Planet Green

Jeanette Fitzsimons occupies a strange place, it isn't occupied by reason, it's a curiosity that means that when she "almost buys" a Chinese made drink in Moerewa, she hypothesises (makes up) about how she got that drink and how trade works. It would be funny if she was simply a private citizen, but you pay for her and she wants power over your body and property.

~

Jeanette is the mistress of the"we" word, the word used when someone actually wants to tell you what to do, because she wants to collectivise everyone under some banner. Take this from the Green Party blog post on the subject:

~

"And what benefit do we get from these dairy exports? Cans of water and sugar" which is extrapolated from her not buying a drink, and there being exports of dairy products to China.

~

Hold on. "We" don't get the benefits from dairy exports, the producers (and those supporting them) do. You don't make anything Jeanette ok?

~

The dairy exporters don't import "cans of water and sugar", someone else does that. The world does not operate in the fairytale land of "New Zealand inc" exporting to China and "New Zealand inc" importing. North Korea does, but New Zealand does not.

~

Besides Jeanette, the imports wouldn't be imported if people did not choose to buy them. Now go along and get your dictionary and find the word "choose". It means people have the freedom to say yes or no. You too can "choose" to persuade them to change their habits, and frankly I'd rather you spent all your efforts doing that rather than advocating force, which you do and have done the whole time you've been in Parliament.

~

She goes on: "We pollute and over-allocate our high quality water here in order to pay for importing doubtful quality water from China. Does that make sense?"

~

Paraphrasing what Not PC would say "what's with the "we" white woman?". "We" don't Jeanette. Get that through your collectively muddled head.

~

Having muddled through all that she concludes with the bizarre notion that "we" "swap", which is utter nonsense of course, unless you think New Zealand is, or should be, a highly planned economy:

~

free trade with China means swapping our good quality water and the health of our children and our rivers for their poor quality water, using lots of fossil fuel to arrange the swap and denying the human rights of their workers.

~

It is not "our" good quality water, it is owned by whoever's property it is on. It is not "our" children either. "We" do not deny the human rights of their workers either, it is the government of the People's Republic of China. You might ask why one of your MPs was once a cheerleader for the regime in one of its darker hours - Sue Bradford

~

Free trade with China is about choices. It is a choice to export to China, and a choice to import. A choice for individuals. If you wish to boycott Chinese imports then feel free, it may be perfectly moral to do so in some cases. However don't ban them.

~

However the Green opposition to free trade is not about human rights, it is not about pollution, it is about opposing choice in trade. The "fair trade" euphemism is actually about regulated trade, and is about ignoring price signals about over production. If the Greens are opposed to the dairy industry (which this post also effectively implies) then that is far more serious.

Mad woman costs us all

This has me absolutely furious. The silly bitch who stabbed a pilot because of her deranged desire to be flown on a small plane to Australia (which wouldn't have made it) is now going to be an excuse to grow the state - yet again.

~

One of the few reliefs of flying provincially in New Zealand is not going through the bloody silly nonsense of security checks before boarding turboprop aircraft. You know, much like we don't do it for passengers on buses, or people driving cars or trucks, even though all of those kill more people every year than aircraft do.

~

However no, the Dear Leader Helen Clark, responding to the kneejerk reaction no doubt of the safety fascists, has said that "tighter security was inevitable".

~

Why Helen? Because a mentally disturbed woman has undertaken a one off attack?

~

The great logic is from Helen:

~

"It was my understanding that we operated the same general rules as in Australia [but] it's now clear to me that there is a size of plane we're flying in this country which, in Australia, would be a jet plane. We apply the same jet plane rules but we have rather a lot of turbo-propelled planes in this country of some size. So that raises some issues."

~

Except Helen a turboprop is not a jet plane, and besides which, why the hell does it matter?

~

This will mean more money for the Aviation Security services then and "Tighter screening is likely to impose extra costs, however, and Miss Clark indicated that those were likely to be borne by passengers on a user-pay basis."

~

Hold on, user pays? Shouldn't this be on an "abuser pays" basis? Shouldn't the woman concerned be required to pay the full costs of health care, damage and delay she has caused? Why should the 99.999% (rounded down) of airline passengers pay more to be screened for an extraordinarily rare event when they are far more likely to be killed or injured being driven to their flight?

~

I know why, because one reason this incident happened is because the state failed... as "She acknowledged, meanwhile, that the woman at the centre of last week's incident, Asha ali Abdille, had "presented a range of agencies with serious issues for quite some time"."

~

Marvellous. So Air National could sue them for this? Hmmm.

Archbishop of Canterbury believes in competing laws?

"An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger" he is reported to have said according to the BBC.

He is quoted as saying "the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system." So what? In fact a lot more than simply Muslims do not relate, there is a whole underclass of yobs and obnoxious oxygen thieves that don't relate.

However, why is that a reasons to surrender the British system?

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law"

PM Gordon Brown has rejected this, and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has said "We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another".

Unfortunately in New Zealand we do, and the leaders of neither major political party want to change that, whereas in the UK the leaders of both major parties and the major third party don't want it.

and so Transmission Gully?

Martin Kay from the Dominion Post is interviewing his PC by speculating that "The potential for private investors to pick up the $470 million shortfall for the planned motorway is firmly on the table"

~

Given that the legislation to do this has been around since 2002, and that there has been some private interest in this, it is hardly a surprise. However, Martin Kay has clearly missed a major point. The proposal for the Waterview project is (presumably) that the full cost of the project is financed by the private sector. Suggesting the private sector finance less than half of the cost of the project, while taxpayers subsidise the rest means that taxpayers are subsidising the return to private shareholders. Indeed, the noise from potential "investors" (nice to invest some money and get a return from the money "invested" by the state too) a few years ago was that they would happily help with financing, building and operating Transmission Gully, if the government coughed up the majority of the cost.

~

The truth still remains that Transmission Gully has low traffic volumes, is not viable as a toll road (even if the current highway is also tolled) and the $955 million putative cost is about to undergo the same type of inflation that Waterview Connection has. Let's not pretend that a costing that is now nearly 3 years old remains accurate in todays money, it is $1.04 billion based on inflation alone. The current detailed investigation phase will probably uplift that by another 20% I suspect. The $485 million "promised" hasn't increased to compensate for that. Again it's a road that the users wouldn't pay for if they had to, nor would those who directly benefit from it, so why make others pay for it?

What do the "anti-war" left think?

I’d have thought the leftwing blogs that claim to care so much about death and destruction in Iraq would be outraged that the Islamist insurgency is training children and using people with Down’s Syndrome to bomb civilians.

However, I have yet to see a single post from the left outraged by it. Surely it can't be because the insurgency is fighting the USA? Surely that doesn't justify using innocent people to bomb innocent people?

My question is this. Do those who opposed the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime support or oppose the Islamist insurgency there?

Quite simply, if you have strong views on waging war against the Ba’athist Iraqi government, presumably you should also have views on waging war against the current one.