BBC can't get over Thatcher being right

The left doesn't like criticism of the BBC. For they see it as the repositary of objectivity, balance and free speech - because it so often reflects, primarily, their view of the world. The BBC is like the Guardian - except that the Guardian isn't state subsidised, and there is no Telegraph or Times to counterbalance it (ITV News is more leftwing and vapid than the BBC, Channel 4 is closer to the Independent as far as newspapers go).

.

However, the BBC's ability to act, on the one hand like a commercial broadcaster, paying exhorbitant salaries to personalities to stop them being lured by private broadcasters, and on the other re-write history.

.

Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph explains how, in a recently produced drama by the BBC, Margaret Thatcher is depicted as "a bellicose drunk, demolishing whiskies and importuning other guests for refills". As Heffer has known Thatcher personally for many years, he testifies to having never seen her drunk or asking for drinks. He claims that there is an ongoing campaign to villify Thatcher, partly through lies (such as claiming her to be a drunkard), partly through only telling one side of the story.

.

He notes the lack of any conservative or free market plays, dramas or comedies on the BBC:

.

"Like many viewers and listeners, I have been beaten into surrender about the dramatic and comic output of our state broadcaster. We accept, with due docility, that Right-of-centre playwrights, scriptwriters and comedians (I suppose there are such people, starving in garrets somewhere) simply cannot survive the commissioning process. "

.

While the BBC claims to criticise Blair as well, that also is from a socialist perspective. He "betrayed" the Labour cause (i.e. made it electable three times), he isn't criticised for growing the state. Blair is the new Thatcher, because he got re-elected by being more palatable than the Marxists the Labour Party used to put up, like Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock.

.

Heffer does offer an explanation:

.

"A long-time servant of the BBC explained to me, in a moment of stunning insight, why the Leftists in that organisation, and the Leftist contributors to it, are so bilious and angry even 16 years after Lady Thatcher left office: it is because they lost. They were wrong. They were humiliated. They have become bores with nothing else to say. They were not, of course, defeated just by Lady Thatcher: the coming down of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War defeated them, too."

.

Thatcher's reforms saved the British economy, and Britain has reaped the rewards of those reforms for the last decade. She also championed the fight against socialist tyranny (although sadly not fascist tyranny of Pinochet). How many journalists would have thought that by the end of Thatcher's leadership, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would be on the verge of independence - and by now, members of the European Union. How many would have wished it?

.

However most of all, her legacy has held on by "New Labour" largely not undoing what she did. Blair won by being "Thatcher-lite" - and he continues this. Heffer concludes that the BBC's mates - the Labour Party haven't delivered what the BBC would have hoped:

.

"Finally, why hasn't "their" party undone all the "damage" of Thatcherism? Why do trade union laws remain unrepealed, and industries privatised? Why has there been no uprooting of the property-owning democracy? It is because she was right, and they know she was right. They cannot, however, bear to admit it. All they can do instead is tell lies, call her names and spit with rage. Don't laugh at them. Pity them."

Worship of democracy

The late Bill Weddell said “Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them”. However, the sustenance of this form of government is probably best defended by Winston Churchill “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.
.
By and large he’s right. Democracies don’t tend to go to war with each other, although a democracy needs a bit more than a vote and competing candidates. After all, Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina all had that. There needs to be “enough” free speech, “enough” open media and “enough” individual freedom that government is not above the law. It has to be genuinely possible for the incumbents to lose, and for the opposition parties and candidates to get a fair amount of coverage. This is clearly not the case in Zimbabwe, and increasingly not the case in South Africa. Because democracy demands an independent judiciary and a certain degree of free speech to function effectively, defence of democracy does provide some defence to individual freedom. Its best defence is enabling people to “vote the bastards out”, removing those who oppress them. However, this only happens if the majority are sufficiently motivated – which is typically rare.
.
The Bush administration pushes democracy abroad. That, in itself, is an enormous mistake. One need only look at the Palestinian Authority and the victory of Hamas to demonstrate that the majority do, sometimes, not actually want to live in peace with their fellow men. History is full of examples of democratically elected bullies – Hitler being the most noteworthy. The Nazis won 43.9% of the vote in their last election in 1933, with their coalition partner the DNVP winning 8% (the pro Stalin Communist Party got 12.3%) Without constitutionally protected individual rights, a democracy is the chance, as PC once put it, for three wolfs and a sheep to vote on what they are having for dinner. You see this in a lesser form, with people voting for more welfare, more subsidies, protection for their business (e.g. local content quotas) or to push around people they don’t particularly like. As philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once said:
.
“Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities, the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people”
.
That is why minorities are always at risk in democracy, and the smallest minority is the individual.

.

PC's Cue Card Libertarianism - Democracy

Booze and snacks to be sold on Air NZ domestic flights

Peckish and needing a drink when you next hop on that 45 minute flight from Wellington to Christchurch? Feeling that Air NZ's cup of coffee/tea, mineral water and cookie aren't enough? Can't be arsed buying food at the airport or at your destination? Well Air NZ is about to give you another option...

.

According to what appears to be a staff leak on an airline forum, Air NZ is poised to announce that it will shortly start retailing alcoholic beverages, fruit juice, soft drinks and snack foods like potato chips on its domestic flights operated by jet aircraft (most flights between Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin and Queenstown). Presumably, this follows the trend of low cost carriers in Europe, and Virgin Blue/Pacific Blue in Australasia and is expected to be profitable.

.

I remember back in the days of Air NZ having a monopoly on the main trunk (which was actually one of the few deregulatory moves of the Muldoon government, abolishing limits on the number of airlines that could fly on domestic routes), you got some orange drink and a cracker with the legendary unopenable cheese packet. Then Ansett turned up, and it was hot meals on domestic flights. Then alcohol arrived, and it became free on weekday evening flights. The near collapse of Air NZ saw it refocus, and decide to grow the market with cheap fares and elimination of meals (although free coffee/water and cookie is more than you get on Virgin Blue or Easyjet). Now the circle has started swinging around again, assuming this leak is true.

.

I bet Cabinet Ministers miss business class on those flights. There is a website for people fascinated with airline food, just pick your airline and see pictures of what people had placed in front of them.

.

UPDATE: I am betting that the usual bunch of fun-free wowsers will come out decrying this as the end of civilisation, that drunk people will be a problem on flights (ignoring free booze on Air NZ international flights) and will Sue Kedgley say it is bad for your health because there are no fresh fruit available on the flights, and besides the weight adds to aircraft emissions? Please don't - I absolutely loathe the do-gooding naysaying fun police.

Scottish independence now!

While plenty of Scots will be cheering Sweden tonight in the World Cup game against England, it is about time they were set free. Scots don't like the English very much, it is a cultural tradition almost as engrained a bigotry as the Catholic/Protestant divide in Ireland (which also exists in Scotland). So the answer is simple. Scotland should be granted independence.

.

It would be the best thing for the remainder of the United Kingdom, and Scotland - in the long run (although it might pay a price for some years).
.
I have always laughed at Scottish nationalists – as they have largely been a bunch of deluded socialists. The Scottish National Party website is full of specious claims that an independent Scotland would be better off, because "look at how much Ireland has grown" (ignoring that this is due to a winning combo of low tax and EU subsidies for some years). Given my Scottish heritage, my derision of Scottish nationalism has been notable (although my parents' families were Labour and Tory respectively).

.

