Just one more chance

to keep Jeanette Fitzsimons out of Cabinet and away from implementing eco-faith based initiatives. She's long been the nice warm fuzzy face of the party, and although she means well, it is an enormous relief she hasn't had the reigns of power. I wont miss her for one moment.

.

Given the Green Party belief that leadership should be shared by sex, it means fascist Sue Kedgley, racist Metiria Turei or serious fruitloop Catherine Delahunty (if the Green vote holds ups in the polls) will be the replacement. None will be as warm and fuzzy as Fitzsimons who was polite enough to keep quiet in debates (better to be thought of as foolish than prove it).

.

However Jeanette isn't that warm and fuzzy, she has spread fear, irrationality and ignorance as part of her career. You only need look back at the history of her press releases,which goes back ten years. Furthermore she manufactures her own version of what others say or advocate. The mainstream media have let her get away with it for far too long.

.

She has long opposed world trade, not getting her non-business like brain around the concept of comparative advantage. After all, she'd argue why ship aluminium from New Zealand to the USA to make into planes flown in New Zealand. She worships at the altar of rail, pouring other people's money down this obsession. Selectively quoting a report to say rail looks better than road, yet ignoring the parts of the report that say the marginal environmental costs of road and rail freight are similar. However, it is too easy for me to rip to shreds this complete nonsense, better to focus on the rest of the evidence.

.

She's been substantially responsible for spreading the unscientific scaremongering about genetic engineering, calling it "anti-environment and anti-health", with no objective evidence to prove it. In fact much of the 2002 election campaign was based on fear spread by her and her colleagues that GE hadn't been proved safe, much like electricity, flying, fire and the wheel (all of which have killed thousands of course). In 1999 she proclaimed it was the last christmas to enjoy "potatoes you can trust", what nonsense. She said free trade with the USA would allow irradiated food into the country, because anything with the word "radiation" is bad. In fact I lost count of the bizarre GE press releases by her.

.

She spreads the anti-nuclear scaremongering as well, opposing a shipment of nuclear fuel to Japan, saying it could be used for making bombs, which a power company is unlikely to be interested in. Yet she has not yet ever protested outside the Iranian embassy in Wellington against its failure to be fully transparent with the IAEA. Nuclear bad, though she hasn't told the Japanese or the French how their economies and environments will be destroyed by nuclear power, maybe because they haven't been.

.

She treats the country as if land is owned by everyone, not property owners - she has little concept of property rights at all.

.

She has supported wholeheartedly the confiscation of Telecom's property rights on grounds of "promoting competition", but completely opposed splitting the then dominant government electricity company ECNZ, because apparently it's ok for the government to control three-quarters of the country's electricity market.

.

She claimed the Wellington Inner City Bypass would see heritage buildings destroyed (it didn't) and people would be forced from their homes (no private property was destroyed), and that a community was "fighting for its survival". Of course the community still exists and congestion has been eased.

.

She makes the bizarre assertion that US foreign policy is a "programme of bombing the poor of the developing world in order to feed its oil habit". As if the US seeks to target poor civilians, and has attacked more than one major oil producer. Slanderous nonsense. She says "War is a violation of the UN Charter, unless a country is a proven aggressor" apparently Iran, Kuwait and their own Kurds and marsh Arabs didn't count for Jeanette.

.

She digs the filthy dregs of lies further by saying Don Brash's call for the state to be racially neutral is some sort of sexist racist plot "Like the Victorian imperialists he’s emulating, Dr Brash’s vanilla vision is of a patriarchal, middle-class society where all women bake scones, all men are bankers – and the only brown faces are products of the tanning clinic". So vile. There being nothing about Brash which is sexist, there being nothing about decrying people of different careers and nothing about removing other races from society. She further said "National would deny what will soon be a quarter of our children the chance to grow up understanding and celebrating their own heritage". When did Don Brash or National say it would ban Maori culture, or engage in neo-Nazi policies? Doesn't matter, smear smear smear. She then said "he essentially wants Maori to be brown Pakeha", more utter lies. This illiberal identity politics based liar.

.

She said "Ms Fitzsimons said Te Puni Kokiri, Te Mangai Paho and other Maori agencies set for the chopping block under National had done wonderful work in emboldening and supporting Maori New Zealanders" Yes, though mainly those working for them, Jeanette loves bureaucracies and spending taxpayers' money, because you see, that is about "support".

.

She might get credit for sort of living the Green lifestyle to some extent, with an eco-friendly house, and she is into biking and public transport (although I don't think she always gets the train to and from Wellington). She has supported legalising possession of cannabis by adults for personal use, but has shown no interest in people being accountable for their health costs. However, overwhelmingly her political career has been one of simpering scaremongering, predominantly about GE, more recently spreading utter lies about what was once National party policy on having colourblind government, and perpetuating the nuclear"bad" nonsense, along with cheerleading on unilateral action on "climate change", with a dash of exagerrated anti-Americanism thrown in.

