Phasing out the DPB

Not PC rightly pointed out that one of the negative consequences of the DPB is that there has been a rising incidence of children being raised by parents who didn't want them, and these children end up being a problem in themselves. Now many on the DPB DO want and love their kids, after all the DPB was intended to cover a number of unfortunate events, such as death of a spouse and separation - not to fund a lifestyle choice.

~

So what could be done? It is easy to say withdraw the DPB, but we all know that wont happen, what is needed is for it to be phased out. Here are some simple steps that, dare i say it, a National government might consider if it really wants to address welfare:

~

1. Freeze the number of children current DPB beneficiaries can claim the benefit for. In other words, if you had two children when you got on it, you can't get more money for a third child.

2. Prohibit claims for the DPB for beneficiaries who wont name the other parent.

3. Replace the DPB with the unemployment benefit when the youngest (eligible) child is at school age, so that the focus moves from domestic purposes to employment.

4. Establish a legal alimony framework to allow the other parent of the dependent child to be liable to share the cost of raising the child. This will mean every separation will see this legal obligation come into effect, which will be predefined unless the parents expressly contract out of it by mutual agreement. Parents cannot rely on the state to fill any gap, beyond the unemployment benefit. This legal framework would effectively end new claims for the DPB.

~

These simple steps would have several effects. Firstly, it would replace state funded parenting with parent funded parenting. Parents would be paying for their kids, and would have to sacrifice part of their earnings to do this, even on low incomes, even on the unemployment benefit. Single parents would be treated as unemployed once the youngest child is at school, shifting the obligation towards finding employment/income. Finally, it would put a substantial new legal obligation upon both parents to share the costs of child rearing, regardless of domestic living arrangements.

~

Meanwhile, you might save enough money to knock a few more percentage points off of income tax, this in itself would also help people afford to raise their children.

~

I know this proposal is hardly that radical, and would mean the DPB is gone within five years. While it would help shrink the state, by far the biggest change would be it would destroy the incentive to have children you can't afford, and suddenly parents who get away with little (mostly men), would have to face the consequences of their breeding.

~

However, much has been written about this by Lindsay Mitchell, who has done and said more on this issue than most. If the Nats do even some of what I've listed, I'll be astounded though.

UK company makes record profit, makes BBC gloomy

So what was the lead item on BBC breakfast news on TV this morning? It was about Royal Dutch Shell making the biggest profit of any UK company in history. Now in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore or even China, this would be something celebrated, an enormous success. However not for the BBC on TV, the manufactured story was “are they ripping us off?”.
^
Now the BBC isn’t stupid. It knows that a profit figure of £14 billion means little unless you have the context of the value of the company. After all, if the assets are worth £500 billion, it isn’t great, if the assets are worth £50 billion it is a tidy profit indeed. However the socialist minded British public see profit like a lottery win – not a return on investment. The BBC didn’t disclose the current market capitalisation of Shell. Secondly, it didn’t reveal where the profit goes. This isn’t clear yet, but presumably some will be reinvested capital and much will be dividends to shareholders, many of which are financial institutions with pensions, deposits and other funds that affect the wealth of many people. Keeping vague about this ensures that many think that it just means a few people living the life of Uncle Scrooge or Montgomery Burns, whereas Shell has generated a profit that will benefit plenty.

^

There is a bigger question about reserves and whether discoveries and current production can keep up with demand, which is what the Daily Telegraph focused on.

^
One thing the BBC did report was where the profit came from – exploration and discovery of new fields, the wholesale market for crude and refined products. It wasn’t retail at the pump, where the margins are closer to 1-2p per litre (noting than in the UK around 70p is tax). This doesn’t stop the leftwing union Unite stating calling it obscene – when what is truly obscene is the extent to which taxes on fuel fund big government at Westminster. Of course Unite doesn’t produce anything itself, it calls for a tax to add to the money that the state takes from oil customers, like far too many socialists Unite worships the fist of the state over the choices of consumers and shareholders.
^
So there you go, big British firm makes a hefty profit and it is held in suspicion. The UK wonders why so many people have a poverty of ambition while a culture of envy is cultivated, and the thieving hand of the state is largely ignored.

^

Of course given that by owning a TV set in the UK you are legally obliged to pay for the BBC, under threat of fine and criminal prosecution, regardless of whether you watch or listen to any of the BBC's content - I would wonder why the BBC can't answer why it can judge Shell, when its customers don't get forced to buy its products, but the BBC forces people who aren't its customers to pay for all of its products? Presumably TV and radio are more important than energy.

Which US Presidential candidate will call THIS ridiculous?

Expelling good students from school for kissing on a bus. Video here of the news article.

The puritanism, the idea there is something immoral about two teenagers kissing in public. The Islamists are closer to how some Americans think than many will admit.

Whose money?