However, as a resident of the UK, living in London, it has become abundantly clear that I would be better off with Scotland being independent, and the United Kingdom comprising England, Wales and Northern Ireland (and for reasons I am about to explain, the latter two need to be on watch as well). So I am supporting the Scottish National Party in its campaign to win all of the Scottish seats in the House of Commons - even though it is a loony leftwing party dedicated to higher taxes, unilateral nuclear disarmament and a strong supporter of the European Union.
.
Why? Well first there is the argument well put in the Daily Telegraph. Scottish devolution has meant that the Scottish Parliament (the building for which cost £431 million), now has power over the following matters within Scotland:
.
- Agriculture, fisheries and forestry (though Brussels is as important);
- Arts and sport
- Economic development (i.e. subsidies for business, tax breaks and regulation);
- Education;
- Police/fire services and the courts (which have always been separate).
- Environment and food standards;
- Health
- Local government
- Social policy
- Transport
.
Westminster still determines broadcasting, energy, defence, employment, drug policy, foreign affairs, transport safety regulation (you know those Scots would want to cut corners on their brakes!), social security, monetary policy.
.
So with the Scottish Parliament deciding the former, the Houses of Parliament at Westminster decide the former for England as well, and the latter for both regions. MPs in England do not decide on funding or policy for Scottish schools and hospitals, but MPs from Scotland do decide on such matters for English schools and hospitals. This is utterly ridiculous. It is known as the West Lothian Question. The Scottish Affairs committee of the House of Commons agrees. It offered four solutions without a preference:
.
- Only English MPs vote on English laws (which seems a sensible first step);
- English devolution (which essentially means a UK federation, not entirely ridiculous);
- Reduction in Scottish MPs (while some key matters are still decided at Westminster this seems unfair); or
- Dissolution of the United Kingdom.
.
While ensuring English MPs only vote on English laws would be the logical step, it would have some interesting side effects in the current environment. For starters, as some solid Blair supporters are Scottish MPs, it may reduce or eliminate Blair’s ability to continue with his health and education reforms, which would be unfortunate. However, it would also kill off Gordon Brown’s hopes of being Prime Minister. What PM of the UK could be stopped from voting on some matters in the House of Commons? What PM could chair Cabinet deciding on English laws and funding for English schools and hospitals, without being able to vote on it? Well – what Chancellor of the Exchequer can prepare a budget, that to a substantial extent is not relevant to his constituents?
.
So – Scotland should be independent. It would also enable the socialism of so many Scots to come to the fore, and be implemented. You see at the moment, Scottish socialism is subsidised by England. According to the Times 54.9% of Scotland’s total GDP comes from government sector. This compares to 33.4% in London – the capital – and capital cities traditionally have higher proportions of state sector GDP than the rest of the economy. This comparison is all the more stark when you see that the state sector is responsible for 51.9% of GDP in Hungary, 42.6% in the Czech Republic, 41.2% in Poland and 36.3% in Slovakia – all post-socialist economies. In China, the state sector comprises 38% of GDP! Wales and Northern Ireland are worse than Scotland, but one at a time, and Northern Ireland is a bit of a "special case".
.
In short, Scotland is being propped up by the south of England (northeast England is worse at 61.5% GDP from the state!) and it should be paying for this itself. Scotland has maintained “free” university education, the company that operates rail passenger services in Scotland – Scotrail – gets the biggest subsidy, £225 million a year – of any rail operator in the UK. 16.7% of working age Scots are on welfare (which is controlled from Westminster). A relatively high proportion of the Scottish population are pensioners, which is lucky - because the health stats of Scots are shocking. As Michael Portillo (a supporter of independence) points out in the Times, in the Calton District of Glasgow, the average male life expectancy is only 53.9 years. This has everything to do with a culture of smoking, drinking to excess and eating everything deep fried in saturated fat. Scotland has introduced free personal care for the elderly and free kindergartens, and watches its public debt rise- no doubt in the expectation that a Labour government dependent on Scotland for a healthy part of its majority, or Tories keen to get their hands on such seats, wont make Scots face the reality of the cost of their socialist policies.
.
So Scots should be allowed to vote for a socialist government, increase taxes and continue the flight of capital, intelligence and entrepreneurial flair that has seen Scots that emigrate around the world succeed. It may also be stroppy on fisheries in the EU, which would be welcome. Once they have grown tired of it, they may turn their back and revitalise Scotland as a small independent country with lower tax, and encourage the enterpreneurial to return.
.
So I am, ironically, supporting the SNP (not directly mind you), because I reject all of its arguments for independence. It believes Scotland subsidises England. I look forward to the truth hitting Scots with the sort of sense one famous Scot once imparted – Adam Smith.

.

Michael Portillo sums it up below:

.

"In contrast to Scotland, Slovakia has enjoyed a growth rate over recent years averaging more than 5%. It has standardised corporate and individual tax at a flat rate of 19%...

today it seems that the thinking of Adam Smith is better respected and applied in Bratislava than in Edinburgh or his native Kirkcaldy. Perhaps Scotland could return to greatness if it severed the apron strings that bind it to England. Given its independence it would need to slash the size of its state and compete for foreign investment. Leadership would surely pass from the trade unionists and former public sector workers who fill the posts now, to those who could display the necessary dynamism. Socialism could not survive there any more than it has in eastern Europe."

Winston launches safe travel campaign

Your beloved Minister of Foreign Affairs - Winston Peters - has launched a safe travel campaign for when NZers travel overseas. This is because some fools don’t get travel insurance, go to dangerous areas and don’t like the risk, and expect the government to fix their problems.

.
Well you DID vote for nanny state after all. I don’t know how I’ve survived leaving New Zealand the dozens of times I have done so.
.
However, it IS slightly funny thinking how applicable this is to Winston. I once sat beside Winston on a plane, it was in business class, he was going from Wellington to Christchurch (I was connecting on international flight on to Europe) – so here is Winston’s REAL guide to safe overseas travel:
.
1. Ensure local embassy/high commission of country you are visiting knows that the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs is arriving, and full honours are required. This includes accommodation at palace, castle, White House, Blue House, chateau, mansion of the relevant King, Queen, President, Prince, Prime Minister. Don’t want to arrive in a country without somewhere to stay.
2. Check Michael (Cullen) has placed enough money in relevant overseas bank account to pay expenses, shopping while away. Can’t be skint!
3. Make sure only fly safest airlines in safest part of the plane – the only safe airlines are Singapore Airlines, and Emirates, as they are from very low terror risk countries, have new planes and carry less people on the flights (and are the only ones still flying to NZ with a decent first class cabin). Don't ask Helen for her plane, it isn't her plane remember? You've asked before and you can't have it.

4. Make sure enough accompanying officials travel with you, or bodyguards, to shield you from the groupies wanting to ask questions at airports. Officials can also block out seats near you on the plane.

5. Take condoms. There will always be groupies that help to ease the stress of travel. Bill Clinton made the most of this. French cabinet Ministers need this in order to retain any semblance of credibility.
6. Ensure embassy/high commission abroad has limo for safe pickup from airport. Can’t trust local public transport, taxis in such dangerous cities as Tehran, Beijing, London or Canberra. Ensure limo is also available for local trips – high likelihood of being mugged otherwise.
7. Take enough suits and shirts plus one spare for every night of travel. It is dangerous to look beneath your station.
8. Ensure accompanying officials get duty free liquor order very clear. Dangerous for them to have bought the wrong booze and you'll go blind if they buy it at Kiev Airport.
9. Take portfolio of papers to ensure credibility while travelling. Important to sit on plane or in palace looking like you are doing work, when you are actually watching a movie or listening to ipod. Can’t afford to risk media taking photos of Minister not working.
10. Don’t play croquet.
11. Always take interpreters. Foreigners don’t speak properly so it is important to have someone with you who understands it. It’s not their fault NZ is first and it could be dangerous if you don’t understand them.

ARC socialism in action

So the ARC wants to seize control of Auckland’s water off of Watercare Services Ltd. Well, if you ever needed any evidence of the ARC’s slithering slope to socialist Auckland, there is it. Not content with whacking up rates to subsidise expensive train services that are putting commercially viable bus routes out of business, not content with controlling land use, and some lunatic faith that people in the suburbs ought to live in high density housing near railway stations – rather than the affordable family houses they want – and putting up the price of housing as a result. ARC now wants to take Auckland’s water supply out of the hands of an efficient local authority owned company.
.
Rodney Hide is opposing this quite rightly, and so should you. Part of the problem is that the Labour/Alliance/Green backed Local Government Act 2002 gave local authorities the power of general competence. This means ARC can now embark on whatever endeavour it wishes, as long as it consults “the community”. Since you, and most ratepayers haven’t the time to commit responding to ARC’s consultation, it inevitably gets hijacked by lunatic interest groups out to get more money off of everyone else, and the legions of unemployable ex. bureaucrats, engineers and other nutters. The other part is that YOU lot voted in a bunch of socialists.
.
Watercare services should be privatised. It’s shares could be distributed among all Auckland ratepayers, and then it would be truly publicly owned.

.

So what can you do? Start making submissions. Tell ARC you don't want it to grow, you don't want it to take control of Watercare Services. Instead you'd like the ARC to see how it could do less!

.

This page is the ARC consultation website.

.

