Redpeace - blaming the USA because anti-capitalism matters

There was once a time when Greenpeace could have been thought of as an organisation genuinely interested in highlighting environmental issues that have been part of the tragedy of the commons. A lot of good people with good intentions - albeit not the intentions and means that I agree with.

*

However now, it just shows itself as a mouthpiece for the loony left.

*

Greenpeace is now Redpeace - its press release on North Korea says it all:

*

""Greenpeace says outrage by the United States over North Korea's underground testing of a nuclear weapon is hypocritical given that country's nuclear arsenal."Nobody wants yet another country to have nuclear weapons, but with over 5,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the United States of America, the relative balance of power has to be kept in mind," says Cindy Baxter, Greenpeace Campaign manager"

*

Relative balance of power? Yes Cindy, we need to accept a murderous warmongering dictatorship has the right to maintain a "balance of power" against its peaceful free neighbours.

*

Ms Baxter obviously thinks that a brutal dictatorship, with one of the largest standing armies in the world, that spends more than any other country on arms as a proportion of GDP, that runs a state of almost total slavery, that launches missile tests over its neighbours, that sells arms to whoever is willing to pay, that sponsors terrorism, that abducts innocent civilians abroad to meet the tastes of the Dear Leader – when the US has nuclear weapons saying “the relative balance of power has to be kept in mind”. I guess if nuclear weapons had existed ten years before they did, Nazi Germany or the USSR undertaking a test would be granted a similar response.

*

A world which resembled the political and economic system of the United State would be infinitely preferable to one resembling North Korea – North Korea is hell on earth. The USA may not be heaven, but it is free, prosperous and, by and large, the government does not operate an all pervasive state that directs, interferes with and punishes details of everyday life, and it does not control absolutely the flow of information or publication of information.
*
Perhaps Redpeace members could go to North Korea, ask to visit industrial sites, ask to test rivers and lakes for pollution, local air quality, visit prisons, visit psychiatric hospitals, ask about how people engage in protest marches on government policies, and learn for themselves why North Korea having nuclear weapons is potentially frightening, whilst no one has much to fear from the USA owning them. If Redpeace can’t see that moral equivalency between the US and North Korea is like equating Nazi Germany to the Allies, then it cares little about peace either between states or within states, and more about pandering to a tired old leftist anti-American diatribe. It will prove, once more, than Redpeace is no longer an apolitical organisation interested in raising awareness of environmental issues – but an apologist for any murderous regime that is against the USA, capitalism and Western liberal democracy.

*

So what about this Cindy Baxter, Greenpeace NZ campaign manager? I have two theories, given it is Friday the 13th and it is about time I rubbed people the wrong way. On the one hand she may be into her 30s or older, quite unattractive and craves the attention and socialisation that Redpeace gives her. She can "network" with like minded haters of success, technology and western civilisation - and feel better about herself by denigrating the USA - a country which is one of the pinnacles of human achievement, with an enormous number of bright, attractive, successful, creative people - while celebrating countries with oppressed, sad, "order-followers" made to be collective in thinking and terrified of doing anything that isn't politically correct (for good reason). She enjoys slagging off George Bush (so clever that) and saying how stupid so many Americans are, how they are selfish and different from everyone else - having known so few herself. She feeds on anti-American propaganda, secretly cheered on the 9/11 attacks (hey it was capitalists being attacked) and consumes Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore as her favourite Americans. The ones that hate freedom and capitalism, except when they themselves benefit from it. Her lack of astuteness in applied disciplines that would mean she could get a real job, and lack of physical attractiveness has meant that she has sought out attention with other losers who like to bring down the best and brightest, and increase the standing of those that crawl - kind of like what Christianity does. The armageddon view of the world inflames passions among these misfits and means they may end up shagging, but it doesn't bear thinking about too much - they enjoy sneering at those in expensive suits, hotels, business class and nice cars (cars bad remember - chant it fifty times) just as much.

*

On the other hand she may be very young, stupid and attractive - naively enjoying being a campaign manager, saving the "wurld" and feeling better about herself by being serious and so caring and thoughtful, and not liking that big bad man George Bush who she knows is bad, because all her friends say so, so do the books she reads and they can't be wrong can they? After all, join a leftwing movement and you have a whole philosophy to follow that involves hating America.

*

However I doubt it, the press releases are far too articulate. "Greenpeace condemned the test, saying that Pyongyang has underscored the dangerous connection between nuclear research, nuclear power and nuclear weapons." See, it is wrong - because dozens of countries have nuclear power and no nuclear weapons - but it is articulate. This suggests she is older and a more hardened anti-American ecologist. Stupid bitch. I suggest she goes to North Korea to protest about the nuclear test - seriously!

Labour paying it back, but..

This is very simply the "shit we got it wrong, let's avoid more political fallout" exercise.

*

Paying it back will be costly.

*

An "I'm sorry" would be nice too. It is morally wrong for a political party to use taxpayers' funds that were for government purposes, to campaign for election. All Parliamentary parties bar the smallest, are guilty of this - Labour the most.

*

Clark must now hope this all goes away, the public forgets and in 2008 it isn't an issue. Well it should be. Those who oppose this government should thank Bernard Darnton for putting his money and effort on the line on this, as he has been one of the figures responsible for raising the profile of the issue.

*

The apologists for making the rest of New Zealand pay for the campaign of their parties will evade reality because they have little alternative, but the fundamental point remains:

*

Labour, NZ First, Greens, United Future, ACT, National and the Maori Party were all caught using YOUR money, taken from YOU, to convince you to vote for them to spend more of your money. They didn't ask permission, they took it in proportions that vary wildly - the Labour Party - thinking it is ENTITLED to power - spent the most, and has performed appallingly in digging dirt and even accusing Libertarianz of being bankrolled by National.

*

If you want to see the instincts behind a politician who lies and cheats, try catching a thief - who will run away, hide and lie. That is what Labour has done - these people think they are entitled to run your life with your money, born to rule (and not just Labour).

*

How can it ever be right that politicians can vote your money to promote their election? The answer is never.

*

State funding of electioneering (including broadcasting) should be prohibited. Funding of government after an election is declared should be clearly separated, with strict accounting for expenditure for government administration and that undertaken as electioneering.

*

The next fight is against compulsory funding of voluntary political organisations. It is grossly unfair, benefits incumbents, discriminates against new parties - but most of all, makes you pay for organisations you haven't joined and may not even approve of. Political parties are not special - and you should never be forced to pay for people who, by and large, are out to gain the means to force you to do or not do what they want. I've blogged about this enough before.

Tolling Auckland not user pays

Aucklanders might ask the following questions about Transit’s plan to charge tolls to fund the Avondale motorway extension:
*
1. Whether it is right that users of three projects already fully funded by Land Transport NZ, from fuel tax/road user charges revenue, should pay tolls to pay for a different road. The Greenhithe Deviation (under construction for the last couple of years), Mt Roskill Extension (under construction for several months) and the Manukau extension (approved for funding over two years ago) are likely to be tolled to pay for the uneconomic Avondale extension. Why? Because tolling the Avondale extension would raise little funds in itself – in other words, the project doesn’t deliver enough value to road users for them to be willing to pay for it – so Transit wants to force others to pay for it. How do you benefit from the Avondale extension if you drive from North Shore to Waitakere?
*
2. Should the final part of the Western ring road - the Avondale extension (going to Waterview) should be so heavily greenplated (tunnelled) that its no longer economically efficient? Does it need to be in a tunnel, adding hundreds of millions of dollars to its total cost?
*
3. With that “greenplating” the project now has a benefit/cost ratio below 1:1 Why should a project that – dollar for dollar – generates less benefits for users that it costs – be such a high priority? Once the other segments are completed, it may become more economic as traffic queues between Mt Roskill and Waterview, but meanwhile instead of being tied up in this project, the money will have generated far higher benefits elsewhere. Can you think of better ways to spend that money – such as roads in Waikato that are accident prone?
*
4. Note that the private sector isn’t interested in financing and tolling this road as a viable proposition – unlike toll roads in Sydney and Melbourne. This tells you that it isn’t about user pays, there isn’t enough traffic willing to pay tolls to justify the exhorbitant cost. When the private sector stays away, doesn’t that give a message? No it isn't the legislation doing it, despite Opposition claims.
*
5. The government commissioned a report on road pricing in Auckland. It came out resoundingly against tolling existing and future Auckland motorways to reduce congestion because it would see large amounts of traffic diverted onto parallel roads, which cannot handle the traffic well and expose pedestrians and local residents to safety and pollution risks. The Ministry of Transport/Treasury commissioned report says it is a bad idea to do, on a large scale, something Transit is going to do on a smaller scale. What is the effect of tolling going to be on parallel local roads, and the economics of these projects which were originally appraised as untolled roads? Why is nobody saying anything about this?
*
6. Why is the billing system for toll roads in New Zealand being funded from your petrol tax and road user charges, and not from borrowing against the future income from toll roads, like it is in Australia?
*
Now I support tolling new lanes - that makes sense and is user pays (and increasingly being adopted in the USA), and have no problem with tolling new roads as long as tolling raises enough money to pay for the road (the road not needing to be subsidised). Simply, there are a lot of questions that need asking - and they should be asked. You're being consulted on this. If I were you, I'd ask these questions, and continue until you get straight answers. I suspect the answers are:
- Avondale (Waterview) Extension is not economic of itself, but is politically and strategically appealing because it finishes a line on a map.
- There is enough money to fund every other stage of the Western Ring Route untolled.
- Tolling Avondale (Waterview) Extension will divert traffic to parallel roads and generate little revenue to fund it.
- Government has told Transit to build this road come hell or high water.
- Avondale (Waterview) Extension could have at least 30% of its costs removed if it wasn't being "greenplated" to meet legislative requirements.