The Dominion Post reports "Wellington City Council will plough $90 million of its own money into a Government-funded revamp of its dilapidated council flats"

Excuse me? Replace "its own" with "ratepayers'". Given 179,466 residents of Wellington city, and assuming one third are children, that means around $749 per adult resident being spent on the proposed council housing revamp.

Of course it could always sell them. After all, why should one of the local authorities with a reasonably above average citizen income be the second largest landlord in the country?

Naughty Ryanair

Isn't the UK Advertising Standards Authority amusing? I mean, seriously. It is not a government body, but you can be sure that if it didn't exist, the government would create it. It has ruled that an ad, that I and millions were unaware of, is offensive.

Now of course, it's been far more widely seen than it was originally, and Ryanair is laughing, and rejecting the finding.

The ad is shown here in the Sun, (mildly NSFW) depicting an adult woman dressed as a tarty schoolgirl. The problem is it "appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behavior" which of course is a link that is completely unjustified. There is no claim the young woman in the ad is under 18, or really a schoolgirl, and she is wearing a uniform that is more likely to be seen at School Disco club events, rather than real life. However, it clearly can't be allowed in post "Carry On" straight laced, highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, Britain.

Of course, surely it should be up to the newspapers carrying the ad, which were the Daily Mail, the Herald and Scottish Herald, to decide whether it is offensive. They are best able to judge their readership. I almost never buy The Independent or the Daily Mail because I often find their content offensive, for example.

~

Ryanair is up for a fight as "Ryanair head of communications Peter Sherrard said the airline was refusing to withdraw the advert in light of the ASA ruling...Ryanair believed there was nothing irresponsible nor offensive in its advert. “Consequently we will not be withdrawing this ad and we will not provide the ASA with any of the undertakings they seek,” he added"

According to the BBC, none of the papers that ran the ad will run it again - but I wouldn't bet it is the last time it will be shown. After all, one thing about the UK, it is full of pervs!

~

Oh and if you don't like it, don't fly Ryanair. I don't, and it's not because of its ads!

Bye Rudy, onto Tuesday (yawn)

He's not happy is he?

CNN reports the Republican race is between McCain and Romney. Now it is up to Super Duper Tuesday. Will the Republicans choose the Mormon flip flopper or the Republican-lite both of whom have similar policies of a little less government in some areas, and a little more in others?

^

Should I simply not care anymore?

^

Well since the "Change we can believe in" site requires me to effectively register, to find out what Obama wants to do, I had to go to Hillary "my entitlement to rule you" Clinton's site. I find she believes in restricting freedom of speech, subsidising families, nationalise parenting and early childhood education, more farming subsidies, massively subsidise the energy sector, strengthen unions somehow, demand all Americans pay their fair share (for what?), and finally be softly softly on the Iranian backed insurgency in Iraq as she wants to "work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war".

^

OK, that's enough reasons to want her NOT elected, shame the Republicans don't give me any reason to be excited about them more than that.

Scotland drops tolls, ignores economic truths

The Scottish Executive, which governs Scotland under devolution with taxpayer funding directly from Westminster, is abolishing tolls on the Tay and Forth Bridges. So, instead of road users paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the two bridges directly (and paying off loans associated with the Tay Bridge), money will come from general taxpayers. Socialism at work - shifting from user pays to bureaucratic planning and taxpayer pays. According to the Scottish Transport Minister this ends "years of injustice". Apparently the injustice is that those bridge users pay for their bridges, but other Scots get their bridges subsidised by everyone else in the UK. Maybe food should be "free" too.

^

Well it wouldn't be if you applied some economic rationality. For starters you could have dedicated the average amount of fuel tax collected from users of the bridges to the bridges themselves, and used the tolls to collects anything left over. You could have sold the bridges. Yes, I know you'd almost rather paint a St. Andrew's Cross on yourself and call yourself English that do something so instinctively anti-Marxist, but you could've. Then you'd still have people saying they pay fuel tax and tolls, but you could have offered to refund the fuel tax, or credited it towards the tolls. After all, what's wrong with user pays? Oh I forgot you're running the Scottish Executive, everything is wrong with user pays isn't it? Because the users wouldn't pay if they had the choice.

^

Of course abolition of the tolls is meant to bring great benefits, by elimination congestion at toll booths. Again, a modicum of research would point out that toll booths are yesterday's technology to tolling, as electronically tolled roads in Canada, Chile, Australia and elsewhere have proven for several years now.

^

The truth will be in a few months time and a few years down the track. Removing the tolls lowers the cost of using the bridge, this increases demand, which will in itself mean congestion at peak periods of demand. This will bring demands for new bridges, which are not cheap. So then you have to decide do you have those who demand the new capacity pay for it, or just be good socialists and make everyone pay for it.

^

In Tauranga, it was less than 2 years after the toll was removed that there were regular reports of lengthy delays on the harbour bridge, and calls for a duplicate bridge. Now the bridge is being built, paid for by all road users nationwide, after NZ First Leader Winston Peters lobbied for it not to be tolled as part of the confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party. No doubt in 10 or so years time there will be demand for yet more increases in bridge capacity or at least peak periods of congestion.