ARC's socialism through transport also exists through its agency ARTA. ARTA wants $420 million of your money to spend on public transport, cycling and walking facilities. By no stretch of the imagination will this realise ARTA's goals of less congestion, but the mammoth spend up on new roads by the government will help. It never worked overseas, it wont work here.

.

So if you don't want the ARC through ARTA to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of your money into loss making public transport, then click here and make a submission.

BBC - biggest blowers of cash

The BBC, fresh from signing a new contract with talkshow and radio presenter Jonathan Ross for reportedly 18 million pounds for three years ( note this was because Ross is SO popular, there was a "risk" he would defect to commercial TV networks - so he would hardly be lost to the British TV viewing public), now it is revealed in the Sunday Times that the BBC has sent three times the number of people than ITV to cover the World Cup soccer. Three times!! Now the audience for the games isn't "higher" with the BBC - but hey the BBC just wants more money year after year - by force through the TV licence (which is an exhorbitant 131.50 pounds) because it is SO important to public broadcasting.

.

Bollocks.

.

The BBC is the dominant UK broadcaster because it acts like commercial broadcasters. When it starts wasting licence fee extortion on competing with commercial broadcasters (who get money by broadcasting what viewers want), and pay TV (likewise!) for salaries of stars - people who will always be on TV and radio in the UK because of their popularity, it is no public broadcaster. Can you imagine other state broadcasters, like ABC Australia, CBC Canada and PBS in the US fighting to pay celebrity salaries? Of course not. Can you imagine them providing treble the staff to do what is essentially a commercially viable broadcasting job? No.

.

The BBC is out of control. I once suggested on a BBC talk show that with digital TV, licence fee payments could be voluntary. People could have the BBC on subscription, and the insulted response was "how ridiculous, we couldn't do public broadcasting". Yes you could - Jonathan Ross, the World Cup, Chris Moyles on Radio 1, Radio 1 Xtra and local radio has nothing to do with filling a "gap in the market", but about eliminating it and not being accountable for it.

.

The BBC needs putting on a leash. The licence fee should be voluntary and tied to converting all digital BBC channels to a pay only service. It should sell Radio 1 and 1Xtra (both are essentially duplicates of commercial networks), and sell Radio 2 and all of the regional breakout stations. I'd probably subscribe to the BBC, I like some of what it broadcasts, but it is erratic. Sometimes it is innovative and creative, sometimes it produces the same sort of mass commercial programming indistinguisable from ITV, Channel 4 or 5 channels.

Bouquet for Greens on medicinal cannabis

Metiria Turei's Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Private Members’ Bill has been drawn from the ballot. It...

.

"would allow registered medical practitioners to prescribe cannabis to those with specific serious medical conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, glaucoma and those suffering from nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy. Those who are deemed suitable for medicinal cannabis would have to be registered and would be issued with an identity card. At present it is possible for the Health Minister to approve medicinal cannabis use for some patients, but the process is extremely onerous. This Bill will take that responsibility out of the hands of politicians and place it with those best qualified to make those decisions - doctors. "

.

You can keep the identity card, but then it is probably to stop the Police hassling someone using it unde prescription. You may as well keep a copy of your prescription to prove it.

.

I hope this Bill gets to Select Committee, and gets the support of at least ACT and the Maori Party (United Future and NZ First are too conservative to allow this). It would be nice to see Labour and National supporting it - it hardly damages the war on drugs, and would be an out for those who do use cannabis to relieve pain. After all, what the hell do any politicians have the right to tell you or your doctor what shouldn't be prescribed, when you and your doctor are happy that it works?

.

I'm not optimistic though. Labour is scared this will be seen as being weak on family values, and National is too gutless to be open minded on this - I hope I'm wrong.

Robson's xenophobic rant

Remember Matt Robson? Supporter of Cuba, Jim Anderton's former colleague who lost his seat in Parliament as part of the decline of Jim Anderton's Progressive Party. Well he's in Scoop claiming foreign owned media set the public agenda in New Zealand. What bollocks.

.

He goes back to the late 1980s claiming "At the time, Labour was under pressure from a resurgent National promising big tax cuts and a big spend-up to boot. The foreign-owned media, as always, gave National a free ride by providing no analysis into how National could possibly deliver both tax cuts for the rich and a big spend-up on everything from transport to defence, police to National Super."

.

Hold on Matt - the economy was stagnant, unemployment was high, and GST had been increased to cover Labour's second term big social spending to avoid the deficit going out of control. That had something to do with Labour losing. The foreign owned media did NOT include television, which was TVNZ and TV3, TV3 being 85% NZ owned at this point and with a tiny audience - the government owned TVNZ, and Radio NZ which was the dominant radio broadcaster, owning two national commercial radio networks, plus National Radio. So apparently, foreign owned newspapers sway the electorate more than electronic media hmmmm.

.

Funnily enough the didn't give analysis into how MMP wouldn't deliver the answers people want and didn't report on how MMP was a largely leftwing project driven by people aligned to the Alliance - although it would have been in the "foreign media''s" interests to do so by your theory.

.

He's saying that now "And just like then, we have foreign-owned media outlets day after day proclaiming in feature articles, editorials and front-page new stories that the "surplus" should be used for large tax cuts that would mainly benefit those on higher incomes without children." While state TV and radio do the opposite - get over it Matt, you might actually find around 40% of New Zealanders voted for tax cuts - because they WANT them. Unlike in Cuba where people can't vote.

.

Let's get it clear - the leftwing corporate media conspiracy is nonsense because:

.

- The most influential media of all - television- is dominated by state owned broadcaster TVNZ, followed by Canwest owned TV3/C4 (TV3 news is rarely less leftwing than TVNZ) and then Sky (which has virtually no local news programmes);

- Radio NZ is state owned, and has about 20% of the radio market, another 5% comes from Maori broadcasters and the rest on commercial music and talkback stations. These are owned by a mixture of foreign and local shareholders, and are driven by seeking audiences - rather hard to push an agenda the audience doesn't want to hear;

- Newspaper editors are driven by two things - circulation and advertising. Circulation requires newspapers to sell stories people want to read, and advertising flows on from getting an audience. Papers that don't reflect what people want don't succeed, and several newspapers have failed and started in history as a result;

- Anyone is free to establish a TV station, radio station, newspaper or website to counter views they don't like. It is called freedom, it allows competitiveness of ideas and libertarians find it a lot harder to get media attention than hardened leftists;

- Magazines and the internet are important alternative media outlets, and there is an enormous range of choice with both.

.

If the corporate media conspiracy existed, then ACT would have done very very well indeed - ACT would always have got good press, and the Don Brash Brethren connection would have been swept under the carpet. People on both sides of the political spectrum think the media is biased against them - I think the media is largely statist - because rarely do editors or reporters advocate a position of the government NOT intervening in something. Also, why does it have to be foreign? What's wrong with foreigners? Why is the left so damned xenophobic?

Green's racist towards America

No, not about Iraq, or global warming - it's Sue Kedgley on TVNZ.

.

Racist bitch!
.
In response to the announcement about the government backed consortia launching free to air digital television, moanin Minnie Sue “I hate those fucking Americans and their clothes, and hair styles and..” Kedgeley has come out with a xenophobic tirade on TVNZ saying:
.
"I'm worried that with 18 free-to-air channels we're just going to see more and more American crappy programmes on our television”
.
What if she said Maori, Jewish, Indian, French, Samoan or Arab? A bloody uproar - but Americans are fair game - shame if you ARE American and feel insulted by this bottle blonde bitch. Are there crappy American programmes? Of course. Are there crappy New Zealand programmes? Oh hell yes – Melody Rules is now the stereotype for it, and there are plenty more. There are crappy Australian, British, Swiss, South African and Maori programmes. Besides the gutter language she used, what’s wrong with the USA Kedgley? There are EXCELLENT programmes made in the USA as well - but I guess Sue doesn't look at the 75 channels available in most homes over there, Americans make crappy programmes clearly because they have crappy taste - nice language Sue! Yes of course there are trendy lefty chardonnay socialists who agree - let's bash America rah rah rah!
.
The Greens put out a press release with better language calling for more of your money to be spent compulsorily on subsidising the local TV production industry, actors and directors. Hopefully none have anything to do with “crappy America”. With huge capacity for new channels, the supply of channel space will be enormous, meaning the cost of new production should come down – and people who want to produce local content will have an outlet. Subsidising local TV content is about as dumb as subsidising local newspapers or books – people will watch local TV programmes if they like them – more often than not, they aren’t very good. When they are, people will pay for them.
.
Then Kedgley witters on “This is why TVNZ needs to take this opportunity to differentiate itself from all these new channels by having a genuinely ad-free public service channel” Why doesn’t she set one up, call for donations and see how she goes? There will be channel space – or is it too easy to force everyone else to pay for it?
.
She is concerned about the cost of set top boxes, and if people can’t afford them (hey Sue, 40% of households can afford Sky and they aren’t the top 40% by income that’s for sure) then “the Government should provide assistance to New Zealanders who cannot afford to buy the new equipment”. Why? The government doesn’t help people buy radios, or newspapers, why is TV so fucking sacred? (I’m furious now). Why can’t children play instead of watch TV, why can’t adults talk, play games and enjoy life instead of getting some taxvictim funded fucking TV box? Get your filthy racist hands out of people’s bank accounts Sue.
.
She finishes off with more xenophobic nonsense “I am pleased that New Zealand is retaining the option of New Zealand based terrestrial infrastructure and not relying exclusively on satellite transmission owned by an overseas company. We wouldn’t want to see our entire television network relying on an foreign-owned satellite”. Oh Optus - those Australians – so dodgy – they’ll just wake up one morning and switch off the satellite to say “fuck those Kiwis they'll have no telly because the All Black’s beat us last night, screw the millions in compo we'll have to pay for breach of contract”. Foreign owned – damned different looking bastards with horns growing out of their heads who don’t care about us or our kulcha or the kids.