*

UPDATE 1 – Loony lefty Auckland City Councillor Dr. Cathy Casey is opposing tolls too, not because of the dodgy economics but because:
*
“We don’t want fast roads for the rich and slow roads for the poor. It is the government that should be funding roads, not the people of Auckland – they have already paid their taxes.”
*
The poor have cars? I suppose she likes poor people in Christchurch paying over the nose for road maintenance through petrol tax (it’s cheap to do it there) while rich people in Gisborne underpay? She also seems to think the government doesn’t take money from Aucklanders, and that taxes have “been paid”. The people that should be funding roads are those who use them – people without cars shouldn’t, and they are more likely to be poor.
*
“Dr Casey says that “user pays” is unfair and penalises people on low incomes.”

*
Well duh, because they aren’t earning enough and it is an incentive to get them to be innovative and work to do so, unlike Dr Casey who has the economic intelligence of an imbecilic squirrel. So food and clothing should be paid for communally – hey sounds like North Korea, that works a wonder. Let’s abolish user pays, everyone can pay for everyone else – or maybe it could all be free… (now all sing and pass the drugs so you can keep evading reality).

*
“There are many low-paid workers who drive across this city every day from outlying districts where they are forced to live because of escalating house prices. They already have to pay increased petrol and parking fees. Paying a toll on top of that is just not an option.”

*
“Forced to live”? Well no, they live where they can afford- they could live in Invercargill instead. House prices escalate because of the sort of planning policies reality-evading morons like yourself put in place restricting supply of land for housing, and housing people want – don’t forget the rates you like imposing on people as well. You might also wonder why Auckland City Council doesn’t reduce parking charges and abolish its small 0.66c/l petrol tax to “ease the burden”, but I guess you like tax because it isn’t user pays, it’s “force everyone”.

*
Remember, even with my doubts about the road, it still is a new road – people driving now could stay on the current routes instead of using the new one. What a foaming at the mouth socialist halfwit she is - but hey, some of you voted for her!

*

The Greens are opposing it because it is user pays too - sort of - they don't like people paying tolls if the money is used to pay for roads, because roads are bad m'kay? In other words, the Greens would love it if the tolls were used to pay for a NZ only TV channel or hip hop music videos.

North Korea's nuclear test

Well, hardly a surprise.

*

There are those blaming George Bush for this.

There are those calling for military action.

*

The real answer is China. China has its boot poised above the windpipe of North Korea. Unfortunately, North Korea has a string of grenades wrapped around itself.

*

China supplies North Korea with the oil and electricity that enables it to barely function. It could cut these off and the regime could not sustain itself for long.

*

However - North Korea would probably pull the pin out of its grenades if this was done and throw them - after all, what would it have to lose? Kim Jong Il and his lackies would face being overthrown and losing everything.

*

So it is Cold War - icy cold. Not that it has ever been much better since 1953, nothing much has changed and the nuclear deterrent against North Korea has worked well since then. North Korea will not launch an attack on South Korea or Japan - for China would firmly crush its windpipe making it impossible to sustain conventional warfare. China will do this in exchange for the US NOT using nuclear weapons against North Korea - and frankly, South Korea would agree. However, if North Korea released a nuclear weapon upon South Korea or Japan, there would have to be a similar response in kind to the North.

*

No Right Turn thinks the US may take an "idiot response" to this. Well military action against North Korea would be moral if it weren't for the effect of threatening the lives of millions of South Koreans and Japanese.

*

Tony Blair on BBC Breakfast TV this morning described North Korea "as a kind of oppression akin to slavery" and he is right. Unlike the BBC which constantly repeats the mantra "we don't really know what it is like there".

*

So we have more tension, and probable sanctions against North Korea on arms and trade. How can this end? Well:

*

- North Korea announces it is abandoning nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and reducing its military presence by 35% (to the same level as South Korea and US in Korea);

- North Korea announces it is embarking on economic reform to allow private investment and ownership, and "socialism with Korean characteristics";

- North Korea announces it is allowing liberalisation of internal political debate and discussion, and providing amnesty for those in gulags;

- North Korea announces it is seeking normalisation of relations with Japan, South Korea and the USA, in exchange for a formal ending of the Korean War and recognition of the Republic of Korea - this will include a further verifiable reduction in military capability;

- Kim Jong Il and family disappear and spend rest of their days in a compound in China in exchange for a transition of power to a fully elected Supreme People's Assembly.

*

OR:

*

- Kim Jong Il can be assassinated and succeeded by military generals who announce their intention to embark on a radical reform agenda ala China. You hope.

*

Since the US has been useless at political assassinations in recent history, I don't hold out hope for the latter.

*

UPDATE 1: The Maori Party's latent Marxism comes to fore again - lamblasting the USA for having a nuclear arsenal - as if it is the same as North Korea. The Maori Party gets its "intelligence" from Greenpeace:

*

“If we are to believe Greenpeace - and we have no reason not to - there are over five thousand nuclear weapons in the States alone” said Mr Flavell.

*

So does Russia Mr Flavell, but hey never mind, anti-Americanism is "cool" eh bro? I guess the USA should disarm now while North Korea, China and Russia have weapons, along with India and Pakistan, and while Iran is pursuing them.

*

Mr Flavell conveniently ignores the slave state conditions of North Korea, maybe because his party secretly admires something about it?

*

UPDATE 2 - Keith Locke gets his oar in too, can't resist beating up China and the USA because they haven't made moves to disarm. Is it any bloody wonder? The fact is the world nuclear weapon arsenal has dropped by about two-thirds since the end of the Cold War - because the Soviet Union and its evil empire collapsed. Something Keith Locke might, for once, celebrate as a major contribution to reducing global tensions.

*

As long as the means to develop nuclear weapons remains in the world and there remain states interested in aggression against their citizens and neighbours, nuclear weapons should remain. Peace comes from strength - those keen on wiping out the USA wont give up just because the USA has lost a means to deter them from wiping it out!

Telecom to cease funding politics

Well for Telecom shareholders this will be welcome. No more money being wasted on organisations that, with the exception of ACT, are uninterested or downright hostile when it comes to Telecom's property rights.

*

Presumably it will hit the Progressives the most, as the smallest party - but Labour will smart from losing $50,000. Telecom says it has nothing to do with government regulation, which may be true, but it should have everything to do with protecting the rights of shareholders. Telecom is hated by most parties in Parliament - National at best engages in economic analysis before considering regulation, ACT tends to oppose it. Of course Libertarianz is the most Telecom friendly political party - in that it supports an open free-market governed by private property, contract and tort law.

Ignore Toll's blackmail

Just a quick comment on the hysteria about Toll saying it will close lots of railway lines. Some very straightforward facts:
*
1. Toll can’t close railway lines. They are owned by the government, which bought them back for $1 under the agreement that it would spend $200 million to upgrade it (and paid $81 million for the Auckland network separately). So it is up to Ontrack.
2. If Toll withdraws services, then its agreement with the government means that other operators can provide services. Presumably they will have to acquire rolling stock, but then Toll will have a lot of rolling stock that is of low value on the international secondhand market (wrong gauge, small dimensions).
3. If Toll moves more freight onto the roads then the government will NOT be up for a higher road maintenance bill that comes out of your pocket. Trucks pay road user charges, which broadly pay enough to cover the cost of maintaining the state highway network, and the marginal cost of each additional truck. The extra wear and tear on the roads will be paid for.
4. If the Napier-Gisborne line saw no more freight trains, there would be, on average, an extra truck every hour in each direction on that highway at the most. I think nobody would notice that, and yes the road user charges paid for that truck would cover the cost of maintenance.
5. The Greens claim there is an imbalance between trucks and trains and what they are charged according to the Surface Transport Costs and Charges study. The marginal cost case studies in that report indicate that road freight has lower environmental costs than rail in two out of the three examples measured. It also indicates than in two examples the Road User Charges paid are more than the costs the trucks impose on government. In other words, it is far more complicated that the Greens will say.
6. The trucking industry is not interested in the main trunk line closing, and has said so. It rightfully has argued that if Toll doesn’t want to use it, others should, assuming they are willing to pay
*
Lincoln University Professor Chris Kissling wants you to be forced to pay for rail maintenance and presumably a tidy sum to buy the monopoly rights off of Toll. I’m unsure why he thinks that all New Zealanders and businesses should pay for a handful of businesses to get subsidised rail transport. However as he says the rail network is “incomplete”, he must be somewhat mad – given half the network isn’t economic to maintain now, how can it be “completed” and be efficient? Where should lines go? Kaitaia? Nelson? It wasn't economic in the 1960s when railways had a statutory monopoly!
*
The answer? Sell the rail network. Then whoever values it the most can use it and charge for its use as it sees fit. Then comes the highways.

