Benson-Pope was an absolute prick, questioning why people who are libertarians would organise into a political party, instead of addressing the issues. Dr Paul Hutchinson also took the piss and questioned why we bothered.... and National wonders why it gets hated. No, Nandor listened to our presentation, asked questions and was genuinely interested in arguments in favour of legalising drugs. One libertarian once claimed Nandor said if Libertarianz were elected to Parliament he would consider joining, but he'd have to start warming to capitalism.

.

Anyway, it is refreshing that the NZ Herald reports that Nandor, a candidate for Greens co-leader, says he believes that the party should take a more independent position, and that means considering supporting the National Party in government. Now he is not friendly towards Brash's agenda, but it shows that Nandor has a more open mind, rather than being a patsy to Labour. After all, the Greens have supported Labour since their inception, by and large, and Labour has twice snubbed them for a coalition agreement.

.

Frankly, unlike Kedgley the food fascist, Nandor is warmer towards individual freedom, in a party of statist control freaks, he is one of the more liberal ones.

The bitch wants to be CEO of Telecom

Not satisfied with her part in destroying the value of the property (a concept she doesn't understand very well) of Telecom shareholders, she now wants to be CEO. This will be rejected, as a Chief Executive is meant to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, not the shareholders of its competitors - if that is what you think she is. A competitor competes on price and service, not by getting the government to tilt the rules in your favour.

.

She has a letter to Rod Deane applying for it on her website. She wants only $40,000 for the job - what an angel - so you think shareholders would trust her, a shareholder in a competing firm to keep confidential information about their company? Like fucking hell! Getting paid so little would mean she owes Telecom little.

.

She's a stupid leftwing bitch - look at some of the things she says in her letter:

.

"The business must develop a social conscience. It must be socially aware of the impact of its actions on the people of New Zealand and New Zealand business. Without this you will always be at the mercy of government intervention and it will be impossible to meet a long term value goal"

.

Telecom provides services that YOU don't provide to customers. If it didn't exist, the economy would be far poorer - and Annette, that is businesses that produce things, not selling other people's property, like you. It doesn't need a social conscience, providing services to customers produces far more benefit for the country that having some Dick Hubbard like guilt trip about business. Telecom is good for New Zealand, if you disagree then how would it be if it rolled up all its property and sold it for scrap? Your business would be fucked then wouldn't it? The threat of government intervention is because of people like you - people who when you don't get what you want from a private company run to the government demanding it steal the property rights for the benefit of you and others. It's called force, a concept you like, it's actually wrong. "Long term value goal"? What the hell does that mean? So you say that unless Telecom surrenders shareholder value, the government will bully it by force and destroy it? You threatening shrew you!

.

"The level of regulatory intervention must be reduced. History has shown that in the long term, a high level of regulatory intervention is bad for business and does not provide long term benefits to end users"

.

Huh? So you expect to get this job by changing your spots? You spend years lobbying for regulatory intervention, but you know that it is bad in the long term??

.

Ahh there you have it, she wants to split Telecom into two businesses, separately listed on the stock exchange. That's it - what she wants the government to do by force, she wants to convince Telecom shareholders to agree to voluntarily. Give her points for wanting to convince Telecom it is a good idea, but her nonsense on social conscience does not bode well, plus her conflict of interest as an owner of a competitor.

.

However wait "On appointment as CEO, my first job will be to engage with the Government and obtain their (sic) buy in to this concept and undertaking to complete it by the end of 2006".

.

So she can't take her greasy little hands off using the state to endorse it. Annette should not get the job, it is clear she only wants to do it to benefit her own business - Slingshot. Why wouldn't she? She doesn't want to compete building her own network or negotiating with Telecom on a voluntary basis, but by bullying it. Now she wants to get in the tent to help restructure Telecom to suit her business and other competitors.

.

Given she contributed to the massive loss of value for Telecom shares, she deserves to be told by Rod Deane to kindly - get fucked. If you want to ask Annette why she thinks its ok for competitors of Telecom to demand the government force Telecom to make its property available for her to make money on, then do so.. ask her why this isn't theft or at least conversion? This is a list of her speaking engagements.

.

I'd like to her debate Peter Cresswell instead of suing him - but I suspect she likes the glamour of public attention, not the rigour of public debate.

Air NZ big international expansion

Air NZ Chair Rob Fyfe has announced that by 2010 the airline will open up a host of new long haul routes:

.

- Auckland to London via Shanghai (opening up via Hong Kong in October);

- Auckland to Santiago (competing with LAN);

- Auckland to Sao Paulo (linking up with Star Alliance partner Varig, which is nearly bankrupt);

- Auckland to Vancouver (no doubt codesharing with Air Canada, which has already announced it is starting Sydney-Vancouver via LA shortly);

- Auckland to Beijing;

- Auckland to Mumbai.

.

These are ambitious plans, with the first direct flights to Brazil, Canada and India, linking growing markets for tourism and trade. This year Auckland-Shanghai is expected to commence, as is the 2nd daily flight to London, but through the much better hub of Hong Kong rather than LA. This suggests the airline will need more than 4 new Boeing 787s, as it needs that many to replace its remaining 767s alone (which fly to Perth, Papeete and LA via Pacific Islands).

.

So isn't it about time that at least some of the airline was privatised to give it the capital to buy more planes?

.

By the way, while 2 of its 8 747s are still to be refurbished (1 is in the workshop at the moment) with the new seats (business class pictured) and video on demand entertainment system (all London and San Francisco, and most direct LA flights now use refurbished 747s), the 767s are being tarted up (pictured) and look now like the Airbus A320s on the inside. The fifth 777 arrived in the past week and is destined for the Auckland-Hong Kong route, replacing a 767. At the moment 777s operate on Auckland-San Francisco, Auckland-Singapore, Auckland-Tokyo Narita and selected services from Auckland to Australia. Once the sixth 777 arrives in late July, Auckland-Osaka Kansai will go from a 767 to a 777, meaning all of Air NZ's flights to and from Asia will have the new product - about time!