.

The Greens and Winston Peters - so much in common at times.

NZ to get 3rd digital TV platform

New Zealand has had digital TV for around seven and a half years, so the government’s announcement of what it is doing to bring digital TV to the public is somewhat laughable. It needn’t have done anything besides sell the radio spectrum necessary for digital terrestrial TV to be an option. However, Steve Maharey’s well publicised announcement shows that this isn’t about broadcasters doing something they think viewers are willing to pay for – it is something government thinks is good for you.
.
You see, Sky TV introduced digital TV at the end of 1998, and it has been a stunning success. In the past year, Telstra Clear converted its cable TV network in Wellington, Christchurch and Kapiti to digital. Combining them both, all in all, just over 40% of New Zealand households now have digital TV - the difference is, they pay for it.
.
Why do they pay for it? Because it is digital? Because of picture quality? Do they bollocks! The only reason most choose digital is because of the range of channels. When Sky launched its digital satellite service it was because it could increase the number of channels it broadcast from 5 on UHF analogue to over a hundred. Digital allows far more efficient use of radio spectrum. Telstra Clear has gone to digital partly for the same reason, it can fit far more channels using less capacity on the cable. Digital interactivity is nice and can generate some revenue with pay per view events, but it is really peripheral compared to choice. People, by and large, don’t give a damn about slightly better pictures or sound – look at the iPod revolution. That is about convenience and choice, not quality of sound, just like cassettes were.
.
So the terrestrial free to air broadcasters have caught up. A consortium of TVNZ, Canwest, Maori TV, Trackside and Radio New Zealand are launching it next year – but there is a catch. It’s not commercially driven – it is not because you want it and are willing to pay for it – it is because THEY want it and it is being directly, and indirectly subsidised. Directly because the government is putting $25 million into this new TV platform – whereas Sky TV actually made the government money by paying for the spectrum it uses. Indirectly, because TVNZ will pay less dividends and you can be sure Maori TV and Radio NZ are paying for their “broadcaster’s contribution” from taxpayer funding, since neither make a profit before subsidies. Trackside and Canwest do, but are no doubt thrilled to be riding on the back of the state in delivering a digital TV platform. Notably absent is Prime TV, which is likely to dedicate itself to Sky’s satellite platform over time. Note also that while Sky had to pay to use its spectrum, these broadcasters will get their spectrum for free – great that!

.

According to the government, a failure to move to free-to-air digital would put the future viability of public broadcasting television, and other free-to-air services, at risk. What nonsense - public broadcasting television isn't viable anyway - it is subsidised, and why should the government care if private broadcasters don't do what they need to be viable? As long as spectrum is available then Canwest and others can get together and figure out what to do.
A cost benefit study concluded that without a full transition to free-to-air digital TV (as a viable alternative to Pay TV digital), the net cost to the country could be as high as $156 million - I'll be looking at THAT in the next week.
Without a transition to digital, the free-to-air broadcasters’ audience share could also fall from 80 to 50 per cent, or even lower, if digital pay TV options grow at an accelerated rate. This would mean fewer options available on free-to-air. So free to air broadcasters could lose audience, so why not let THEM invest in digital to compete - why skew the field?
.
Now I agree that a shift to digital TV is inevitable. It is well apace in the UK, with a majority of households now watching digital TV of one kind or another (including a freeview platform similar to what is proposed in New Zealand). I also agree that it could generate savings for broadcasters and a major increase in choice – but this is something that should be driven from demand – like the internet, mobile phones and Sky TV – not by the government anticipating it.
.
It will mean that all TV sets currently on sale and in use in New Zealand will NOT be able to receive TV signals once analogue TV is switched off in 6-10 years – without either a freeview box, or a Sky or Telstra Clear box. So you’ll need to buy a set top box that will cost something between $60 and $220 depending on how sophisticated a unit you have (I bought a £70 one here in the UK which is good quality). So why would you want this?

.

In the UK it increased the mainstream channels I could watch from 5 to 12, plus 2 news channels, 2 music channels, 3 childrens' channels and a host of damned silly specialist shopping, quiz and other channels. Plus for $24 a month I could pay to subscribe to another 10 channels - it is a pay TV platform competing with Sky and cable. So in the UK, it is worthwhile - it is so successful that now more people have digital than analogue TV. The picture is of the set top box that I have - nothing flash.

.

Unless the NZ broadcasters can offer a compelling set of channels for viewers that they WANT to watch, freeview will be a bit of a flop in NZ – meanwhile by then, maybe 45% of New Zealand households wont care, since they already have digital TV – and not a dollar of taxpayers’ money went into it! 18 new channels are promised - they better be what people want (sport, gossip, music, comedy and some T&A late at night). Oh by the way, 10 main centres will be covered - 10! So Auckland, Waikato, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Manawatu, Southland, Hawke's Bay and Taranaki? OR Nelson, OR Rotorua? So that means a satellite dish for the rest of you.

Power cuts

Not PC has blogged extensively about this, but it is very simple.

.

Transpower lacks capital - the government wont provide it - so the private sector should.

.

49% of Transpower should be privatised - sold to a single buyer or consortium. This would inject new capital into the company, see a revitalised board (with privately chosen businesspeople not politically chosen ones) and wipe some more public debt (reducing interest payments and giving more room for tax cuts).

.

The remaining 51% should be distributed as shares to all citizens equally. This would mean Transpower would be predominantly publicly owned and controlled. The public would receive dividends, and would have a stake in the national grid - and could appoint directors by annual general meeting. Those members of the public so concerned about Transpower could then increase their shareholding and those who are not, could sell it. It would demonstrate whether the public WANT to own it and the private capital would create a company that truly wants to make a profit, provide good reliable service and grow.

World Cup 2006

No escaping the soccer world cup in London, with England in the running there are St. George’s Cross flags flapping on cars, and unfortunate songs, one using the Dad’s Army theme tune with different words. It is rather pathetic that Britain still throws the Nazi and Hitler stereotypes around Germany – there are probably as many racist lowlife here as in Germany, and most Germans alive today weren’t alive during the war and feel some “guilt” for the actions of their ancestors. Yes yes very funny to humiliate the Germans. Meanwhile, enthusiasm for England isn’t much shared by Scotland, Wales or Ireland – but then that bitter childishness will take a lot to erode.
.
Anyway, today it is Germany vs. Costa Rica and Poland vs. Ecuador. I reckon it will be the Europeans that will take both those, but would be nice for Costa Rica if it won against Germany. Tomorrow, England vs. Paraguay, which should be a cinch for England, Argentina vs. Cote D’Ivoire will be a cinch for Argentina, though I’d love Cote D’Ivoire to win, and Trinidad and Tobago are probably a closer match for Sweden.
.
Brazil is getting excited, because this is the one thing in the world it is good at – crime goes down while Brazil watches the World Cup. Meanwhile, many countries will simply stop working when a game is being playe.