Labour attacks free speech - again

Having already suggested prohibiting third parties from funding political parties anonymously, Labour is talking about banning legal companies that produce products that save lives, from advertising. This is even though the products cannot be sold without a prescription from a relevant health professional.
*
Labour has support from the Public Health Association, a left wing advocate of state funding and regulation of health care. Apparently the concern is that individuals – clearly too stupid in the eyes of the PHA and the Labour Party to decide what they put into their own bodies – are pressuring doctors to write out prescriptions for medication that may harm them. This ignores the fact that there are also plenty of individuals, who see an advert for medication that may relieve a complaint they have not bothered seeing a doctor about, and then go to the doctor to be checked to see if they are eligible for it.

*

Banoholic Sue Kedgley has been pushing this for ages. "prescription medicines, when taken inappropriately, can cause severe illness and even death" she says. Well so can petrol, rat poision, water and "natural remedies".
*
Gay Keating says “People may end up paying for medicines that they don't need, and that in the worst case scenario, may actually be harmful to them," well Gay, they might buy shoes they don’t need either, that may be harmful to them – or food, or a car. It is called choice for fuck’s sake.
*
Let’s break down the situation simply – there is no force involved, just busybodies who think that consenting adults can’t be trusted to look after themselves. David Farrar says it is an attack on free speech - indeed it is and he takes the line that one should be cautious about restricting it. No Right Turn thinks you need protection from big bad pharmaceutical companies trying to sell you something you might no need - because you're so incompetent. Oops, I mean there are incompetent people, you're not - but hey the state can't make a separate law for you.

*

Nevertheless, let's follow this chain of horror that Nanny State just has to stop:
*
1. Pharmaceutical company spends its own money developing a drug that has a positive effect upon a medical condition in some way.

2. Pharmaceutical company tests drug to the extent that it can then go through the regulatory hoops to allow it to be legally available in New Zealand.

3. Pharmaceutical company starts selling drug through licenced pharmacists who are competent in dispensing drugs on prescription.

4. Pharmaceutical company uses its own money to pay for advertising on TV channels, radio stations, websites, print media etc. to promote the product. The broadcast advertising is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority.

5. The product is regulated both as medication and in general contract law.

6. A sane adult sees the advertisement and is interested in spending her own money on the drug because it may have positive effects. She wants to ingest it in her body.

7. The sane adult visits her GP and requests the drug. The GP makes an assessment as to whether it is a good idea or not, and either chooses not to write out a prescription (adult then either goes to another GP or gives up) or to write on out.

8. Sane adult go to pharmacy and requests the drug on prescription, receives and pays for it.

9. Pharmacist dispenses the drug and provides advice on how to safely use it.

10. Sane adult uses drug.
*
Who is forced here? What is going on except that failed head prefects want to interfere in stage 4.
*
National has thankfully said it will oppose moves to regulate such advertising even more. Tony Ryall said, in a rush of blood to his head "This is another example of nanny state 'Labour-knows-best"
*
"Consumers have a right to know that these pharmaceuticals are available, and can be accessed. Surely we want a health system where people can make choices and play a role in their own healthcare.”
*
Stone the crows, he’s got something right!

North Korea's announces nuclear test as New Zealanders donate farm assistance

North Korea's press statement on nuclear tests is out on its official news agency website. So is a press statement on the NZ-DPRK society donating "vehicles and books on agricultural science and technology". The NZ-DPRK society is the apologist society for the North Korean dictatorship - it ignores the enormity of human rights abuses, the totalitarian Orwellian state of North Korea. It would rather donate vehicles and books and engage in dialogue - I doubt if it condemned the gulags where children of political dissidents are kept and worked like slaves 7 days a week. It issued a statement earlier this year condemning the US-South Korean joint military exercises saying:

"These joint military maneuvers are aimed at breaking the will of the Korean people to advance towards a peaceful future, rejecting interference of foreign forces including the U.S., the bulletin noted. "

*

North Korea launched the Korean War in 1950 - the Kremlin archives prove it. What peaceful future is there when the state can arrest, detain, imprison, torture and kill you without a fair trial? What peaceful future is there when your relatives, including your children can also be imprisoned and tortured because you dared utter what might be construed as criticism of the "Democratic People's Republic"? However, the NZ-DPRK Society probably has the same view of North Korea's role in the Korean War as the Nazis have of Poland.

*

North Korea's nuclear statement contains some odd remarks such as:

*

"The DPRK was compelled to pull out of the NPT as the present U.S. administration scrapped the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework and seriously threatened the DPRK's sovereignty and right to existence. "

*

It threatened withdrawal in 1993, but suspended it while the world tried to bribe it with aid and assistance to develop a light water nuclear reactor. It started breaching the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty in 1992 by refusing permission for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to visit all the sites they wished, and has persistently lied about its intentions.

*

It also said:

*

"The U.S., however, abused the idea of denuclearization set out by the DPRK for isolating and stifling the ideology and system chosen by its people, while systematically disregarding all its magnanimity and sincerity"

*

The fact that Bush senior announced the withdrawal of the presence of nuclear weapons from South Korea in the early 90s is ignored.

*

It has now said:

*

"The DPRK officially announced that it manufactured up-to-date nuclear weapons after going through transparent legitimate processes to cope with the U.S. escalated threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure"

*

The US is not going to attack North Korea and never was - because the cost is enormous. It is a shame that it is so - North Korea deserves to be overthrown. It tests missiles that overshoot Japan, it possesses nuclear weapons and it is a state of mass slavery.

*

By the way, North Korea issued a press release congratulating Helen Clark on her re-election and Winston Peters on his appointment as Foreign Affair's Minister last year - nice to see how friendly we all are. MFAT's website says "It is difficult to get accurate information on the human rights situation in North Korea". Indeed it is true, although the website doesn't say it is dire. How dire it is can be seen in this book called the Aquariums of Pyongyang - a chilling story from a man who survived a North Korean gulag. If MFAT doesn't think this says enough to at least mention that human rights in North Korea are virtually non-existent, then it is a group of cold heartless bureaucrats.

*

North Korea is a warmongering slave state that is inexplicably evil. The New Zealanders who are apologists for it deserve to be outed - and publicly explain why they turn their back to those murdered, tortured and imprisoned by this slave state.

Pregnant women smoking to reduce baby size

If the report in the Daily Telegraph is true, then it is repulsive. Some teenage mothers smoke to have a smaller baby to make labour pains easier. In other works, who cares if the child is damaged.

*

Smoking, taking drugs or drinking alcohol when you know you are pregnant is child abuse if the pregnancy goes full term. Simple as that. Pregnant women who do this should lose custody of the child, as if they were giving it to the child after birth.

*

If you don't want to be pregnant then you have three options:

- Don't have sex;

- If you do have sex, make sure you and/or your bonk use contraception - if that fails or you forgot to "take it" use the morning after pill;

- Have an early term abortion;

- Have a hysterectomy (probably the best idea for many).

*

Of course none of this is very politically correct, because pregnant women who abuse their unborn children are seen as "victims" who aren't "understood". Well, it is rather simple - you have chosen to bring a child into the world - if you recklessly act in ways that damage that child it is abusive - it is violence of the same order as bashing its brain, except you are doing it chemically.

*

On top of that if you are that careless or stupid, you are hardly going to be much of a mother are you?

North Korea to undertake nuclear test

Alarming? yes. Surprising? No. What can be done about it? Nothing much – just simply impose strict sanctions upon trading with the regime and maintain the current deterrence by the US and South Korea. If you want an example of a modern day government that entirely enslaves its population, has no regard for whether its citizens live or die, and which strips the entire dignity of the individual to be sacrificed for the state – it is North Korea.
*
It is a hideous repulsive regime – one which should humiliated daily for being so utterly grotesque. If you think a nuclear test is bad, try the thousands in gulags – the men, women and children who work from dawn to midnight as slaves for this nightmare state. Try the public executions, the state promoted glorification of brutal violence against enemies of the state, the constant surveillance of work, street and home – the complete suppression of dissent.
*
Military attack against North Korea would result in the deaths of millions in South Korea and Japan – this price is too high to pay to try to confront a regime that, albeit noisy, is unlikely to take military action itself. Kim Jong Il knows the US is formidable, and he also is not a religious nutter - he has no wish to undertake jihad - just a wish to deter attack. The bigger risk is him selling a bomb to those who DO wish to undertake jihad - but I'd be watching Pakistan before North Korea on that score!