^

Selling the bridges would make far more sense. You may then see the following happen:

^

1. Operators of the bridges that want to maximise their efficiency, so would shift towards lower cost electronic tolling and optimise maintenance;

2. Operators of the bridges that want to maximise throughput of the bridges. This means charging more at times of peak use, but correspondingly ensuring traffic is not severely congested. It also means responding quickly to accidents or blockages, and ensuring maintenance activities are carried out at off peak periods. Don't believe me? Look at the privately built, funded, designed and owned Citylink motorway in Melbourne, because this is exactly what happens.

3. Operators of the bridges that make profits, and might reinvest the surplus in other worthwhile business ventures, pay dividends to shareholders or even build duplicate bridges if they were deemed worthwhile. This is bound to be better use than politicians spending the surpluses.

4. Government would get a substantial windfall of cash it could use to pay off debt and reduce taxes overall.

^

Or you can keep doing the old fashioned tried and tired central planning option for roads. It has been a stunning success hasn't it?

Another reason why the job in Afghanistan was half done

Yes the Taliban were removed, from Kabul and much of the country. Yes, the new administration is friendlier towards the West. Yes it is better than the Taliban, but no.. it is no friend of individual freedom.

^

A death sentence has been imposed upon Afghani journalist, Pervez Kambaksh, for "downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam". According to the BBC the Upper House of the Afghani Parliament "supports" this, reportedly "the Afghan Senate has issued a statement on the case - it was not voted on but was signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, an ally of President Hamid Karzai. It said the upper house approved the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambaksh by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif."

^

It isn't final yet as "Mr Kambaksh has at least two more courts in which to appeal and the sentence would have to be approved by President Karzai to be carried out". One can hope that one of these appeals would be successful. However it simply highlights how little so called "imperialism" has been imposed by the US and allied forces. All that has happened is that an offensive war mongering regime has been replaced by a less offensive non war mongering regime. Afghanis deserved better than this.

Greens oppose apolitical state sector

Transit has for some time now allowed foreign countries to fly their flags on the Auckland Harbour Bridge on various occasions, particularly national days. This policy was reversed last year to avoid controversies with the relevant press release stating "The New Zealand flag will be the sole flag flown on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. It will be flown on both flagpoles and will fly at half-mast on occasions of national mourning as directed by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage".

~

This was a wise step, Transit should, after all, be apolitical. So its most recent decision to refuse to fly the Tino Rangitiratanga flag is correct. Green MP Metiria Turei's response is nothing more than grandstanding. She claims it is pure prejudice. What nonsense. Transit New Zealand is a New Zealand government Crown entity, if it flies flags of political movements it will need to also fly flags for any political party or organisation, and ceases to be apolitical. Turei is quite racist and patronising to claim that the Tino Rangitiratanga flag represents "Maori". Some Maori may support it, but others do not. Turei, like the collectivist she is, believes Maori are a political group, with one set of views. The flag does NOT represent Maori, nor does she.

~

The public sector should be strictly apolitical. The Tino Rangitiratanga flag is highly political. The only "cultural division" here is between those, who like the Green Party, Chinese, Zimbabwean and Russian governments, think the state sector should be politicised, and those who believe the state sector should be beyond politics to the extent possible. So should the Auckland Harbour Bridge fly a flag for free market capitalism too Metiria, or is that unacceptable because it isn't your preferred race?