Keith Locke is right

You wont see me say that often - but it is true. The man who was once a hardened communist, and still has a lot of Marxism in his veins, has put out a press release calling for review of the sedition laws. He believes more in freedom of speech than Don Brash, Helen Clark, Peter Dunne or Rodney Hide, or indeed Marian Hobbs, Tim Barnett, Phil Goff, Pita Sharples or around another 115 or so MPs.

.

I condemn it when it is far from intellectually robust on economics, or indeed science - but the Green Party is still the party in Parliament that most consistently defends fundamental civil liberties. The Keith Locke press release makes the point clear – as I have mentioned in my earlier post, now updated. The law not only needs review, it needs to be scrapped.

.

Keith said (as mentioned below) "New Zealand has an honourable tradition of civil disobedience against injustice, most notably during the Springbok tour of 1981. Thankfully the sedition laws weren’t used at that time, but the police now seemed prepared to prosecute anyone advocating such resistance. Next thing we might see farmers facing charges for encouraging others not to get their dogs micro-chipped. There is a big difference between inciting the immediate commission a specific criminal act, already covered by Sections 66 and 311 of the Crimes Act, and generalized calls for civil disobedience, which the sedition laws target."

.

Now I wouldn't have agreed with the Springbok tour protestors, though I was young when it was happening, but it is not the point. None of it is - whether you are left, right, libertarian, Christian fundamentalist, ecologist, economic liberal - this matters.

.

National and ACT supporters, particularly those who like to pour scorn all over the Libertarianz, may argue that this “isn’t important”, somehow that publishing a pamphlet calling for illegal action against government policies shouldn’t be allowed. Well then, should it have been a crime to encourage TV owners to evade or avoid paying the TV licence fee, to encourage people to not fill in a census form, to encourage people to walk across the Auckland Harbour Bridge illegally, to encourage a strike that isn’t legal, to call for the government to resign? If you are not going to condemn the law on sedition, then defend it. Don and Rodney, condemn or defend - don't sit on the fence!

As I have said before, David Farrar, as always, has the guts to put out his opinion on this, as a Nat.

.

There are a growing number of blog posts in reaction to this:

Libertarianz Deputy Leader Julian Pistorius

Gman the sort-of libertarian asks whether the charges were driven politically

Nat/ACT supporters:

Whaleoil

Sir Humphrey's and here again

Silent Running and here again

European Commission proposes cap on farm subsidies

According to the Daily Telegraph, the British government is opposing a move to cap subsidies for farms because Britain has a disproportionate number of big efficient farms, and this penalises them and discourages the amalgamation of farms. Well it’s true, but it is no reason to not cap subsidies.
.
The plan is to cap subsidies at a rate of around £207,000 a year, so the likes of the Queen and Prince Albert II of Monaco would be receiving less from subsidies than they do at present for their farms. The Queen gets around £399,000 in subsidies for Sandringham Estate.
.
The French support this, because most of their farms are small inefficient outfits run by annoying little parasitical socialists. 1880 farms will be hit by this throughout Europe, only 30 in France, 330 in Britain and 1430 in Germany.
.
It’s a start – the cap on subsidies should be £0.

Outrage of sedition - where are the other parties?

Now I don’t agree with Tim Selwyn, I am glad he was prosecuted for vandalism. However, his prosecution for sedition is an outrage. Not PC and No Right Turn have both covered this verdict in some detail, showing that some on the liberal end of the SOCIAL spectrum (if not economic) understand freedom. David Farrar to his credit has also opposed sedition laws, but… and a big but it is... there has simply been silence from the major political parties. Find other issues where those people will agree, and agree with Geoffrey Palmer.
.
The Labour Party, once the proud home of the socially liberal, is now the home of the petty bullies. The born to rule, “I’m a victim of my success as a popular and competent Prime Minister” arrogance. How many of YOU lot would also be convicted of sedition had the government of the day brought it upon you when you were in some protest march in the 60s, 70s or even 80s? Wankers.
.
The National Party – supposed believers in freedom, much prefer to keep quiet. ACT – the liberal party, also keeping quiet. No point defending an “uppity Maori who convicted vandalism” because of principle? After all, majority of the public probably think “good job”. Much as the majority in Alabama thought “good job” when a black woman was arrested for sitting in the whites only section of the bus, much as the majority of Germans sat back and let Hitler destroy democracy in Germany after he was elected. Sanctimonious fence sitters. I again searched the National website for the word sedition and got this.
.
The Green Party, often claims to be the defender of civil liberties, has said nothing either (until today). It would rather wank on excitedly about more subsidised buses in Hamilton. Frogblog also lacks anything on it. UPDATE - Green press release out, see below.

.

NZ First is a party of authoritarians so no surprises there, and United Future once claimed to be liberal, but is anything but that.
.
I’ve also seen nothing from the Maori Party, but then it has always had slow websites that are rarely up to date (last press release on there is 16 May).
.
There are times when politicians have a responsibility – a responsibility to stand up for freedoms for people that most of us would not agree with, to stare through the prejudice and the popularity polls and say – Tim Selwyn should be the last person ever to face a charge of sedition – the law should be scrapped. So will Rodney Hide take a break from dancing and do this? Or is ACT as useless in defending fundamental freedoms as some libertarians have always accused it of?

.

Prove me wrong - prove to me that ACT has just been slow, and isn't refusing to defend Tim Selwyn's right to circulate that leaflet because he'd be one of the last to vote for them, and because their voters would be the last to support his views. Fundamentally - neither matter.

.

UPDATE 1- Green's have produced a press release on this, calling for a review of the law. About time, Keith has woken up. He said "New Zealand has an honourable tradition of civil disobedience against injustice, most notably during the Springbok tour of 1981. Thankfully the sedition laws weren’t used at that time, but the police now seemed prepared to prosecute anyone advocating such resistance. “Next thing we might see farmers facing charges for encouraging others not to get their dogs micro-chipped. “There is a big difference between inciting the immediate commission a specific criminal act, already covered by Sections 66 and 311 of the Crimes Act, and generalized calls for civil disobedience, which the sedition laws target." Spot on Keith, good for you - you can hold your head high. Labour, National and ACT, you all still an utter disgrace as parties in a liberal democracy.

Help in using the tube

At summertime some special advice is needed to use the London underground. This handy tips are for regular and occasional users, and apply mostly to men.

.

Before you attempt to use the tube follow these steps:

.

1. Have a shower or bath in the morning. Use soap or a soap related product, and at least shampoo (if not condition). Spend at least 10 minutes under it, focusing on the face and underarms. The water shortage does not apply to showers or baths, and you'll find the majority of others already do this.

.
2. Apply deodorant to your underarms and anywhere else that sweats a lot. This product is available at convenience stores and supermarkets throughout Greater London and is cheap. It need not have any aroma, just apply it liberally. Here are several brands you might try:

Lynx

Rexona

Crystal

.

There are many others! You'll be amazed!

.
3. Brush your teeth, with toothpaste and mouthwash preferably. Gargle. Make sure you use a toothbrush you bought sometime in the last 2-3 months, and you expectorate (spit out).

.
4. Put on clean clothes (clothes you didn’t wear the previous day without having been laundered. Get someone to show you how to wash clothes or get them washed if you don’t understand this). (OPTIONAL - Wear good cologne/eau de toilette/aftershave. I mean GOOD. Not the same stuff you got where you got the deodorant. This will cost money and use it sparingly. Small amounts of good cologne cannot be replaced by drenching yourself in eau de £2 - that just covers your filthy disgusting sweaty BO with noxious disgusting radiator cleaner)

.
5. Ride tube.

.

Now riding the tube itself is not without its hazard. Here is some advice to avoid abuse:

.

1. Don't pick your nose, particularly not if it is a snack or a hobby. Wait till you get home.

2. Move out of the way for people getting off (and I mean disembarking, not masturbating - you shouldn't do that either).

3. Move down the carriage if it is busy. You'll be allowed off at your stop, don't worry.

4. Don't stop in the middle of busy areas in front of people who will then walk over you, make sure you figure out where you are going before you leave.

5. Don't ride between 7.30am and 9am, or between 5pm and 6.30pm weekdays - it will make my life a little bit more pleasant, and those are the busiest times. TfL is too stupid to increase the price for the evening peak to keep you off it, so do it for the rest of us.

.

Let me note that most offenders are men, and there is no racial profiling - there are equal proportions of vile men from different ethnic origins. Your man sweat may arouse your woman, man, dog, sheep - but to the rest of us don't like your bodily fluids.