*

By the way, you might want to remember the $1 million or so of your money spent by current and past government to persuade North Korea to not develop nuclear weapons.

*

Oh and don't blame Bush - this started in 1994 when Clinton was President. Anyone who defends this murderous regime should wonder why they don't defend Hitler in 1938, and blame the rest of Europe for provoking him!

Clark hates Brash - but why?

Following the cancerous term and the continued attacks by Labour on Brash, the bottom line is that we now have, for the first time for some years, genuine hatred by one political leader for the other. I don't think it goes the other way. If it does, Brash is too smart to make it show.
*
If you go back through recent history you wont find these level of enmity between:

Clark and English (Clark thought English was lightweight, English was fearful of Clark)
Shipley and Clark (They weren't friends, but had some level of respect)
Bolger and Clark;
Moore and Bolger (though it came close, Moore didn't like Bolger one bit);
Palmer and Bolger;
Lange and Bolger;
Lange and McLay.
*
or even Muldoon and Lange. Muldoon thought Lange was a buffoon and didn't respect him, but didn't hate him.
*
Muldoon was the same towards Rowling. He saw Rowling as a bit of a joke, and voters did as well - at least voters in marginal electorates.
*
Clark's hatred is visceral, almost tribal. It goes back to her prejudice against the National Party, which she sees as the party that didn't advance women's rights, Maori self-determination, the fight against apartheid, gay rights, peace and disarmament - all of the big passionate issues that she cut her teeth on at university and beyond.

*

Clark sees National as backward looking, as being the party of businesses that don't care about workers, conservative men who sneer at powerful women, who denigrate people about being gay/lesbian and who don't invite differently coloured people around for dinner. She sees it as the party of people who cared more about the All Blacks playing rugby than life under apartheid - as a party that secretly thought apartheid wasn't that bad. She sees National as a party that, until Doug Graham came along, saw Maori as fodder for factories and not much more, who believed in integration and ignoring indigenous culture. She sees National as the party of dawn raids on Pacific Island families, and the party that bought in to ANZUS, the nuclear deterrence and the Western alliance. These are things she has a deep personal philosophical loathing for.
*
Clark, unfairly, sees Don Brash as the personification of much of that. He is, after all, an older man, heterosexual, caucasian, economic rationalist - exactly the type of person Clark sees as having "ruled the world" when everything was so much worse, so much more conservative and bigoted - the type of man she thinks likes keeping women down making muffins and cups of tea, while the men sit around smoking cigars talking dismissively about how the dark skinned people don't behave and don't do so well at school. The type of economic rationalist she had to keep her mouth shut about when she was in Cabinet in the 4th Labour government, and privatisation and deregulation were the order of the day - except the Rogernomes let a parallel leftwing agenda go forward too (nuclear ships, environment, women's affairs, Treaty of Waitangi).

*

Politics is, for people like Clark (and others across the political spectrum) a deeply held set of views about what is right and wrong.

*

Unfortunately, no matter how she paints it, Brash is enough of a classical liberal that he would be comfortable in ACT. He is no social conservative, and deeply repulsed by racism and sexism. She thinks he is behind or supports those trying to dig dirt on herself and Peter Davis regarding sexuality - he isn't, but she can't believe it to be true -and she knows the public don't tolerate such dirt digging. Brash knows this too, and wont be drawn into what is an irrelevant issue.
*
Bolger was far closer to the sort of man Clark dislikes than Brash, but Bolger sold his soul for power (1996) and could be the compromising "statesman" (hey he sold his soul to Kiwibank). English was a minnow and didn't threaten Clark or the politically correct status quo.
*
Brash does threaten it - he doesn't accept the power structure based post-modernist new leftist politics, and he is no old fashioned conservative either. She essentially called the first Orewa speech racist and had to recoil from that when many NZers responded by saying "are we now?".
*
She fears the reality that the majority of the NZ public are not in her ideological, political world view - something she has been careful to cultivate. The majority don't share her view on race relations, and don't believe in the political correctness she supports. However a majority do support the centre-left agenda of more money for health and education. Her desperation to sling mud to defend herself has backfired, and now she is hoping that there is time on her side - time for this issue to become history.
*
The public have short memories, and the political zeitgeist in 2008 could have moved considerably from where it is now - which is exactly what Clark wants. She will temper her hatred in the coming months so that the public don't see this nasty side in a couple of years.

*

However, she will need to take some chill pills - a lot - especially if Brash is not rolled as leader before the next election. Which is why she wants him to be ousted. He has made National a genuine threat and she hates him - and voters don't respond well to nastiness. The polls are showing this.

The end of the Christian Heritage Party

As PC and David Farrar have reported - the Christian Heritage Party is having a funeral and will be buried - with the hope of some that it will be resurrected in some form.

*

Well the website is down. Though Google has it cached.

*

About the only two things I can say to its credit is first - it distanced itself completely from Capill, of which nothing more need be said, second it is folding.

*

It advocated the end to the separation of church and state. It campaigned vigorously on maintaining and strengthening restrictions on what people did with their bodies, what they could read, watch and produce in the media, and how they could live their lives.

*

On the other hand it advocated choice in education, and a tougher approach to welfare, although this was so, on the one hand - they could indoctrinate their children more easily into their irrational view of the world (which is their right!) and on the other hand, to tell lazy people that they are naughty and shouldn't get benefits if they aren't prepared to work in the community (isn't entirely unfair).

*

All in all they were puritans - that nearly managed the 5% threshold with the Christian Democrats (now part of United Future) - if it hadn't been for Capill and his barely shrouded homophobia putting off voters on television (don't get me started on Capill grrr). Fortunately they failed, and have been on a long path downwards ever since. The CHP lost many voters to United Future, as the former Christian Democrats sold United Future as a way of getting Christian views into Parliament (while Peter Dunne downplayed it to not scared off his middle of road urban liberal voters). The CHP also lost to Destiny NZ, which has played a more radical fire and brimstone form of ayatollah like Christian politics. Also National played up to the Christian vote indirectly in 2005, mainly because they could see a chance to get rid of Helen Clark and her bunch of Godless women, which many on the Christian right deplored for their tolerance of homosexuality.

*

Will there be a new Christian party? Well the Family First lobby looks like the CHP reborn except it isn't a party. However, there is easily a good 2-3% of religious nutters who want the government to lock people up for kissing people of the same sex, or reading Lady Chatterley or saying "Jesus Christ" as an expletive. These are bullies of the same order as the far left - invading our bedrooms and homes, as much as the left wants to invade boardrooms, businesses and schools. The Family First lobby is promoting the same sort of Biblical married straight couple having kids "family", its first principle is:

*

"We affirm that the natural family, not the individual, is the fundamental social unit"

*

Hmm so that's me running the other way already. Damned if I'm having no rights that aren't subordinate to the family - and they would probably agree!

Hone Harawira not totally lost

*
Yawn yawn “Don Brash is racist” says Hone Harawira. You’d think he’d know what racist means, since he is in a party which is all about race. You see Hone misses the point. Brash wasn’t saying Maori are not a distinct culture, he was simply questioning how one can talk about a separate justice system for a people that are not that separate – and let’s face it, the concept of being Maori – according to Hone Harawira – is subjective. It is psychological.
*
Harawira is delusional if he thinks Brash want Maori to disappear – he simply doesn’t care whether or not you are Maori. He doesn’t have a strong sense of ethnic identity – unlike Harawira who lives and breathes a collective identity.
*
You see Harawira is proud to be Maori – because for him he believes there is no choice – even though, in fact, there is. He is proud of being aligned to a collective group but more importantly he hit it on the nose with this comment that Maori identity:

*

“is as much a recognition that being Maori is partly blood, but it’s also a love for a culture, a language, and a way of life”.

*

Indeed, that could be so. In fact that is all that ethnicity is. There is nothing inherently wrong will people choosing that – and I doubt Don Brash would think so either. The bottom line is, most New Zealanders, including supporters of Don Brash don't care what race you are, are not racist, are not Maori bashers and are happy to see Maori succeed individually, in business or in any walk of life - on their own merits. They just don’t expect the state to give Maori individual legal privileges because of it, or special quota positions at university and they are damned if they think the state should give someone who has a love of Maori culture, language and way of life money for their business, education, healthcare, car or whatever - taken from their pocket.