Kedgley peddles more hysteria

Like some parroting hysteric, Sue Kedgley has found a new conspiracy which threatens the health and lives of us all. It is the possibility that telecommunications transmitters might be installed, of all places, on top of power poles. Her reaction tells all about the use of language as propaganda.
~
The tenor of her press release is seriously unhinged and outright scaremongering with statements such as “telecommunications companies will be able to clutter power poles in residential areas and next to schools and childcare centres with new cellular and wireless technologies”.
~
In that once sentence she loads so much evidence absent value judgments to frighten the ill informed, i.e. those who vote for her. “Clutter” apparently implying that somehow we’re all using the top of power poles now, and will be interfered with, or that it will be ugly. I am willing to wager than in one day, Sue Kedgley would be unable to identify every single telecommunications transmitter site in Wellington City – because so many of them are unobtrusive, and plenty are on top or on the side of building with nobody noticing them. However, I am sure it wouldn’t be “clutter” if they were broadcasting a free to air commercial free channel of leftwing doggerel.
~
Then she talks of “next to schools and childcare centres”, implying, though not saying, that transmitters are “unsafe”. She likes claiming new technologies are unsafe, it gives her something to regulate, something to blame at and it looks like she is saving us all from the evil companies who don’t care. The truth is that she is an unscientific busybody who prefers fear and hysteria to science and balanced debate – she squawks like a parrot, happily stirring fear to gain votes.
~
She continues "We have set up a power pole in Mount Victoria with antennae and masts, to demonstrate how visually intrusive power poles around New Zealand could become”. No doubt using the latest technology with every incentive to make it work efficiently and be unobtrusive right? Of course most homes in New Zealand already have antennae, masts, some have satellite dishes. Perhaps they are visually intrusive too, as are the trolley bus wires that provide a 550v netting over many major arterial routes and city streets in Wellington – but that’s ok, because electric buses are good – telecommunications companies are bad. Of course she has a cellular phone and rarely catches a trolley bus – funny that.
~
She continues her rant “there will be no restrictions on the number of masts and antennae hanging on poles outside homes and bedrooms, regardless of concerns about the health effects of increased exposure to radio frequency radiation”. Forgetting that the laws of physics do impose such restrictions, given poles can’t carry unlimited numbers of these things, and there are serious issues of avoiding harmonics and interference between antennae, and if you have a bedroom next to a power pole then more fool you. More importantly the “health effects” are largely a beat up by her. She completely ignores that every single radio and TV transmits non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, she also ignores the proliferation of home wifi systems as well – presumably this is all good, or because it isn’t an evil entity (telecommunications companies fit that category), it isn’t worth her attention.
~
Finally she says “There is no obligation under the proposed national standard for the companies to pay rentals for the usage of power poles, which in many cases are owned by state-owned enterprises”. Again, her lack of command of the facts says a bit about her. Very very few power poles are owned by state-owned enterprises, largely because most are owned by electricity lines companies. These are not retail companies (which SOEs most certainly own). The implication here is that the beloved warm embracing state that she loves is being “robbed” because of a lack of rentals. She should relax. Not only are they not owned by state owned enterprises in almost all cases (and transmitters on top of Transpower masts are likely to be hardly an issue for numerous reasons), but the issue should be whether owners of poles should be allowed to.
~
So there it is, a press release of hysterical assertions, and leading value judgments with next to no evidence. It bears a mild resemblance to the sort of nonsense that passes for news from North Korea – blurting out fear, blame and demands that something be done – when scratching the surface it is just a grasp for attention, pleading to the ignorant by the power hungry and envy ridden.

Bush's final state of the union address

I don't go along with the views of most people I meet about Bush. It is almost de riguer to treat Bush as an unmitigated disaster. When you probe as to why, the comments tend to be "Iraq" or "foreign policy" or climate change. You see it's trendy to bash Bush. Michael Moore made it an art form, or indeed a multi-million dollar business, ironically - funny how little of that he uses to buy poor people health insurance isn't it?
^

So I react to that, not because I think the Bush administration is an overwhelming success. However, I do acknowledge what has happened. Afghanistan and Iraq have been partial successes, and quite principled too (and contributed to Libya coming out from the cold). It has also been a relatively friendly administration for free trade, challenging Europe to match it on slashing agricultural subsidies at WTO talks - which the EU promptly said "no" to. Yes I can criticise Bush for excessive spending, and for the erosion of civil liberties as part of the war on terror, but I don't doubt that Bush believes in Western civilisation. He called Islamism Islamo-fascism, and he was dead right - you wont hear Gordon Brown say that, let alone Helen Clark, Anyway, so what of his final state of the union address? What DID he say?

^

• He called for a balanced budget, and not by increasing taxes. Good.
• He wants to save Social Security. Bad, but hardly surprising.
• He believes "Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools". Bad, public schools are the problem.
• He wants public school control to be further devolved, and effectively endorsed education vouchers. Good, but it wont happen. Democrats don't like school choice or performance monitoring of schools or teachers.
• He wants standard tax deductibility for health insurance. As far as this reduces taxes for those looking after themselves then good.
• He wants to subsidise state programmes to fund private health insurance. Bad, it undermines the earlier programme, states should raise their funds locally.
• He wants to establish a temporary worker programme for foreigners. Good.
• He wants to use taxpayers' money to subsidise alternative fuels. Bad, let the market decide based on price signals.

None of this excites me particularly, in fact, sadly I can say at best it could be worse. However, Bush does inspire me in one direction - his response to Islamofascism. He said:

"Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent. Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Take that "death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us". THAT is the enemy, as cold and murderous as that. THAT is who is appeased by withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and by befriending Islamism. Bush continues:

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom"

Indeed. It is as clear and stark as that. You wont hear this from Helen Clark, Ken Livingstone, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In fact you wont hear it from the Green Party either. Listen carefully from the Presidential candidates this year, as to who talks of freedom, and who really believes it.

As Bush continues, talk of withdrawal from Iraq, like the left wants to do unconditionally is a nonsense:

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. "

Islamist Iraq would be a disaster for Iraq, and its neighbours (except Iran), and the West.