.

A minority of you fail to take these steps, particularly the first and second before boarding. If it were up to me, I’d ban you from the tube for health and safety reasons – the health of other passengers (because you fucking stink you revolting filthy man), and your safety – because I’d want to slap you about for being a dirty filthy stinking sweaty testosterone dripping revolting Neanderthal.

Today in history - Israel acted admirably

UN Security Council Resolution 487 called on Israel to put its nuclear programme under IAEA safeguards. Israel is not a signatory to the IAEA, nor has it any incentive to be - it is surrounded by enemies to this day. Today in 1981, Israel acted where the world ignored it. France and Italy were supplying Iraq with equipment for it to develop a nuclear reactor - which would have been capable of producing plutonium. Now, Iraq has about as much need for a nuclear reactor for power as Iran does, given its oil reserves.
.
The Israeli statement condemned the French and Italian sale of equipment to Iraq saying:
.
"We again call upon them to desist from this horrifying, inhuman deed. Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people."
.
So Israel bombed Iraq, and destroyed Iraq's nuclear programme in Operation Opera. A wholly moral act of pre-emptive self defence.
.
Indeed, if only it were as simple against Iran. The BBC carries the video of then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin explaining why the attack was carried out. The BBC reports that the news about the bombing was released by Israel, Saddam Hussein having been too embarrassed that Israeli fighter jets could penetrate deep into Iraqi territory, destroy a target and return.
.
Jacques Chirac led the condemnation of this attack – grande merde! What an enormous great parasitical worm.
.
Iran of course is the next threat - but I am sure that if Israel is ever attacked by an Iranian nuclear weapons - that the George Galloways and the Annette Sykes say it was Israel's fault, and give little regard to the victims. How dare they exist.

Time for Jim, Peter and Peters to retire

Three of the eight parties in Parliament exist because of three men – Winston Peters, Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton. They are all of a similar generation, and all of them should retire in 2008. The parties they lead are, by and large, built around those personalities. Most would struggle to name more than 1 other MP from NZ First, United Future and, well, Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party is just that. All had political careers because they were MPs with either National or Labour and split off to form their own parties (Jim Anderton has been in three, Peter Dunne in three or four, Winston has always had his own personality cult) – and it is about time Parliament was cleaned out and these half-baked parties of individuals were gone.
.
Winston is losing the plot, he is propping up a lameduck Labour government that is barely hanging onto power, he lost his electorate seat, and only manages to get elected because the greedy grey grizzlers, the deluded Maori groupies and the conspiracy slobbering talkback idiots like him, until he gets into power. The greedy grey grizzlers are slowly dying off, and by 2008 should mean NZ First gets less than 5%. Meanwhile, Winston can enjoy his baubles. He left National for principled reasons - it broke election promises - but he ran a party that is solely about tapping into the redneck conservative anti-intellectual talkback mob, Rob Muldoon's lot. The people of Tauranga have tired of their former hero, he wont be the first Maori Prime Minister of New Zealand - and he ought to go off and have fun in retirement.

Peter Dunne leads a motley bunch of conservative liberal Christian urban power lusting middle of the road nobodies. His party has been Labour’s most faithful coalition/confidence and supply partner now since 2002, and besides voting against any socially liberal legislation (but keeping Labour in power), worshipping the Transmission Gully cargo cult and cozying up to the Christian right, it is a party that is meaningless. It is a testament to Labour that it can even look at this bigoted bunch of narrow-minded busybodies to stay in power, and a testament to United Future that it hooks up with Labour – regularly. Peter Dunne’s Ohariu-Belmont electorate love him, for some unfathomable reason (he hangs around there a lot). When he retires this will become a swing seat, going National/Labour according to the national mood. Peter Dunne left Labour because "Labour left him", which is true. The Maoist coup conducted by Helen Clark, Maryanne Street and Heather Simpson against Mike Moore, and the leftward swing of Labour alienated Dunne, and he tried to woo the Labour right to form a centrist coalition partner for National and Labour. That failed miserably, and so he wooed the Christian right, and alienated the centre. The Christian right went National last time - Peter Dunne ought to cut his losses and move up to Kapiti, where he can sit waiting for Transmission Gully for at least the next ten years.

.
Jim Anderton is a died in the wool socialist and central planner, who has enjoyed dishing out millions of your money to businesses and mad schemes like a strategy to bolster the forestry sector in Gisborne/Wairoa. Jim thought thousands of jobs would be created by pouring millions into roads and training in those districts – and nothing much has come of it. He has become more sensible over the years, Cabinet has helped to moderate his mad views on economics, and he basically is an appendage of Labour, while having old fashioned conservative leftwing views on social issues like drugs and alcohol. Once he retires, his Wigram seat will go back to Labour. His party will fade away even more than the Alliance, which still stands for something (which doesn’t even exist in eastern Europe anymore). New Labour and the Alliance are history, as Labour has marched sufficiently to the left to make enough voters happy, without being the card carrying socialists of the Norman Kirk variety that old Labour supporters wanted. Time magazine was wrong - Jim Anderton wont be Prime Minister. Jim Anderton and his family have paid a high personal price for his busy career, and he doesn't need the income of a Cabinet Minister to survive - time for
.

So I want all three to go, and their parties from Parliament. It would clear out some history and some parties that don't really stand for much at all. NZ First stands for populist nationalism, but sways and swings according to how Winston thinks the grass the growing. United Future stands for nothing at all, as long as it is about families and commonsense, and has undercurrents of stopping all those queers from running things, and Jim Anderton is a virtual member of the Labour Party.

.
Oh and will the end of those parties make it harder for Labour or National to govern, losing these three potential coalition partners? Of course it does – it means Labour is forced to resort to the Greens and Maori party, and National resorts to ACT. National might worry, but then it never really understood MMP as well as Labour has. Its strategy of decimating ACT demonstrates that. Then the minor parties in Parliament will be ones that actually subscribe to different political ideologies - ecological socialism, ethno-nationalism and neo-liberalism.

Tiananmen Square remembered

One piece of history I have neglected to comment on is Tiananmen Square. Not PC has a great review of commemorations worldwide and commentary. Of course I do remember is, it’s hard to forget – it happened on my birthday. I remember seeing the coverage on television, I was a student at the time. I have always wondered if I had been a Chinese student in Beijing whether I would have been there, whether I would have survived and how I’d feel now about it.
.
The USSR and eastern Europe were in the throes of optimism due to glasnost and perestroika. Freedom of speech and the ability to criticise government was becoming the norm in the “second world” (communist bloc), and Mikhail Gorbachev had come to visit China. This was part of a successful effort to normalise relations between China and the USSR, after over 30 years of Cold War enmity after Khrushchev criticised Stalin, and Mao became the leader of the completely mad murderous Marxist-Leninists of the world (the USSR wasn’t mad, just murderous to a lesser degree after Stalin).
.
The death of reformist former Secretary General of the Communist Party, Hu Yaobang prompted the demonstrations. He died on Kim Il Sung’s birthday 15 April 1989, and had called for rapid reform, condemning the excesses of the Maoist era. The protests initially were motivated by mourning for Hu Yaobang, who had been stripped of his title two years previously for not cracking down on other student protests. The protestors called for political reform, the addressing of corruption and more openness and transparency in government. A split in the Communist Party leadership saw General Secretary Zhao Ziyang support a soft approach, and Premier Li Peng a hardline. Eventually martial law was declared on 20 May and in the early hours of 4 June, the 27th and 38th armies of the People’s Liberation Army (commanded by President Yang Shangkun, unlike earlier units which were locally based and not inspired to attack those who could include family) turned on the people. Between 2,000 and 3,000 were killed, and the state media in China called it an “anti-government riot”.
.
China’s state media is widely considered to have been a mouthpiece for the communist party, but at least one outlet had reason to be proud, before the individuals concerned were themselves arrested. Radio Beijing’s English language service (China’s international shortwave radio station) broadcast the following message:
.
"Please remember June the Third, 1989. The most tragic event happened in
the Chinese Capital, Beijing. Thousands of people, most of them innocent
civilians, were killed by fully-armed soldiers when they forced their way
into city. Among the killed are our colleagues at Radio Beijing. The
soldiers were riding on armored vehicles and used machine guns against
thousands of local residents and students who tried to block their way.
When the army conveys made the breakthrough, soldiers continued to spray
their bullets indiscriminately at crowds in the street. Eyewitnesses say
some armored vehicles even crushed foot soldiers who hesitated in front of
the resisting civilians. [The] Radio Beijing English Department deeply
mourns those who died in the tragic incident and appeals to all its
listeners to join our protest for the gross violation of human rights and
the most barbarous suppression of the people.”
.
Radio Beijing’s name changed a few years later to China Radio International. Unfortunately, China Radio International is today a disgrace – it whitewashes the murder carried out against its own staff. It broadcasts a lot of news and interesting cultural programmes, has cooking shows and other programmes that are quite good - but is also a propaganda engine par excellence. What is telling is what it doesn’t discuss, it rarely broadcasts the sort of blatant ideological invectives that characterised it during the Maoist era. However, try it out yourself.