*

That's the point - let Maori do as they please with their own bodies and property. Let private individuals give donations or privileges to Maori, Chinese, Italians, lesbians, the unemployed, farmers, sock fetishists or pavlova makers, or deny it from them. However, the state should be blind to this - completely. That is what Brash is saying - take race out of the equation. The state should neither discriminate against OR for.
*
Unfortunately Harawira doesn’t want to engage on that level. He's with those who don't think Maori can be racist. He doesn’t want to defend special laws for Maori or funding, because he knows it is difficult to defend – he’d rather call Brash racist and a Maori basher because it is easy. Easy to call someone names and dismiss their arguments, isn’t it?

Conservatives still lost

The Conservative Party conference has kicked off in Bournemouth with David Cameron saying he wont be promising tax cuts at the next election. He is saying this because the Tories have promised tax cuts before and lost – and because apparently a lot of Brits dont believe health and education can get better with tax cuts. Meanwhile, the honeymoon poll period he’s been enjoying is over. Labour and the Tories are virtually neck and neck, and one big reason is because people don’t know what the Conservative Party stands for. Sound familiar?
*
In 2002, following three years of the Clark government, Bill English presented to the New Zealand electorate a lacklustre campaign which talked a lot about education, the economy and values, but said nothing substantial. He wasn’t prepared to talk about tax cuts, he wasn’t prepared to talk much about reforming the economy or the state sector and he certainly wouldn’t have said that the reason so many Maori have lung cancer is because they choose to smoke. National hadn’t learnt from 1999, when a bitter electorate was sick of the party that sold its soul to govern with Winston, and then sold it again to remain in power with the likes of Alamein Kopu, Tuariki Delamere and Tuku Morgan.
*
Labour sold a message of three years of strong stable government, which saw big spending increases in areas the public likes (health and education), lots of booty for its supporters (Maori, arts sector, environment) and the union movement getting the repeal of the Employment Contracts Act. Labour was riding high on a growing economy, low unemployment and a sense of contentment. Clark was a formidable debater, she knew what she believed in and could articulate it strongly – English never could. Bill English is a hardworking and honest man - but he fears having strong convictions, and it showed. He never looked like he believed he could win the election – as a result, Labour increased its share of the vote, and the disenchanted voted for NZ First (revitalised with Winston’s “3 policy” pledge), United Future (also revitalised having adopted the Christian Future NZ party and being the media darling with his “common sense” cliche) and ACT (which got its best ever result).
*
National suffered – it had its worst vote ever. Less than 21% of the vote. A year later, it was polling double that, with Don Brash as leader. Brash has been willing to take a stand on principle. Most notably he took a stand against Maori political correctness and the big elephant in the room of New Zealand politics – state privilege for Maori. He was saying what many thousands of New Zealanders had been saying, and what smaller parties had been saying. He also took a stand on tax – promising worthwhile tax cuts across the board. In 2005 the result was 39%, and near victory.
*
The Tories have had a boost in support for two reasons – firstly, the public is fed up with Labour. The war in Iraq has bled support to the Lib Dems, and the constant scandals of the likes of Blunkett, Prescott and the Brown/Blair divide aren’t impressing anyone. Labour is now looking as sleazy as the Tories did in the Major era. In addition, Blair – who won it for Labour three times, is on his way out and is seen as an outgoing PM. Any support he could bring has withered away. Secondly, David Cameron is young and charismatic, and the darling of the media. His radical approach to matters such as demanding more female and ethnic minority candidates is pushing some buttons – basically he is moving towards the left, while rightwing Tories are going “shhhh don’t rock the boat”.

*

You see Cameron has changed the party logo to the insipid tree at the top of this post - we have statements such as "hug a hoodie" where Cameron wants to "understand" why yobs are useless good for nothings. The answer is simple - because they aren't scared of the justice system.

*

The party has released new "Aims and Values". They are hardly inspiring:

*

Supporting the shared experiences that bring us together and promote well-being, like sport, the arts and culture, and reforming the National Lottery so that its proceeds are properly allocated to these purposes.
*
Supporting families and marriage, and making high quality childcare more available and more affordable.
*
investment in new light rail systems for cities
*
Working towards the target of giving 0.7% of national income in
aid by 2013
*
What party is this now?
*
It is only mildly redeemed by:
*
Further reforming the Common Agricultural Policy, abolishing all
remaining production-linked subsidies, scrapping import tariffs and
removing all export subsidies.
*
Abolishing ID cards if they are introduced.

*

Furthermore David Cameron's speech talks about "corporate responsibility" because, you see, business should feel guilty. Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth tops the vapidity stakes by saying "We accept that the economic cost of not tackling climate change will be infinitely greater than the cost of taking action now" . Infinitely greater? Really? So it will eradicate humanity? What utter rot - pandering to the eco tax lobby, surrendering to the recycling nazis who refuse to operate landfills on a for-profit basis, and complain that people throw so much away, surrendering to the economic luddites who leave local government running roads as parts of their personal political fiefdoms.

*

Cameron's approach to foreign policy has also been less than inspiring, pandering a little to anti-Americanism as he seeks the anti-war vote. He may even be listening to former PM Mike Moore (yes our Mike Moore), you could do worse than follow him on trade.

*

It is the job of the Conservative Party to wean people off the state - increasingly it shows little interest in doing much beyond stopping it getting worse. It should promote getting rid of corporate welfare, being innovative about infrastructure by getting out of the way, and letting social services be driven by consumer choice rather than bureaucracy. It should be aiming to shift from welfare and public housing to employment, growth and private property ownership. It can progress beyond the prejudice of xenophobia and conservative morality that alienates it from immigrants and many of the young – while not touting bullshit like “hug a hoodie”.
*
Anthony King of the Daily Telegraph says the party should focus on being anti-waste and anti-regulation – that would be a good start. This should push some buttons, many are sick of being pushed around and an anti-nanny state campaign would be something Labour would find hard to rebut -and would be playing in territory that the Liberal Democrats long abandoned, since they took over the role of Michael Foot in 21st century UK politics.
*

One can only hope they realise it. You see, only 18% want the Conservatives to commit to drastically reducing the size of government – 18%!!

*

Britain needs the Conservative Party. It is the only party with a decent number of members who believe in less government - it is the only party that can confront the dark deathly socialist menace of the European Commission - the number one enemy of agriculturally oriented countries - and it is the only party that has any hope of defending fundamental freedoms. Cameron has made a few good starts, he isn't promising a hardline on drugs or censorship and has sought to get rid of the grey haired old men born to rule image of the party - but he has also been throwing out some political babies, as he courts the middle ground of political vapidity.

*

It would be nice to think of him as being more than just "better than Gordon Brown". The British public deserve a lot better.

US gambling ban a huge blow against freedom

Every so often the US Federal Government shows how little it understands the spirit of the Constitution. In banning online gambling, it shows crass disregard for the pursuit of happiness - all those who voted for the ban, in both houses of Congress should be ashamed.
*
Now the Congress, and in all likelihood George. W. Bush can join Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other killjoys in stopping consenting adult Americans from spending their money the way they see fit. President Ahmadinejad of Iran will be thrilled.
*
The effect has been to decimate the share prices of online gaming companies, but then why should Demoplicans or Republicrats give a damn about capitalism, or entrepreneurialism, unless the respective entrepreneurs pass a gold doubloon into their palms?
*
Bastards - how dare they stop Americans doing as they wish.

Labour attacks your right to free speech

PC is dead right on proposals to overhaul the funding of political parties. You should be outraged. This is pure partisan prejudice. It is Labour spitting the dummy that it doesn't get funding from those who fund National.

*

Tough shit.

*

Why should I not be able to donate by whatever means I wish to whatever political party I wish? Why? Because it might be seen as buying influence? Well let's be clear about that - the only parties that can be seen to have enjoyed that are those that SELL influence. That means the parties of big government. Labour dishes out subsidies and regulations, National would too, or maybe just liberalise some areas but not others. The Maori Party and Greens happily support dishing out taxpayer's favours to those they like, and United Future and NZ First aren't exactly averse to it either.

*

So you'd only be concerned if you supported a union based party or a crony capitalist based party. The policies that allow this are obvious - they are in place now.

*

and don't start me on state funding of political parties.

Preventing perverted thoughts is impossible

New member of my blogroll, Tezza has pointed out how Gymnastics New Zealand is requiring all spectator's cameras to be registered. According to Stuff "SAFE sexual offenders programme director John McCarthy said there was a small risk paedophiles could attend the event". Really? I wonder if he will spot them. It can't be the coach can it? Or how about Sarah's dad? Or Tania's brother? or Tiffany's mother? You can spot them you see. You know who they are.

