God exists does it?

God either does not exist, is sadistic or hardly worthy of the title “God”
^
I don’t know who once said it, but the point came to me reading about Josie Grove in The Times.
^
She is:
- 16 years old;
- A champion swimmer and apparently talented artist;
- Has leukaemia;
- Has endured two unsuccessful bone marrow transplants and a course of anti-cancer drugs. One transplant from her 8 year old brother.
- Has decided that since the cancer is terminal, she would rather not undergo further treatment that means she spends long periods in hospital feeling sick. She’d rather spend what little time she has with her family.
^
So go on, defend that god followers. PROVE how much love and compassion your God has, how much mercy that God gives to a talented happy young woman that she has to endure invasive surgery and drugs, to have to die. Defend it by saying how much “good” she brought her family and friends, and how much “hope” she offers with her bravery – in other words, defend her sacrifice. Defend it by saying that, despite her suffering, her short life, the short time she spends with people who love her, despite her parents and siblings going through this, it is all fucking worthwhile, because there is “heaven”, though you can’t really say anything about this except it’s “really really good” and I should just “believe” this, even though there is not a shred of evidence for it. There is just a desperate hope that there should be “heaven” because if there isn’t, then surely it proves that God is weak or sadistic for letting this young woman go through hell.
^
It is rather simple you see either:
- God does not exist, meaning this is a tragedy, but all the best of science and technology has been applied to extend this young woman’s life and help her enjoy what time she has; or
- God does exist, but does not have the power to change anything on earth – but somehow created it, life etc. This is entirely contradictory. God by definition is all powerful, after all if God created the universe (except himself which means God created less than the universe), it is illogical for God to be unable to destroy cancer cells in one person, or indeed all people. You can start creating new theories as to why this may not be, but they are not consistent with any religion; or
- God does exist and is all powerful, but chooses not to intervene. This is either because God likes human beings suffering (which is immoral) or is nonchalant towards human beings suffering (which is also immoral), and likes holding out, through some ancient texts and the utterings of large numbers of questionable people, some hope of “heaven” without directly presenting the opportunity to those who are suffering (and those who are not), In short, God has a perverted sense of morality. The same sense of morality of those who get pleasure out of punishment, a God who hates human beings and plays them as toys. If true, then the universe is bleak and those who follow God do so out of fear, not out of an objective belief in the morality of God.
^
So which one is it? Methink non-existence is the most logical.

Gordon Brown's pathetic pre-budget legacy

With Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer and possibly soon to be Prime Minister, I actually wish for Dr Michael Cullen. Besides being a wittier debater, he has, despite massive increases in spending, not put the NZ government into deficit (though he didn’t pull it from deficit, that was Bill Birch in the 1990s). Cullen also has not increased taxes so brazenly as Brown or so regularly. This is not a ringing endorsement of Cullen. Bloody ‘ell I’m a libertarian, and he has increased state spending many times over – but it is an appreciation of how much more advanced fiscal policy is in NZ.
^
Gordon Brown’s pre-budget statement highlights were:
^
- A doubling in air passenger duty (to between £10 and £80) ostensibly to respond to climate change. Given he hasn’t cut other taxes, given this will make virtually no difference to air travel (Will £5 put chavs off their trip to Prague or will £80 put Madonna off of her first class flight to LA? Hardly), it’s about revenue. A BA spokesman said that aviation is the only transport sector in the UK that pays for all of its own infrastructure directly. He is right. It’s also worth nothing that the fuel consumption of the latest aircraft, per passenger km is remarkably low. Lufthansa reports that the latest Boeing 747-8 series, which is has just ordered, burns 3.5 litres of fuel per passenger every 100km. 30km a litre isn’t bad fuel economy for travelling at 90% of the speed of sound. NZ air passenger levies are about paying for security/border control, not the UK.

^
- Inflation indexing fuel taxes once more (increasing petrol by 1.25p/l). Given that no fuel tax in the UK is dedicated to roads or indeed, any transport, this is all about revenue as well. It will have virtually no effect on demand. Now yes, Dr Cullen inflation indexes petrol tax as well, but the indexed amount DOES get dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, most of which goes on roads. Given around 60% of petrol tax (100% of LPG tax and road user charges) is dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, and Dr Cullen spends all of the rest on land transport as well, NZers have little to complain about.

^
- A new welfare benefit giving pregnant women £200 in the final weeks of their pregnancy. That’s nice, it is saying “aren’t you clever? You had sex and want the baby. Here’s some money we took off of everyone else to show you how clever you were getting knocked up”. He could have cut taxes, but no – that just means people get more of what they truly earn. It is unlikely to be enough to encourage middle class couples to have children, but £200 to an inert chav is “well good init?” Sadly Gordon Brown doesn’t mix enough with the rest of the world to know how important it really is to adopt a policy of disincentivising chavs breeding, partly to improve Britain’s reputation in the world.