.

You can still listen to it in English around the world on shortwave and the internet. It’s website is here, and it broadcasts to New Zealand with strong signals in English on shortwave between 9-11pm and then again after 1am, but you can also hear it online. This is the worldwide shortwave broadcast schedule (turn off your computer before listening, and put the radio near a window with the aerial fully extended) and the website audio feed.

.

The Tiananmen Square massacre will always be remembered, the current Communist Party leadership can't destroy the photos, videos, audio, transcripts and other reports of what happened. All they do is persuade Google to censor the images for them, which you can get here. More recently a documentary on BBC4 has sought to find the man who stood in front of the tank in the famous footage clip seen above. The conclusion was, nobody can confirm what has happened to him or what his name was, despite the claims on wikipedia.

Sedition law an attack on free speech

The case of Tim Selwyn's prosecution for sedition shows Labour's complete utter contempt for individual freedom, and demonstrates the truth of one of Helen Clark's early statements "the state is sovereign" to justify her view that the government can do what the hell it likes once it is elected. I'd disagree vehemently with many of Tim Selwyn's views (he has commented on Not PC's blog), but no matter my agreement or otherwise, he deserves the protection of free speech.

.

It's not often that I will agree with former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, but Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton's quotes him in the party press release as below:

.

"Selwyn's act of vandalism has already been dealt with under a separate charge, to which he's pleaded guilty. The sedition charge is simply an attempt to punish criticism of the government..
The law against sedition is a medieval hangover that should be removed from our law books immediately. Sedition law is an assault on free speech - it only criminalises political expression. Speech that really incites violence can be dealt with under existing laws against public disorder, as pointed out by Sir Geoffrey Palmer during a review of Crimes Act Reform: 'Sedition should not be a crime in a democratic society committed to free speech. Libelling the government must be permitted in a free society.'

.

Indeed! Every party in Parliament should oppose this, ACT should be crying this at the top of its lungs, but silent. I think it's quaint for Rodney Hide to be dancing on TV, but where is ACT - the liberal party on something so simple as this? The same place as National sadly - silent. Imagine what a reaction those parties would get from the left for supporting abolition of sedition laws - isolating Labour.

.

David Farrar and No Right Turn (who has written extensively and well on this) agree with me on this. Abolish sedition as a crime. Follow this case at Tim Selwyn's blog Tumeke and his website.

Metiria Turei - and a childlike view of water

Metiria Turei is claiming that a study from DOC that indicates economic benefit of $136 million from water derived from its own land (Te Papanui Conservation Park estate) means that water should be free everywhere (opposing tradeable water rights). What delusional nonsense.
.
For starters, the study said this benefit was equivalent to the actual cost of getting the water from another source. If the water isn’t there, then someone has to pay for it. Secondly, the park costs money to maintain and ensure that the water supply from the catchment area remains clean. That isn’t free – it gets paid for by taxpayers. Far wiser, and a far better use of water resources would come from charging for the use of water from the conservation park. At somewhat less than $11 million p.a. (the cost of alternative supplies to those benefiting from the water), this could ensure the Conservation Park is maintained and makes a healthy profit. A profit from selling water!
.
On top of that, pricing water means users value it more. It is less likely to be wasted, and more likely to be conserved, which I thought the Greens would be thoroughly in favour of.
.
Metiria lacks much understanding of what is going on. Of course there is economic benefit in clean drinking water, people demand it and are willing to pay for it. To claim “commoditisation” of water is a dirty word, is sheer nonsense – otherwise people would take what they could, without any concern about where it came from or how much they used, and then wonder why not much is left.
.
Take this statement of economic vapidity of the likes a 12 year old would be able to see through:
.

“There are those who think the economic value of water overwhelmingly rests on its potential for exploitation for hydro or irrigation purposes. This evidence suggests otherwise. The study estimates that the park's contribution to Dunedin's water supply is about $93 million, which dwarfs the $31 million supplied from this same source for hydro-electricity purposes, as well as the $12 million that the park provides for irrigation of Taieri farmland.”
.
Well that does, it everywhere there is water it is best used for a city water supply, even if there is no city, even if there are torrents of water going down a river beside arid farmland. How bloody stupid can she be? In THIS case, the conservation estate is convenient to Dunedin city, there is only one hydro dam and little prospect for another (have a guess who would oppose it), and there is little farmland that needs irrigation. Elsewhere water may be better used to produce clean renewable hydro electricity for the electric trains and trolley buses the Greens love (funny how hydro power is good if it exists but bad if you want more of it unless it is for electric trains, then you should conserve, but the price should be cheap!!). In other cases, it has enormous value for irrigation.

.

The solution is simple. Water has value for all the purposes listed above, and others, for fisheries, for recreation and for industrial purposes. Its value in particular cases can only be determined by a market, and who is willing to buy or sell it. The greatest move to improve water conservation would be to require councils to operate water as commercial concerns then privatise them - but you wont hear the Greens agreeing to that. It means that the government couldn't control it, and they are, after all, statists through and through.

.

(and I haven't even raised whether or not a study commissioned by DOC that would suit its interests has been independently peer reviewed. Imagine the Greens accepting a report commissioned by Telecom on New Zealand's broadband environment, or DPF for that matter!)

Russel Norman's links Easter Island and the WTO and comes up with ?

Yesterday I described how Russel Norman’s speech of 4 June on becoming Co-Leader was intellectually vapid on matters like “resources running out” and the evil of roads.
.

Today I’m going to attack his view on the World Trade Organisation (WTO). To his credit he describes largely accurately what the WTO commitments mean, something Sue Kedgeley never seemed to get her head around. I described this in a previous post, and it means quite gloriously that local content quotas on TV and radio are against government treaty commitments that are not easy to get out of. Officials told Labour this when it got elected, and the National Government that signed up to those commitments knew it at the time - the problem is that leftwing Labour didn't want to listen, but eventually had to accept it.
.
Russel said:
.
“The commitments that these parties have made under the World Trade Organisation are drawing a tighter and tighter net around the capacity of national governments to act in the interests of their citizens. And they are limiting the ability of governments to act in a sustainable manner.”
.
In other words, he is complaining that WTO commitments restrict governments on interfering with the voluntary transactions of citizens engaging in trade and investment across borders. The “interests of their citizens” is actually the interests of those who produce inefficiently, wasting labour, capital, energy and land to produce something that consumers are not willing to buy, without prohibitions or taxes on the competing products. This means putting up the price of goods and services, or even prohibiting the trade in goods and services that sellers and buyers are willing to trade in. There is no sustainability in protecting industries where, basically, not enough people are willing to buy enough of their products to keep them going, without state intervention. The WTO binds countries to open, transparent trade and to reducing the barriers to free trade – this is ENTIRELY in the interests of their citizens, because they are able to produce, sell and buy freely, without Russel sticking his beak in the way. He can buy "fair trade" goods, or good certified to be environmentally friendly if he likes - all of those schemes are voluntary, and fine for those wishing to sell and buy them, at a premium. No force involved.
.
Russell then said “In the 1990s the National Party Government made commitments to the WTO under the audiovisual services section of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Now this rather obscure commitment means that the New Zealand government can no longer introduce compulsory New Zealand content quotas on radio and television without being in breach of its WTO commitments. And these WTO commitments are effectively irreversible within the WTO rules because any country which tries to withdraw trade liberalisation commitments must compensate every other country in the world that thinks it may suffer somehow as a result.”
.
He’s absolutely correct. Not only that, but New Zealand has similar commitments under CER with Australia. Unlike Russel, I think this is good. It protects New Zealand television and radio stations from state enforced control of what they broadcast.
.
He continues "So when the Labour-led Government came into power in 1999 they sought to implement mandatory minimum New Zealand content quotas on radio and television. They had promised to do this in the election campaign and such local content quotas are very common around the world as countries seek to defend their cultural identity. But the new government was told by their officials that they could not without breaching their WTO commitments. They were forced to back down.