Beyond that Bush talks of freedom elsewhere, although saying "We will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma -- and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur." may be too short a list. I'd add Saudi Arabia, Russia and China as well. Realpolitik means it is easy to support freedom in relatively weak states, it takes more courage to confront Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

^

You see, flawed though he may be, Bush more than many of his critics, understands that the battle against Islamism is a battle for freedom, and a battle for Western civilisation. It is for this he should be remembered. His domestic record is not inspiring, and on balance perhaps mildly positive. However, internationally Bush has adopted a foreign policy that at best has overthrown evil murderous dictatorships, and at worst had mistakenly replaced them with democracies, not guided by secularism or freedom, but by milder forms of Islamism.

^

The world is a dangerous place, but a withdrawn USA that ignored the hosts of its enemies would not make it safer. Beyond the rhetoric of the centre-left chattering classes, Bush understands that. Islamism is our most real and present enemy, confronting it not appeasing it is critical.

Who's lying John Minto?

The story of John Minto's rejection of an alleged award from the near to one party state South African government has, of course, been well covered. Minto generated plenty of publicity through his open letter to President Thabo Mbeki, himself a man with a flexible view of reality. Minto basically condemns the democratically elected South African government for not being more Marxist, which perhaps says more about what he thinks of democracy - he presumably thought the ANC would be far closer to its communist allies than it actually is (it's already far too close for my liking). As fragile and questionable as South African democracy and freedom is, it is still better than it was under apartheid - but Minto wanted a full revolution.

^

One South African journalist (Mike Trapido) has stuck it to Minto clearly by saying:

^

"Now he wants to thumb his nose at authority again; this time at our expense — build the Minto legend. All he has achieved is to show South Africans that we were misguided in trying to give him the award in the first place — what he actually represents is exactly what we were trying to get away from. Ironically he, despite his views, played a part in that."

^

However the real rub is that Reuters has reported that he was never offered the award in the first place. A statement from the office of the President of South Africa states:

^

"The Presidency has noted publication of an open letter addressed to President Thabo Mbeki written by Mr. John Minto of New Zealand.

In the letter, Mr. Minto claims, amongst other things, to have been nominated for the prestigious Order of the Companions of OR Tambo.In this regard, the Presidency wishes to place it on record that Mr. Minto has not, as a matter of fact, been nominated as a candidate for any of our national orders"

^

So the burden of proof is on Minto - come on - prove it! Post the evidence John!

^

UPDATE: So Minto has now been reported in the Dominion Post as saying "South African sports minister Reverend Makhenkesi (Arnold) Stofile told him at his home last year he had been nominated for the award." Oh so no letter John? No written evidence? Funny that. Given this is a man who once said the death of the Kahui twins was "society's" fault, it's no surprise that he has his own portable reality generator. I guess a journalist will now interview the South African sports minister.

^

UPDATE 2: Now Minto has a friend testifying in the NZ Herald:

^

"Kitch Cuthbert, who attended the Auckland dinner with Mr Minto and Mr Stofile, said her recollection of that night was that the award offer had been a "done and dusted scenario".
"My understanding was that an award of some substance was being offered, and Minty said that he would have concerns and issues about accepting such an award," Ms Cuthbert said.
"I didn't hear the preamble to it, but I thought the offer had been made and Minty had basically said thanks but no thanks.""

^

Not that convincing, a good lawyer would be able to tear that evidence down, but still someone needs to ask "Mr Stofile", his contact details are here.

Clinton or Obama then?

No, I haven't gone mad. Supporting a Democrat? Hardly. Both big government statists, who think "change" is about the state doing more, taking more money and regulating more. They are central planners, and about as inspiring as a public servant.

^

What my point is - which one is more likely to lose against a Republican. Not that the Republican options are inspiring. No.

^

Whilst I'd be concerned about Huckabee, being an evangelical, the truth is his campaign is likely to fizzle out after losing Florida. He might pick up a handful of states on Super Dooper Tuesday, but he wont win the nomination (although he could be selected as Vice Presidential running mate).

^

Unless Giuliani can bring in a miracle in Florida (even getting second will save him, third is probably too little too late), he's out of the race. He could have been a strong contender, but has misjudged and has no momentum.

^

So it's Romney vs. McCain. It will be McCain. Why? Romney has at least two characteristics that are against him:

- He's a mormon, which will kill off evangelical support more than McCain's social liberalism;

- He is a flip flopper. He was liberal in Massachusetts, and now claims to be conservative. He will be eaten alive by either Clinton or Obama, and it will be obvious.

On top of that, his charisma largely comprises a smile.

^

McCain for what he is worth has experience, understands foreign policy, is reasonably socially liberal and, well, he's all there is. Not particularly inspiring for one wanting less government, but he should be able to maintain a strong line against Islamism. Most importantly he wont frighten socially liberal voters, and his military record does inspire some admiration.

^

So who can McCain beat? That IS the question.

^

Clinton is a polarising figure.

^

Although she is more mature than Obama, the claims that she is riding on Bill's coattails, that she is cold and calculating remaining married to a misogynist in order to pursue her own ambitions of power, and her tactics against Obama (which indicate a sense of "entitlement" to the Presidency) are likely to ensure a substantial vote for "anyone but Hillary". Stopping Hillary getting elected may encourage enough conservative Republicans to back McCain, whilst McCain himself is socially liberal enough to not scare centrist independents. Quite simply I don't believe Hillary is electable - against McCain.