.

If she was just silly, like she is on most issues, she could be laughed away. However she's not, she's a deliberate distorter and scaremongerer. She has led a fight against science and reason that, to its credit, Labour has partially resisted. It is like a dangerous dogmatic religion against genetic engineering, and that is her legacy. Meanwhile, her campaign against Don Brash, which was a vile distortion of what he DID say and what WAS his policy was the sort of filthy fictional politicking that she accused the Nats and Brethrens of applying to the Greens.

.

Whichever party is dominant after the next election, let's hope the Greens are not part of that government. Labour almost certainly would need the Greens, National shouldn't - it should ignore the Greens, and it is about time the media turned its eyes on Jeanette Fitzsimons and what she really is about.

So what's Queen's Birthday about then?

No we all know it's not her real birthday, that's 21 April. It's meant to be the date of her coronation (and it is this year, 2 June).

Yet it isn't a public holiday in the UK. Ah the colonies.

Are Anderton and Kedgley going to protest against Mugabe?

Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton and Green MP Sue Kedgley are both attending the UN Food Summit in Rome, as is Zimbabwe President and murdering dictator Robert Mugabe.

Will Jim and Sue speak up against Mugabe? Will they decry his attendance, like Australia is doing so, as hypocritical given his policies alone are responsible for turning Zimbabwe from a food exporting to a starving net importing country?

Or will they play the typical NZ foreign affairs game of not wanting to offend anyone.

A boycott would be nice, but I doubt Jim and Sue would boycott a trip to Rome during its summer.

Iranian President, advocate of eradicating Israel, nuclear enthusiast and homophobe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is attending too. However, Sue and Jim wont speak out against a great trading partner, even if it executes teenagers for having sex.

So we'll see, see the great party of principle that champions human rights,sitting at a table with two of the most egregious violators of human rights today. Bet you wont hear a peep from New Zealand - vile, disgusting appeasers of murdering lying scum.

Greens support European Common Agricultural Policy?

A bizarre new ideology is being pushed by the Greens - it's called variously "food democracy" or "food sovereignty" or "food security".

Sue Kedgley has spoken about this, with a combination of hysteria and banality that sends the mind boggling. Take a few quotes:

"food commodity markets have become a magnet for speculators and traders fleeing Wall street. Commodity speculators are pouring billions of dollars into commodities and grain futures –betting on the future of grain. They don’t actually buy or sell a physical commodity, like rice or wheat, but bet on its price movements. As food has been turned into a distant tradable commodity, a form of capital, to be traded and speculated upon, grain prices have soared, putting food stocks further out of poor peoples reach. "

So it's new that food is a tradable (sic) commodity. Not only that she thinks futures are a "bet" over nothing, when they are trading a contract to trade a commodity. A stupid neo-leftwing misinterpretation of what all those "rich folk" do, like the notion that share trading is about nothing at all -when it is about owning businesses.

She goes on with the typical "big bad corporation" vs "poor little country" nonsense saying "So we have an extraordinary situation where agribusiness giants like Cargills and Monsanto are making record profits while countries like the Philippines and Bangladesh can not afford to buy the rice they need because prices are so high. " Well Sue, countries don't buy food, people do. Both the Philippines and Bangladesh have suffered due to price controls and trade restrictions by their own governments. You might note that the trade in rice is particularly heavily distorted because countries like India ban exports, and others like Japan virtually ban imports, restricting very efficient producers like Vietnam and Thailand from being able to increase production to meet global demand.

but Sue doesn't support free trade.

She loses the plot completely here "This brings me to another major underlying cause of the present crisis -- the so-called trade liberalisation agenda or theology that global institutions like the World Bank and the IMF –and of course our government --have been pursuing for decades, and forcing on developing countries." Why is this a cause of the crisis Sue, since trade liberalisation in agriculture has yet to seriously occur? Well...

"Free trade is based on the premise that food should be grown and produced wherever in the world it can be produced more cheaply. If another country can grow something more efficiently we will no longer grow it here because it is inefficient. " No Sue, is it based on the premise that producers and consumers should be free to choose what they sell and buy according to mutual voluntary interaction.

Then she really loses it "The WTO enforces this through global trade rules that require countries to open up their agricultural markets to global competition and forbid them from protecting them from cheap imports, as this is seen to distort or interfere with the mysterious workings of the free market". Well in case you didn't notice Sue, open trade in agriculture doesn't exist. The EU, Japan, USA and some developing countries are against it - so how are you blaming something that doesn't exist? What do you think the current round is all about? Complete nonsense, it's no wonder you find the free market mysterious, since you can't even identify when it doesn't exist.