Had they proceeded they could have faced action taken against New Zealand in the WTO by countries that sold television programs into New Zealand, like the US, claiming that their television production companies were being discriminated against by this New Zealand content quota, in beach of New Zealand's WTO commitments, commitments remember that were made by the previous National Party government”
.
Actually Russel, they are not “very common around the world”, you see them in Australia, Canada and France. The UK does not have them, nor does the USA and most other countries are confident enough of their local culture (and often language) that the government see little need. Otherwise he is correct.
.
“The National Party government made WTO commitments that effectively bind all future governments and parliaments and prevent them from introducing minimum New Zealand content quotas on radio and television. A new government was elected on a platform of introducing local content quotas but were told they could not because of the commitments of a previous government. And if they had proceeded anyway, then trade lawyers meeting in secret in Geneva would have told us to change our law or face trade sanctions. This is not conspiracy theory this is actually how trade law and the WTO actually works.”
.
It’s called a treaty Russel. Labour enters into treaty commitments too, and New Zealand has commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that stop it acquiring nuclear weapons (one Russel probably supports). Now, I’m not advocating that this should change – but this is binding, and New Zealand would have to formally withdraw from the NPT (like North Korea did) to develop nuclear weapons. New Zealand could do two things to introduce quotas, either liberalise other areas of trade to compensate (e.g. eliminate all tariffs immediately), or formally withdraw from the WTO. I suspect Russel would support the latter, and not give a damn that other countries could block our products in “their citizens’ interests”. The Green movement in the UK for example sells the nonsense that it is better to buy local produce instead of food or wine from New Zealand, because of the distance they travel – ignoring how unsustainable much European agriculture is through subsidies.
.
Russel then follows on with a non-sequitur that:
.
"Now if we are to avoid the fate of the Easter Islanders then we need international environmental treaties that empower governments to discriminate on the basis of how products are made - that is whether they were made in an environmentally harmful way or not. But currently if governments do this then the WTO will rule against them in the same way that they would rule against New Zealand if we tried to introduce mandatory minimum New Zealand content quotas."
.
Now hang on. The fate of the Easter Islanders? Oh yes, he described the old Rapa Nui society that worshipped statue building, fell all of the trees and then embarked on civil war because they consumed more than they produced. Pretty much true too. That story in itself says a lot about a society with no property rights (according to some Green supporters, property rights are just a social contract which some libertarians worship), so no wonder that happened. The tragedy of the commons was all too evident, as a native people besotted with worshipping that which is not real (cult of the statue), did not trade and exchange value and manage scarce resources (the management of scarce resources is called economics – something the Greens are sceptical about because they know so little about it). So no wonder trees went to the first comer, nobody maintained land for wood, fruit or hunting and a culture of pillage was the order of the day. This has nothing to do with free trade or the WTO, and everything to do with primitive people with no concept of trade, contract and property rights. Remember, the Greens are rarely advocates for property rights, and usually opponents.
.
So besides his example of Easter Island being completely wrong, he then advocates treaties that prohibit products or services if they were made “in an environmentally harmful way or not” or which are made in sweatshops. Well for starters, the example of the WTO commitments on free trade on audio-visual services can’t by any rational stretch of the imagination have anything to do with the environment or sweatshops. The entertainment industry (TV, radio, music) is hardly a sweatshop industry, in fact it is the opposite. It is full of people well paid living a dream career – to protect New Zealanders doing this from people overseas is sheer nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but offensive. By what right does any government dictate what a privately owned broadcaster must play or not play in terms of music or TV programmes? Privately owned broadcasters are NOT owned by the state – and must be free to broadcast whatever programmes they wish, as long as they are not defamatory or involve anyone coerced to participate. The Greens, however, think New Zealand music is special, and that despite New Zealanders NOT wanting to listen to more of it (the ratings of Kiwi FM are a testament to that), the Greens want to force radio stations to play something to people who don’t want to listen.
.
Bullies.
.
New Zealand’s audiovisual sector commitments secure a level of free trade in music, movies and television programmes that is admirable. New Zealanders are not forced to watch or listen to anything, and broadcasters are not forced to programme what the state thinks it appropriate. Local content quotas are about protecting people who are some of the most fortunate in society, working and earning a living through the entertainment industry. If they can’t generate an audience on their own behalf, then a quota is merely protecting mediocrity over talent – another form of welfare.
.
Beyond that, there is another argument about whether free trade should be limited by government restrictions on importing goods or services from countries with poor environmental or labour records (define those please) – that’s another issue. I will come to that another day.
.
However, just as he failed to understand that oil wont run out, cars wont disappear and roads are not going to be empty, Russel tenuously linked a primitive culture that failed due to lack of property rights (Easter Island), New Zealand’s WTO commitments on audiovisual services and foreign producers with poor environmental records. Not a good start.

.
Russel Norman's speech
Radio quota bluff
Kiwi Fm you didn't listen to it, so now you pay for it
WTO website search engine to find specific commitments

Greens prefer tax cuts over roads

Yes!! Believe it or not, the Green hatred for asphalt and concrete, and presumably cars (and trucks) is greater than a hatred for people getting their own money back.

.

Jeanette said "But if the battle is between tax cuts and a massive spending splurge on new roads in the middle of a long term oil crisis, we might even go for the tax cuts. " (though the context is that more money on social spending would be better).

.

As Labour embarks on the biggest road building programme in New Zealand since the 1960s, aided and abetted by the Land Transport Management Act, supported by the Greens, you wonder where they got it all wrong? You see it is what happens when you politicise road funding and water down the need for efficiency in spending decisions. It is also what the public wants.

Gillian McKeith - so vile

Today I'm going let out my invective about a fraud -Gillian McKeith, host of the popular show "You are What you Eat". She used to be referred to as "Doctor". Doctor my arse.

.

Irish Comedian Dara O'Briain said "if you are what you eat then she must have eaten a shrew" he also said "she is the kind of person that as a catholic we were warned - this is what protestants look like". There are few people on television who are so self-satisfied sanctimonious and judgmental, and banal to boot. She finds overweight people who eat vast amounts of unhealthy food, and pretends to be a qualified nutritionist teaching them to (shock!) eat less, eat more vegetables and fruit, and eat less sugar and fat. Brilliant! Who would have thought...

.

Her "Ph.D" was through a distance learning programme from the (New Zealanders older than 35 will understand) Claytons College of Natural Health. The accreditation of this "college" is not recognised by the US Department of Education. She once claimed to have received it from the American College of Nutrition, but doesn't anymore. What a liar.

.

She is a member of the American Association of Nutritionist Consultants, an accreditation that has so much value that several people have managed to get their pets membership.

.

On top of all that is the drivel she spouts about nutrition. Drivel that is at best harmless, but for a woman who has made a fortune selling herself as some kind of expert, deserve to be derided. Take this:

.

"[Because] chlorophyll is high in oxygen [eating dark green leaves will] really oxygenate the blood." Huh? We get oxygen from breathing not eating Gillian.

.

"Skid mark stools [...are...] a sign of dampness inside the body - a very common condition in Britain." Um yes, we are 70% water. The skid mark stool is inside her head.

.

"All molecules have an electrical charge and a vibrational energy. Therefore, all foods, which are made up of molecules, contain these vibrational charges. The colours of foods represent vibrational energies [...] foods which are orange in colour [...] have similar vibrational energies and even similar nutrient makeup." What the hell is "vibrational energy"? Similar coloured food has similar nutrient makeup?? So butter and lemons? Salt and sugar? .

.

Why the hell does anyone give this woman the credibility of anything other than a spaced out hippy charlatan? She is thoroughly fisked in this article which is quite comprehensive about what an unscientific phony she is. The Guardian has also done a great job on her.

.

On top of that, I just loathe her superiority complex which she deserves to have none. She touts a combination of common sense and quackery, and criticises people like children for not doing what she says. There is a place for a show where stupid people are taught to eat well, especially in the UK - but not her nonsense.

.

It just encourages me to have a plate of chips and tell her to bugger off, and don't you dare look at my poo.