^

However, Obama is something else. He now has the Ted Kennedy endorsement, which while hardly endearing him to 40% or more of voters, does give him some momentum to build upon his crushing win in South Carolina. His strong victory in South Carolina shouldn't be dismissed as "oh well, it's a black state so no wonder", he won with over 55% of the vote, with Hillary getting only 26.5%, more than double of her vote. The media also are giving him a relatively clear run, and has done so for several years now. His talk of conciliation, and avoiding division sounds good - his talk of anything substantial is difficult to see, but it doesn't matter. He is a media darling, and if Florida goes well for him (not that it officially matters, though it will substantively), then he does have a chance of carrying it off. Especially given that the Clinton technique to respond when threatened is to get nasty - which plays into Obama's hands beautifully.

^

Obama is no better than Clinton though. In fact given his campaign is subject to scrutiny only superficially, and he can turn attacks into, implicitly, something about race, and turn any attacks as being against his "collegial" style. It's slick, and it avoids substance. Whilst Obama will, inevitably, encourage a racist minority to turn out to vote against him, he wont invoke the hostility of Hillary Clinton. In short, he could beat McCain.

^

So, given the choice between a McCain Clinton or a McCain Obama contest, I reluctantly pick the former. I would like to see the Democratic race be close, and bitter. I'd like to see Clinton snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but only just, and having done so alienated enough of the Democratic base that they wont turn out for the cold calculating collectivist that she is. Obama wont, after all that, be a Vice Presidential running mate, but John Edwards might be, giving some geographical balance between east coast and the south. Obama wont be gone for good, but Clinton's true colours will be shown.

^

McCain might just win under these circumstances, as Clinton's arrogance in believing in the inevitability of becoming the first female President does not pay off. Of course some will say having a female President would be good, to which I say, it really isn't that important - it could be good, not important or bad. It depends on the person, which is really what this should be about.

Prince Charles wont go to Beijing

The Daily Telegraph reports that Prince Charles is refusing to attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, this wouldn't be important really except in two respects:

^

Firstly, if Charles was in the capacity of a private citizen, then good for him. There are good reasons to boycott the Beijing Olympics, notwithstanding the low value that the Chinese communist regime places on human life and ever lower value on freedom. Supporting independence of Tibet is less of a reason, as an independent Tibet per se may not mean a great improvement in freedom there. Nevertheless, the Chinese record is abysmal enough to support independence for Tibet. I don't object to the sentiment or boycotting the games that the vile Communist Party of China and the state it controls will use to paint a rosy picture of how wonderful China is - ignoring how it treats those who disagree, or get in its way.

^

However, the issue is moreso one of the role of a future constitutional monarch, which, notwithstanding accident, Charles will become. The truth is the man is completely unfit for the job. He has laid his cards on the table politically, which, regardless of what views they hold, is utterly contemptible. One can always guess the views of Queen Elizabeth II on politics, she has probably been more comfortable under Conservative administrations than Labour, although Thatcher probably was too liberal and radical for her liking. However, these are matters of hearsay and conjecture, entirely. Not once has the Queen ever expressed a political view of her own. Nor should she. Whatever her views, and she obviously has them, and is entitled to have them, they do not tarnish her role. Charles on the other hand appears to be some sort of muddled up centre-left econut who sympathises with numerous religions.

^

He supports numerous charities, which is, in itself, hardly a problem. Patronage of charities, that do not have a strongly political agenda, are just part of the role. However, he has created several foundations to advance his personal agenda, such as "The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment" to advance his views on architecture and "The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health" to advance his advocacy of unconventional medicine. He has championed climate change and is seen as supporting the likes of Al Gore, hardly an uncontroversial figure. His support for organic farming is well known as well. The big question is when does he cross the line between pursuing personal interests and pursuing political agendas.

^

What happens if a government was ever elected that was negative towards support of organic farming or alternative medicines? What if one was skeptical about man-made climate change? How about one that maintains friendly relations with the People's Republic of China?

^

The decision about whether or not he goes to the Beijing Olympics should be a matter not only of himself, but of the Queen and Cabinet. Clearly, refusing to go will send a negative message, unless it is for non-political reasons.

^

Of course the real solution is simply to let the constitutional monarchy expire when Elizabeth II does. It is time to move on, for the British royal family to be left with whatever assets they hold to manage or mismanage as they see fit, without a single pound of taxpayer's funds. They would remain some sort of tourist attraction no doubt, with pomp and ceremony, but that would be all. Who would be the head of state then? Well that is another matter - but you could do worse than having a written constitution, with a democratically elected President essentially ensuring that the government of the day does not breach its constitutional role.

^

Meanwhile Charles should pull his head in - he must be apolitical - his inherited privilege and influence are such that he is not entitled to anything more.