^
- Zero stamp duty for new “carbon-neutral” homes. Well that’s not a bad thing, except there should be zero stamp duty full stop. Of course there are no "carbon neutral" homes in the UK, so it costs nothing. What does a home changing ownership cost the state?

^
- On the bright side, Brown is pushing for an efficiency campaign in the public service. He is pushing for 5% cuts in admin budgets each year between 2008 and 2011. This is expected to save around £26 billion over that time. The British public service has a long history of obfuscating accountability for expenditure, but the unions are unhappy – which surely must mean Brown is doing something right.

^
- Expenditure on a new literacy campaign. This wont ever be enough, because one in six boys at age 16 are functionally illiterate. The money to subsidise pregnancies wont help.

^
- £9 billion budget deficit by 2010/11, borrowing an extra £1 billion in current financial year over previous forecasts.
^
Gordon Brown has been credited for running a reasonably positive British economy, but as the Times has commented, it is only positive when you compare it to past long term performance (which has been stagnant) and the “sclerotic” economies in continental Europe. 2.75% growth forecast isn’t bad, but it is hardly stuff of wonders. It should also be noted that, despite massive transfers in the form of subsidies to the north and Scotland, Britain’s growth is concentrated in London and the south-east, and much is driven by the City. If London was not such a successful centre for the service sector, Britain would be a sclerotic economy. It is not a message that Brown, Blair or David Cameron mention enough.

National Socialists

So the Nats support electoral law changes to prohibit third parties from criticising political parties.

^

Seriously, the phrase National Socialists used in jest to criticise the Nats when they have socialist leanings now has another meaning. This is such a fundamental attack on freedom of speech the Nats deserve to be hoisted on their own petard. Labour's craven attempt to spin its way out of its own overspending is one thing, and who turns to Labour for freedom anyway, but when the main party in (is it opposition? I haven't noticed) supports it, you're fucked.
^
This is about stopping the right of any private organisation criticising political parties during elections. How can any individual with a modicum of belief in a free and open democracy support this? This is not about business backed trusts, the Exclusive Brethren or unions, although the debate will be about this because they are particular examples that upset some people. This is about freedom.
^
I know most people are not libertarians and many disagree with many libertarian policies, but this is fundamental. It is the right for you as an individual, or your club, association, political organisation or lobby group to criticise a political party. Greenpeace could not lay into the National Party. Anti-GE groups could not criticise Labour. Rationalists could not criticise Destiny NZ. Think of every single major political issue in recent history, and this would effectively ban any group from lobbying against a party. Environmental groups could not rank the political parties, neither could business groups.
^
David Farrar is obviously concerned and rightly so.
^
If the Nats go through with this then fuck them, Neville Chamberlain hasn’t got a thing on English and Key. I wont say any more because I’m so utterly enraged with how the National Party has got out its constitution and micturated on it en masse, clapping all the way.

^

Bernard Darnton has also written lucidly about this on his free speech blog, including how Bill English has backtracked on what he thought about this before.

^

PLEASE prove me wrong Key and English. Please. If you don't, you deserve to spend the rest of your lives in Opposition, because New Zealand may as well be governed by Labour than by a socialist National Party that will sell out its principles for the baubles of power. I don't expect you to be objectivists, libertarians or even consistently frigging classically liberal - I do expect you to believe in free speech at election time. If you don't, you're a threat to us all.

The further back on the plane - the stupider you are?

Air Tahiti Nui has an interactive inflight game system, enabling you to play games with your fellow passengers. The guy who took this photo was in first class (seat 1A it says) winning "inflight trivia challenge" against someone in 19G who isn't far behind, and some thicko in 40D.

^

Clearly the guy in first class is smartest, following by the guy near the front of economy (possible frequent flyer, so aspiring to be nearer the front) and then the no hoper in the back. Of course the flipside is that if no hoper gets pissed off, he will storm his way to the front (and be annoyed that no only are you winning, but having good food and a nice seat).

Overlander goes 7 days a week, but have the Greens used it?

Remember all of this? Remember when Toll Rail was trying to convince the government to make you pay for this train? The rail union, the Greens, the Mayor of Ruapehu and a National MP all wanted to make you pay as well.

^

Well the government called Toll Rail's bluff, the ensuing publicity saw Toll give the train some respite, and it has even been refurbished with an upgraded interior.

^

Now it is going to operate 7 days a week, instead of just 3. So it shows one thing, if people want it to stay and are prepared to pay to use it, it is the best chance of keeping it.

^

What I want to know is given all of the wailing, have any Green MPs used the Overlander since Toll Rail decided to keep the service? If so, I'll be thrilled and complimentary. If not, well... the word begins with H.

^

So go on all you Green supporters, spend some of your OWN money and book a return trip on the Overlander, even if it is just Wellington to Palmerston North or the like, to show you want the train. It is working so far, it's called the market.