*

Of course it is up to Gymnastics New Zealand to do as it wishes on its own property. However this is part of a bigger trend. There is:

*

- Banning photos of kids in a nativity play;

- UK Post Office banning 5yo's passport photo because her exposed shoulders might offend a Muslim country (later overturned;

- FBI calling on schools to not put photos of their students on their website;

- This blogger banned from taking a photo at an Irish dancing championship;

- Air NZ and British Airways not seating men beside unaccompanied children.

*

Now nobody is going to question the need for children to be protected from pervs. However, there is palpable hysteria out there about the likely risks. The number one risk of children getting sexually abused is from people the child knows. Why? Because a stranger has to be brave or stupid to start randomly approaching children - it used to happen more in the past when there was some perspective on these things. I remember being warned about strangers, and some man invited me to his cabin on a holiday and my parents told me it wasn't a good idea. Having said that, I wandered the streets alone as a child quite a lot from age 8 upwards, in ways I bet few parents allow now - nothing happened to me, and if an adult scared me (which happened occasionally) I ran - it helped I lived in a suburb with wide open streets and footpaths, so it was difficult to do anything without being seen.

*

So after mum's boyfriend, stepdad, dad, grandad, uncle, cousins, neighbours, family friends and brothers - you've knocked out most of the risk factors. The next level would probably be sister, mother and aunt (yes there are female child molesters, they are in the minority, but certainly there). Then you can worry about the photographer.

*

You see, I remember being at school swimming sports and there was a father of one of the children who took photos of many of the kids by the pool, for the school magazine. He was always a kindly man who was very sweet, and there was never an issue of his motives. Now one can never really know who is turned on by what. I can bet you that odds are that you know someone who gets aroused by things that might shock or disturb you, or maybe it is you. You'll never ever know - because, after all, it's rather easy to use your imagination and masturbate. It is reasonable to protect your children from being sexually assaulted (or assaulted full stop), it is also reasonable to avoid strangers taking photos of them without your permission - but when does this start to become a ridiculous restriction on freedom of expression. If you allow your child to perform in a play, you probably want to take photos - other parents probably do too - if the local perv does as well, then really what IS the harm? He isn't peeking in changing rooms, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

*

The problem is that people masturbate about other people all the time. It has probably happened to you and you can be grateful you probably don't know the people who have done it. If you're really hot you'll have had thousands get aroused for you, and there were almost certainly pedos who got aroused for me when I was a child. The fact I never saw them or knew about it means it doesn't matter.

*

Pervs putting gymnast photos on the internet is disconcerting. However, there is little doubt that there is a fetish for professional gymnasts. There is also a fetish for girls smoking, fetish for school uniforms and fetish for girls in football clothes etc etc. There is probably a fetish for women wearing the burkha. People will sexualise whatever arouses them, and as long as they don't act on it, except with consenting adults, it is nobody else's business.

*

So hopefully the hysteria will die down - and the law will never get involved, except to protect private property rights.

*

Hopefully it wont get to this stage.

Brash, Winston and political correctness

Don Brash in the last few weeks has said some of the same sort of things that got me in a slight amount of trouble in university.
*
It was when I realised that free speech was something that you took into your own hands at university. I learnt that there was a received wisdom, and it had a long list. Some of that was things I agree with, other I don’t. The ones I didn’t were the notion that ethnicity should ever matter, and that people were not responsible for their own lifestyle. I talked of what being Maori “really was” and why someone who is born of certain parents should be entitled to a special place at university. I talked of how the only way Maori health statistics could make a huge step forward is if they stopped smoking so much, ate better and exercised more. None of this is rocket science and it wasn’t new in the late 1980s.
*
However, I got hounded. I was told I had a racist point of view, that I didn’t take into account the Treaty, that I ignored poverty and how much Maori had lost – and that to be Maori you had to “feel” Maori. My response was that I could “feel” Maori and that would be legitimate – except I guess there would be a committee to decide whether I really did feel what I said. I found that there was an accepted view of Maori having been oppressed, not responsible for what they do and all being disadvantaged. Being the son of lower-middle class Scottish immigrants, who came to NZ with virtually nothing, I found this rather grating. However, as I wasn’t Maori/Polynesian, female or gay, so I was part of the power hierarchy that ran the world – and the assumption was that everything was easy for me. So nice to have non-Maori women judge me so thoroughly. Fascists!
*
I had to keep my mouth shut- there was an unofficial longlist of opinions that would raise irrational responses ranging from patronising sadness (oh dear, poor boy doesn’t know better) to anger at how offensive I could be. The list included a wide and varied type of issues:
*
- The government should give more money to Maori;
- There should be a separate Maori legal system;
- Education should be free;
- Free market reforms are wrong;
- All women are oppressed, men are the oppressors;
- Ronald Reagan is an evil warmongerer, the USA is the cause of so much trouble in the world;
- All women have a right to state funded free contraception and abortion on demand;
- Nuclear weapons are bad and all countries should disarm;
- Nuclear power is unsafe;
- Prisons are wrong and Maori commit crime because of the Treaty breaches;
- Pornography should be banned because it insults all women;
- Free speech is a right, except when it offends or upsets anyone;
- It is impossible for non-Maori to understand the special relationship Maori have with the land, sea, sky and spirits;
- Maori spirits should be respected, but Christians should accommodate blasphemy;
- Building motorways is bad;
- Big business is bad and the world is being taken over by transnational corporations;
- Free trade is bad, because it oppresses poor countries and it doesn’t work and doesn’t exist anyway.
*
Get the picture? Buy into the leftwing manifesto or get sneered at.
*
Brash was foolish talking about the blood purity of Maori – because it is irrelevant. The notion of being Maori, English, Japanese, Mexican or Serbian is psychological. Race is, at the most, a relatively minor biological feature which should have about as much interest to us all as hair and eye colour. I am sure that if statistics were gathered for blondes, brunettes and redheads there would be umpteen overs and unders in health, education, sports, crime, wealth etc. The discrimination as well is obvious. Blondes are stereotyped as stupid, redheads as having anger problems. These characteristics are more objective than being Maori – being Maori is a state of mind. Now there is nothing necessarily wrong with having an affinity to others as such, especially if you appreciate having some shared DNA and culture. This is part of the diversity of being human – but it is not a reason for the state to think of you differently. The heterogeneity of humanity is a good thing – and when the state has discriminated, it deserves attention – but the state does not do so anymore and has not for some time. Brash would have been better simply saying that whether or not people are Maori should be irrelevant to government. He shouldn’t get embroiled into whether there is anything objective about being Maori – because, realistically, it should not matter.
*
As far as lung cancer is concerned, Brash is dead right. Maori die more of lung cancer because more smoke, and that is their choice. There has not been tobacco advertising now for around 18 years, and for some years before that it was quite innocuous – promoting brands rather than “you should smoke”. Most people start smoking in their teens, and it happens because they are trying to be adults – because they are sheeple, following their peers and because it annoys adults. Thousands stop smoking by choice – those who don’t do so knowing the dangers – this is because the dangers have been publicly known since the 1960s at the latest.
*
Unfortunately, in New Zealand in 2006, it is ok for a Labour government and a Green MP to tell you what to eat and when to exercise, but not for a Caucasian male National Party MP to point out that if more Maori people choose to smoke than non-Maori, it is no wonder that more will die of lung cancer. Brash is a victim of the insidious political correctness cultivated by the left – the same political correctness that makes excuses for those who beat up their kids, because of their race.
*
To top it off, for Winston Peters, who once proclaimed the same policies as Brash on Maori affairs, who campaigned as such, to call Brash evil is such incredible hypocrisy (Winston is hunting for the Maori vote again). Let’s see some quotes from Winston to see how he plays the race card:
*
“We have now reached the point where you can wander down Queen Street in Auckland and wonder if you are still in New Zealand or some other country”
*
"We are being dragged into the status of an Asian colony and it is time that New Zealanders were placed first in their own country."
*
Yes, Winston courted the votes of his greedly grey grizzler constituency – you know the ones that think anyone who looks Asian is a “Jap” and “doesn’t bloody trust them, remember the war?”. How about the ones who say “they’re different from us”, “they’ll take our jobs”. Winston knows the prejudices he milks, the fear he stoked among Asian immigrants – and now he’s in bed with the Labour Party. I need say no more.