"Redistribution of wealth" - the phrase of lies

Now this phrase is thrown about endlessly by the left, usually with the weasel word "fairer" in front of it. Now there are two key points about the use of this phrase, and the complete dishonesty behind it.

^

1. It is a euphemism: Yes, what it really means is theft. The word "wealth" is used to imply abundance, a sense of "those who have more than enough", so it is a value judgment that some have more than enough (according to the person who said it, remember this isn't some moral guardian, it is just an opinion). Redistribution does not mean to let people give, or encourage people to give, it means "take". A more neutral way to describe this is "taking property to give to those deemed by me to be more deserving". Those who advocate redistribution of wealth are advocates of theft, given that taking property without permission is quite simply that. After all, if you went into the home of one of these people (or their bank account) without permission and decided to "redistribute" the wealth, they'd call it theft wouldn't they? However, when THEY or their friends do it, it's "ok".

^

2. It is based on a false premise: You see the concept of "redistribution" implies that someone "distributed" wealth in the first place. It implies a central power did so, and also implies that it was not done so fairly. This is complete nonsense. By and large, (the exceptions are in kleptocracies and authoritarian states) property is not distributed. Nobody sits in a room and decided "how much wealth will x or y get today". Now before you say "hold on, my boss decides my pay", well yes - but your boss doesn't decide what property you own, just what you earn based on your labour - which you can remove, or augment through your own effort.

^

The wealth you have is because you earned it through the application of your mind either through owning a business, your job or making a wise investment, or you received it as a gift, inheritance or gambling. Of course some may have wealth due to theft, or due to the state giving what has been taken from others, or due to the state skewing the market through regulation or protectionism. That is the state "distributing" wealth, or rather engaging in theft directly or indirectly.

^

So next time a politician talks about a fairer "redistribution of wealth" ask him or her "who distributes wealth now?" and more importantly ask "don't you mean theft?". You see it is them wanting their hand in your wallet. You might respect them more if they simply said "I want to rob the majority of you so I can give that money to the minority", at least it would be honest.

Zieg Heil - NZ fashion police

In Iran there are police specifically patrolling matters of apparel, particularly women who show too much flesh. In New Zealand there are also police doing this, because, you see, they already perfected rapid response to your house being burgled, your car being converted and the like. The complete absence of real crimes means the Police can now focus on men wearing the Borat swimsuit.

^

Now we all know it is a fashion crime, and I would question as to how many men could get away with it (women of course are hardly a problem really) and not look vile, but this is all besides the point.

^

Now when the Police don't respond to your demands you know what they are doing - stopping people getting offended.

^

I dare people to do this, wear the swimsuit in public (the stadium can set rules on entry, although it is hardly "private property") and go to court, and see where covering up genitalia is indecent exposure.

^

UPDATE: David Farrar quite rightly calls them the fun police. However, will the National Party confront the culture of lack of cost accountability, and varying performance of the Police? Will it even consider radical reform of the Police (decentralising Police into regional forces would be one step worth serious consideration, and no the Police should not undertake any investigation).

NHS die while you wait

Michael Moore, the fat git of an American socialist (you know one of those very wealthy socialists who don't give up their own money to help people but want everyone else forced to first) in his film Sicko praises the UK NHS. I wonder if he would care to meet Colette Mills.

^

According to the Sunday Times, Colette Mills has breast cancer. Avastin is a drug that can hinder the spread of cancer around the body, and could keep the disease under control. However, the NHS - which after all is compulsory to pay for, from National Insurance contributions and income tax - wont pay for it. Nevertheless, Colette wants the drug and is prepared to pay for it to assist her treatment. However, the NHS isn't impressed. It has ruled (after taking her money over many years) that:

^

"any patient who wants to pay for additional drugs not prescribed by the NHS should lose their entitlement to their basic NHS cancer care and pay for all their treatment."

^

Like an envy ridden Marxist, it effectively is saying "oh, so you don't think we give you enough treatment AND you want to buy more? Well fine, pay for all of it".

^

Vile, just vile.

^

The UK Department of Health says that "top-up payments would “undermine” the “fundamental principle of the NHS, now supported by all the main political parties, that treatment should be free at the point of need”. "

^

Besides the minor point that the Department of Health should NEVER attempt to reflect the views of political parties, it fails miserably by only emphasising half of the sentence. It demands that treatment should be free, but fails to provide what Colette needs. In other words, if it takes your money, doesn't provide what you need, then tough.

^

Now here's the statement you'll hear time and time again from leftwing politicians, like Gordon Brown, like David Cameron:

^

"The government claims that to allow some patients to pay for additional drugs on top of their NHS treatment creates a two-tier system between those who can and cannot afford them."

^

Excuse me? So if Colette paid for ALL of her treatment (getting no NHS refund) that isn't a two tier system? So allowing Colette to die is ok as long as there isn't the FICTIONAL absence of a two-tier system. Isn't socialism nice, caring, warm and loving?