Compulsory pay TV and how to end it

I have a standing order demanding I pay £131.50 (NZ$400) for a pay TV service that I didn’t ask for, and don’t really like. I am about to tell the organisation concerned this fact.
*
Like many European countries, the UK does not have free to air television. Every year, the BBC through its subsidiary “TV Licencing” strongarms £131.50 out of every British household for the privilege of using a colour TV set. Excluding the elderly, for political reasons, this means that the UK has compulsory pay TV.
*
The UK TV licence, unlike the abolished NaZis on Air TV licence in NZ, does not go to an independent body to allocate funds based upon proposals put forward by broadcasters. Oh no. It all goes to the BBC. Why? Because, apparently, without the BBC getting this funding, all hell would break lose. The world would end, and British society would decay with the other 19 advertising supported ACTUAL free to air channels (3 analogue the rest on digital freeview) clearly doing such a bad job.
*
The BBC is only a “public” broadcaster in that it is state owned, plays a few minority oriented programmes and carries no advertising. Besides that it is an enormous expensive populist organisation. It pays high rating Radio 1 breakfast host Chris Moyles £630,000 a year – presumably to avoid him being poached by commercial radio. Now given he is very popular, given the music played on Radio 1 is essentially Top 40 contemporary hits (a highly commercially viable format), you’d have to wonder why people are forced to pay for it? Terry Wogan on Radio 2 gets £800,000 a year, and is also very popular and is on a format (adult contemporary) that is highly commercially viable. Jonathan Ross, who presents a weekly TV and a weekly radio show is to be paid an estimated £18 million to be exclusive with the BBC for the next four years. The BBC also spend millions to share the coverage for the soccer World Cup – the final was simulcast on ITV and BBC1 – why didn’t the BBC leave it alone, as it costs a fortune to compete with commercial broadcasters who themselves were very willing to show it? The reason is – the BBC is driven by ratings, and has little constraint on funding.
*
So is that public broadcasting? Spending vast amounts of forcibly acquired money to compete with commercial broadcasting on their terms? Well the BBC couldn’t give a flying of course, because every year it asks the government to raise the licence fee by an exhorbitant amount, and the government agrees to raise it, by a little less. Apparently the licence fee keeps the BBC independent – ha! Independent from its craven ecological philosophy that makes Friends of the Earth always welcome? Independent such as the statement from a BBC London interviewer that “stockbrokers don’t actually produce anything”.
*
There are conflicting views about the public opinion of the licence fee. According to Wikipedia “a poll by the BBC's current affairs programme 'Panorama' showed that 31% were in favour of the existing licence fee system, 36% said the BBC should be paid for by a subscription, and 31% wanted advertising to pay for the programmes.” The BBC thinks the public is willing to pay £31 more a year – unfortunately it wont test this, because nothing about the licence fee is about “the willing”.
*
A majority want to either not pay (advertising is fine to them), or to choose to be able to pay. The BBC prefers forcing people to pay – this fascist approach is regardless of whether or not you ever watch or listen to the BBC. There are plenty of options not to.
*
Fascist? Really? Well you see, you are forced to have a “licence” to operate an appliance that you own which does not in the slightest way interfere with other people (excluding operating it very loud, but then you don’t need a licence for your stereo or voice!). On top of that, the organisation (Capita) responsible for collecting the licence fee can send agents round to check up on whether or not you have a licence or need one. Then if the agent (who gets commission to catch you) has reasonable cause to suspect you operate a TV set he can apply for a search warrant to check to see if you have a TV – a SEARCH warrant.
*
Yes the BBC is fascist. It is the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.
*
The BBC supports extending this fascism using the Orwellian doublespeak of its surveys. The public isn’t willing to pay the licence fee – it is forced to.
*
British TV owners should boycott the fee and write to the Secretary of State for Culture and say no to being forced to pay for the BBC. The BBC should become a pay TV organisation – that would be true public broadcasting. An easy transition is the shift from analogue to digital. People with digital TVs or digital set top boxes (including all subscribers to existing pay TV services) would be exempt from the licence fee, but would also have to pay a subscription to receive the seven BBC TV channels. Those with analogue TVs and no digital equipment would still pay the licence fee, but this would incentivise them to shift to digital.
*
Of course this will mean the BBC gets less revenue, and will need to divest itself of commercially viable operations or introduce advertising. Local radio should be the first to go, and then the most popular network radio, such as Radio 1, Radio 2 and Fivelive. However, many would save money by not paying for what they don’t want. People on low incomes could watch commercial television without being forced to pay for the BBC, and the BBC would need to be accountable for how much it spends on.
*
However, far too many in the UK are listless useless inert nobodies, who have the “mustn’t grumble” attitude, who rather than fighting for something out of principle, will roll on all fours and pull open their bumcheeks. Oh and don’t expect the BBC to broadcast in primetime a show where this issue is debated openly and evenly – you’d need a truly independent broadcaster for that to happen.

*

and if you want to ask the TV Licencing fascists why they force people to pay for something they didn't ask for, may never use and don't like? Go here. I already have.

*

The TV licence was ended in NZ, largely due to a campaign started by Lindsay Perigo, Deborah Coddington and the Libertarianz – although it was replaced with taxpayer funding and the public didn’t mind that. It is about time that the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation was told it had to convince people to pay for it, not force them – given that it doesn’t understand the concept of voluntary choice, it will be a hard battle.

Do what we say not what we do - Greens on trains

As the final trip of the Overlander is scheduled on Saturday, Stuff has reported on how often Green MPs ever used the train (although it is unclear if it was asked whether they used other trains). The various responses are:

Sue Kedgley (who notoriously takes "publicity" trips on trains) admitted to using it three times in "recent years" to go to Ohakune.

Sue Bradford - no "it takes too long" (but she "loves trains". You might wonder if she ever uses the Auckland trains)

Nandor - no "doesn't have enough time" (but he used to take the Northerner, the overnight Wellington-Auckland service which, of course, doesn't run anymore because of lack of patronage)

Metirea Turei - no, "last caught it in the late 1990s, but now lives in the South Island" (where, there are two profitable passenger train services, and the Southerner died in 2002)

Russel Norman - A month ago, "but had not used it much" because it is "too slow".

*

So they don't catch trains, but want to force you to pay for other people to catch them, or for you to catch them. Now let's not forget that the Overlander is no slower today than it, or its predecessors have ever been. The train also has more catering (including alcohol, meals, snacks available for purchase) than ever before - before 1968 there was NO catering on the equivalent train, and until 1988 it used to stop for 30 minutes at Taihape for lunch. So there is no excuse that service has declined.

*

There is only one conclusion. Green MPs, like almost everyone, see little use for a 12 hour train trip between Wellington, Palmerston North, Hamilton and Auckland. So when the Greens say get the train or bus, don't drive or fly - they don't mean themselves. They mean you, and they'll force you to pay for it regardless, and castigate you for driving. Sue Kedgley caught the Bay Express on one of its last trips, for "publicity", very "Green", and she has done the same for the Overlander - wasting money, fuel and time travelling unnecessarily.

Blair's final conference speech

To the relief of the Labour left, and the Tory Party, Tony Blair has made his final speech to a Labour Party conference. He has done so highlighting exactly what the Blair government stands for. After months of heckling about when he is leaving, he hasn't announced the date, but he has thanked the Labour Party for him being leader - but should we thank him? What’s the scorecard?
*
At his worst is his:

- Pride in massive taxpayer spending in the NHS and schools (unfortunately there isn’t a great deal to show for it);
- Pride in abolishing the minimum wage (while homeless unemployed people still clutter major city streets);
- Pride in introducing new layers of government, particularly London regional government and devolution (and presumably the massive growth in public sector spending these socialist bodies have engaged in);
- Pride in there being “virtually no long term unemployed”, ignoring that the northeast has a GDP of which 57% is generated (redistributed from the private sector) by the state – unemployment through socialist economics;
- Pride in banning handguns, and the soon to be introduced ban on smoking on some private property (called public places);
- Pride in having introduced new layers of welfare by saying “before 1997, there were no tax credits not for working families not for any families; child benefit was frozen; maternity pay half what it is; maternity leave likewise and paternity leave didn't exist at all. And no minimum wage, no full time rights for part time workers, in fact nothing”;
- Supporting energy policy driven by massive state intervention “We will increase the amount of energy from renewable sources fivefold; ensure every major business in the country has a responsibility for greenhouse gas reduction; treble investment in clean technology, including clean coal; and make sure every new home is at least 40% more energy efficient.” ;
- He justifies ID cards and DNA databases because of the results “That is why Identity Cards using biometric technology are not a breach of our basic rights, they are an essential part of responding to the reality of modern migration and protecting us against identity fraud. I remember when I introduced the DNA database. On it go all those who are arrested. We were told it was a monstrous breach of liberty. But it is now matching 3,000 offences a month including last year several hundred murders, and thousands of rapes and other violent offences.”. Apparently the state having data on you is protecting you. Apparently being arrested gives the state the right to hold a database on you. Hmmmm he loses points for that.
*
Let’s face it, Blair is no friend of civil liberties – the ends justify the means, and he has been at the forefront of a significant growth in the state sector in the UK. However, following a forlorn Tory government, that revoltingly stabbed Margaret Thatcher in the back several years before, there have been some good points:
*
He gave the Bank of England independence – you know, the sort the Reserve Bank in NZ has had for many years now. He slammed the mad socialism of previous Labour governments “Even in 1974, the Labour Government spent 2 years renationalising shipbuilding and the public spent 2 years wondering why.” He gets better talking about health and education being consumer driven not bureaucratically driven “My advice: at the next election, the issue will not only be who is trusted to invest in our public services, vital though that is. It will be who comes first. And our answer has to be. The patient; the parent.” Helengrad is about renationalising, and about health and education being driven by bureaucracy. Blair is well ahead of Helen Clark on this one.
*
However, he is best on foreign policy. Perhaps his best statements are these:
*
“the new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit.This is a struggle that will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible.This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it.It's not the consequence of foreign policy.It's an attack on our way of life.It's global.It has an ideology.”
*
Hear hear. This is not about Israel/Palestine - it is not about Iraq, they are attacking our way of life – that is it. 9/11 happened before any invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. If there was no Israel, and no allied presence in the Middle East, they would still wish to eradicate our way of life. It is clear - the terrorists are not "our fault".
*
He continues:
*
“It is not British soldiers who are sending car bombs into Baghdad or Kabul to slaughter the innocent. They are there along with troops of 30 other nations with, in each case, a full UN mandate at the specific request of the first ever democratically elected Governments of those countries in order to protect them against the very ideology also seeking the deaths of British people in planes across the Atlantic.

If we retreat now, hand Iraq over to Al Qaida and sectarian death squads and Afghanistan back to Al Qaida and the Taleban, we won't be safer; we will be committing a craven act of surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril.

Of course it's tough. Not a day goes by or an hour in the day when I don't reflect on our troops with admiration and thanks - the finest, the best, the bravest, any nation could hope for. They are not fighting in vain. But for this nation's future. But this is not a conventional war. It can't be won by force alone. It's not a clash of civilisations. It's about civilisation, about the ideas that shape it.”
*
This is about civilisation full stop. What Islamists promote is not civilisation - it is a racist, bigoted, sexist, authoritarian irrational dark age.

*

Now I’m no friend of the British Labour Party. I tend to see it as a breeding ground for a hodge podge of do-gooding interfering busybodies who think they know what is best, who talk about social justice, combined with a hardcore of died in the wool Marxists who should have been brought up in the USSR. The Labour Party in the UK has little it should be proud of, being a party of big government. However, the Tories have recently been riding high in the polls – based on what? However, the Tories have recently been riding high in the polls – based on what? Blair has a pretty good idea:

“His foreign policy. Pander to anti-Americanism by stepping back from America . Pander to the Eurosceptics through isolation in Europe. Sacrificing British influence for Party expediency is not a policy worthy of a Prime Minister.

He wants tax cuts and more spending, with the same money.

And his policy for the old lady terrorised by the young thug is that she should put her arm round him and give him a nice, big hug.

Built to last? They haven't even laid the foundation stone. If we can't take this lot apart in the next few years we shouldn't be in the business of politics at all.The Tories haven't thought it through. They think it's all about image.”
*
Indeed - Chameleon Cameron has been coined by some - they want to give tax cuts and increase spending, and are largely involved in image manipulation. Blair, of course, knows how important image is. Let’s face it, half of the British public wouldn’t know how to improve government if they tried – they choose image, and Cameron is the younger man, and Blair is yesterday's man, and the predominantly leftwing electronic media (BBC, ITV/Channel 4 news) is out for his blood.
*
I’ve said before that I’ll miss Blair. I will, if only because Gordon Brown is worse and David Cameron has watered down the Tories so much they don’t deserve my support. Blair has presided over Nanny State government growing more and more in the UK, he has also presided over tax increases and increased state spending at all layers of government. He has done little to confront the EU leviathan, a beast that sucks up productivity, innovation and freedom from 25 countries in Europe, and sucks up money to dish out to inefficient, environmentally unfriendly producers of food, undermining producers elsewhere around the world and world trade more generally. The EU is a revolting institution that does little besides sustain massive corporate welfare and be regulatory Big Brother – it is socialism’s revenge for the end of the Cold War. Blair has been weak in confronting this.
*
At best, Blair has rolled back little of what Thatcher did, he shifted the Labour party from being on the far left to being in the centre – more than NZ Labour. Also, he started devolving school control to schools themselves, and allowing private providers of health care to compete with the NHS for NHS contracts – the latter is less important, the former is very important. Giving schools more control and more independence is a welcome step forward in moving education away from bureaucrats and teacher unions, to what parents want.
*
However, Blair’s greatest achievement has been clarity on the war on terror. At this time in history, it has been critical – and one for which he has personally carried much flak. He is hated extensively by many on the left, Saddam’s sycophant George Galloway, Islamists and others who believe in appeasement, despise Blair – it has taken courage to allow so much of his party to hate him, and to continue with policies that undoubtedly are opposed by much of the British public.
*
Nevertheless, he has less than a year as Prime Minister. Whoever Labour chooses as successor is hardly likely to impress me – after all it IS the Labour Party. Britain is a country full of people who love interfering with other people’s lives, this is why it is full of gossip magazines and tabloids that delve into personal matters of the famous. Blair was popular because after 18 years of Tory austerity, he threw other people’s money at so many who wanted it, and responded to those who wanted to ban or compel. The worshippers of mediocrity who comprise most of Labour’s voting public got a PM that exceeded themselves – and when he stood up for values, they hated him for supporting the USA – because the USA isn’t a place that worships mediocrity. In a couple of weeks, the Tories will show their colours - if only they knew what they stood for - if only the great unwashed gave a damn!

UN speeches #1 - the crazy

There was plenty of publicity for Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, and his UN General Assembly speech with its outburst about President Bush, and the smell of sulphur.

*

The wankclass of the western left (you know, they never live in council housing, drive hybrid cars, recycle and hate George Bush and Tony Blair so much) love Chavez and his oil money. London Mayor Ken Livingstone loves him too – he loves him so much that after inviting him to London, Red Ken is negotiating an agreement with Chavez for cheap diesel to fuel London buses. Apparently in return, Venezuela will get advice on transport policy, environmental policy, tourism, CCTV security monitoring and biometric fingerprinting (London is a leader on these things, not that you would notice).
*
Now given Chavez is quite keen on running the Venezuelan media and closing down opportunities for his opponents to campaign, it looks like Red Ken wants to help an old-fashioned leftwing dictator in the making. However, Chavez keeps showing his true colours with statements like this from the Sunday Telegraph:
*
“The descendants of those who crucified Christ have taken over ownership of the riches of the world, a minority that has taken over the gold of the world, the silver, the minerals, the water, the good lands, petrol… and they have concentrated the riches in a small number of hands."
*
Oh really?

*

Chavez has also said the US might have planned the 9/11 attacks. He said the twin towers could have been dynamited. Hmmmm yes. However, the anti-American left listen to him, which is why idiot linguist Noam Chomsky's book (which Chavez mentioned in his speech) "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" is now number one on Amazon.com. Chomsky's pinup status remains -but this is not the place to pull him apart.

No to state funding of political parties

The lead editorial in the Sunday Times today made the case against state funding of political parties beautifully:
*
“It is a lazy answer to the parties’ inability to raise their own money through motivating their supporters. No other organisation can fall back on taxpayers’ money simply because it finds itself unpopular and short of cash. It should be no different for political parties. Taxpayers bear quite enough burdens without making them pay for parties which many of them despise.”

*

Indeed!

New definition of commercially viable

Hi, I have this great business idea. I think it can make a lot of money, it is commercially viable.
*
There’s only one catch, I need your money, in fact I need money from all New Zealanders. $5 million in fact. I’m not going to ask for that money, I’ve found someone prepared to listen to me – he might help me out. You see he can force it out of you all – he can get his friends round to your house to sell your property if you wont pay – or he can make your bank give him the money, and then give it to me. He’s my buddy and he reckons it will be ok – he has done it before to a lot of you – I respect him and his family.
*
You see I reckon I can run a train between Wellington and Auckland and make a profit, get tourists riding it, paying a high fare – and I can’t be bothered borrowing from a bank or finding more investors, when my friend can help me out. He’s going to decide tomorrow with his friends whether to force you to help me.
*
None of the other ways to get between Wellington and Auckland are subsidised, but I am sure my idea is commercially viable. This idea of mine. It really is. That is why I need to make other commercially viable businesses pay for my idea – it’s such a good idea it can't miss. Not that I'll give the money back to you all after it makes money - it's not a loan - it is "economic assistance". So glad lots voted for my mate and his mates last year - otherwise I might have to find the money from people who want to give it to me, and negotiate with the current train operator - I don't know why business should be such hard work!

*

UPDATE 1- My mate's not my mate anymore, he actually made a rational decision. He is quoted by Stuff as having said in Parliament "I very much doubt that running an extremely large diesel engine with three carriages that are usually less than half full is more economic than running a bus or two with significantly smaller engines over that distance". Sometimes there are flashes of inspiration!