^
So will Michael Moore pay for all of Colette's treatment? Now there's a joke. The truth is that it is too late for her to benefit from the interaction of the new drug and her treatment.
^
meanwhile the system happily pays for me, on a well above average salary, to get free doctor's visits, and happily services for free thousands of drunken gits who poison themselves every weekend - for nothing. Great isn't it?

George Habash, terrorist - dead

Habash was the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist movement calling for the total abolition of the "zionist entity" by military means, with no negotiation or compromise. This included fighting to overthrow the Jordanian government of King Hussein so that Jordan could be a base for revolutionary war against Israel.

^

The PFLP engaged in a protracted list of terrorist incidents, one of the highest profile being the hijacking of four airliners in 1970 in the so called "Dawson's Field Hijackings". It rejected overtures of peace from the PLO, and has opposed any settlement with Israel.

^

good riddance to Habash, he was no friend of peace.

Transmission Gully investigation hits problems

After Ohariu MP and Labour lackey Peter Dunne, and Porirua Mayor Jenny Brash shrieked and wailed for Transmission Gully, like they worship some kind of cargo cult - Labour bowed and threw taxpayers' money (not road users notably) worth $80 million to investigate and design the 27km motorway with a $1.02 billion pricetag (note how a reporter keeps quoting a figure of $955 million in 2005 dollars). That work is now hitting a snag. Engineers commissioned to do the first in depth investigation work of the route can't find the faultline along it. You might recall that politicians supporting the road were all far more concerned that the current route along the coast could be cut off by an earthquake, but in the "no shit sherlock" file didn't seem to notice that Transmission Gully IS ALONG A FAULTLINE. Let's build a billion dollar motorway along a faultline, on the basis that - hey if there is a major earthquake, even though the coast road might be knocked out, Transmission Gully almost certainly WOULD be destroyed. Engineers are finding the road might be too close to the faultline, and on top of that several farmers are saying no to having their land drilled to find out more. Understandably so - it is their land after all (for those unfamiliar with the concept, then please publish your name and address for people to explain what an absence of property rights means to come visit you).

^

As is reported in the Dominion Post:

"Local geologist Tony Edwards, who mapped the section of fault line running through McKays Crossing, believed it ran several hundred metres east of where it was traditionally placed through the northern section of the Gully route. "It would not be wise to build a road or bridge within about 200 metres of the fault," he said"

^

I don't doubt the first utterance that Transmission Gully might not go ahead will call screams of hysteria by umpteen politicians, who want their pet project to proceed.

^

You see New Zealand is rolling in such bucketloads of GDP that it can afford to do this.

^

No doubt Dunne and Jenny Brash will not care about the cost - ignoring that unlike all other road projects underway in the country, Transmission Gully cannot be built by only levying road users (certainly not by levying users of Transmission Gully) and its economics remain highly dubious.

^

Anyway, if you want more on Transmission Gully, I blogged this issue to death two years ago. It highlights, more than anything, that when politicians meddle in an area, they very very rarely have the incentives to make decisions based on best value for money, but rather based on a popularity contest for how they look like they've spent the most of people's money for a monument.

Holocaust memorial day

Some say they already know, some say it ignores or takes attention from other incidents of genocide or mass murder, but it doesn't matter that some know, it doesn't matter than many might not want to be reminded, and it is not the same as other incidents of genocide, nor does it take attention away from them. Those comments in particular fail to do justice about what happened in the 1930s in a country that had been widely seen as a civilised modern state. The Holocaust showed that those who thought themselves above tribalist brutality could do so en masse, could do so efficiently, callously and that people sat by and did nothing.

^

Today Sunday 27 January is International Holocaust Memorial Day. It marks the day of liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp. It is about remembering all those murdered by the Nazi state, from six million Jews to 200,000 disabled people to gypsies, Poles, Soviet POWs, homosexuals, political dissidents from socialist to liberal persuasions. The utter complete dehumanisation of all those effectively declared "unpersons" by the Nazis remains a horror unparalleled in its comprehensive efficient single mindedness. It also reminds that the murders of the Khmer Rouge, the Hutu militia, the Sudanese government, the Serb nationalists and all others show that mass slaughter based on collectivist ideology has not evaporated - indeed it show no sign of having been eradicated.

^

So take a moment to remember, remember those who had their jobs, their homes taken from them, who were beaten, bullied, robbed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated and killed, like cattle. Those who were rounded up as enemies of the nation, and slaughtered en masse, day after day, week after week for years on end. This whilst so many peacefully went about their business, turning a blind eye to the train loads of human cargo, the neighbours who were taken away at night never to be seen, the propaganda blaming troubles on the one group of people who never ever threatened you or others.

^

The Holocaust was the natural conclusion of violent collectivism - the elimination of those who do not fit the collective vision, the collective punishment of them and the demonisation of them based not on what they do, or even what they think, but what identity they fit. Take a moment of silence to remember, and just think, think of those who use identity politics now to demonise.