"No one has ever been able to explain to me why the leading flag wavers for free trade, Europe and American, are allowed to continue to heavily subsidise their own farmers, while preventing other developing countries from subsidising their own" Um Sue, they are not the leading flag wavers for free trade, New Zealand and Australia are. There is no free trade in agriculture, and developing countries continue to subsidise and protect their own agriculture too. However, you're either stupid or making it up by now.

"The result is that dozens of developing countries that were once self sufficient have become huge importers of food, and now find themselves at the mercy of a global market and skyrocketing food prices." Well dozens is an exagerration, but the fault is not free trade Sue. It doesn't exist in agriculture you imbecile.

Then she quotes the Minister of one of the biggest offenders of all "The French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier commented recently, that food is not simply a matter of trade and food cannot be left to the laws of the market alone, neither to financial speculators. “The answer to food insecurity is not brutal liberalisation of trade, but the development of agriculture all over the world and not only where it is profitable to produce it.”

Excuse me? So Sue Kedgley effectively supports the view of a man who defends European agricultural policies that shut out producers from NZ and developing countries from European markets, that subsidise European producers to NOT produce (hiking up prices), that subsidise European food producers and exports undermining producers in other countries. The Common Agricultural Policy is economic and environmental vandalism, but Kedgley is too stupidly attached to statist collectivist ideology to know better. She is effectively siding with the enemies of New Zealand farmers. Thanks Sue!

Then she starts being a bit creative with the facts "Many countries are now giving top priority to food security, increasing agricultural productivity and self sufficiency. The Philippines, which has been rationing rice, has announced its intention to move from being one of the worlds biggest importers of rice to being self sufficient within five years. " Actually Sue, it is not one of the best places for growing rice given its geography, but the high price is making it more economic. Much land is government held and is being set free, and very poor infrastructure (mainly roads - those evil roads) has been a reason for poor production.

Now it's make up facts time "Many countries are openly flouting WTO rules and are putting controls over food prices, exports and imports, introducing agricultural subsidies and creating food reserves –none of which is permitted under WTO. " She doesn't say what countries, and it is an out and out lie, since agriculture is not part of most countries commitments to the WTO. She ignores that price controls do nothing to encourage production or attract more imports. She's far too stupid to know that interfering with trade does far more to reduce supplies and increase prices than not doing so.

So she argues for a "national food security strategy", something she admits Jim Anderton says is loopy. Her Maoist type solution includes "We want all primary school children to be taught how to grow, harvest and prepare food. We want to grow edible trees in every school in New Zealand, and on parks and reserves as well. " See she'd rather your kids grew tomatoes than traded them, and she wants edible trees (!) growing in public places, and we can watch the fruits being plundered as soon as they emerge.

"We want to encourage a much greater uptake of fair trade food, so that when we buy imported food we know that we are supporting, not undermining, their local farmers." Or paying more for the same product, so we can buy less of other food. Why should there be "fair trade food" when prices are getting so high? Oh no, she can't link the two can she?

"We want to encourage a similar turning away from industrial, petroleum dependent food towards local food production. " In other words, LESS food production. That'll do wonders for prices then.

Sue Kedgley is dangerous. Dangerously stupid. She supports the obscene system of subsidies, protectionism and trade barriers that has exacerbated food production in developing countries, but more importantly has undermined the New Zealand economy for decades. She doesn't give a damn that this damages the economy, she thinks we can be self sufficient like North Korea. She advocates moving from efficient mass produced food to quaint locally produced high price, low production food. Nice for some, but it means some will starve, as there will be LESS food. She'll want price controls then, and that means there is even LESS incentive to produce.

The economic illiteracy is scary, this is from the same party that would rather Fonterra sell cheese, butter and milk well below market price than let farmers profit from the best dairy prices in ages. This foolishly forgets that if domestic prices were controlled, there would be shortages because what farmers would sell domestically if they could get more money exporting?

Food sovereignty, democracy, security, whatever term you wish, is a shroud for protectionism and statism. It is the notion that people don't know what is best for themselves, that the decisions of millions and millions of people aren't right, the idea that people should pay a lot more or less for something than what others are prepared to pay, or taxpayers should be forced to pay for production or consumption. It is the wishful thinking of arrogant planners who can't stand that the results of those millions of decisions means things aren't perfect for everyone, so think their little brains can change something and make it better.

High food prices are partly the fault of the biofuel fetish, driven by many environmentalists. That should end, at least in the sense that government subsidies or incentives should end for it. A bigger problem is how the subsidies and protectionism of the EU has stifled production elsewhere, how trade restrictions hinder production and the ability of farmers to benefit from high prices and respond to them, and the ability of consumers to source the best prices available.

Given Sue Kedgley doesn't understand futures trading, and doesn't even realise that trade in agricultural commodities doesn't come close to open and free trade, you can't expect much intelligence to come from her on these matters. In fact the nonsense she is spouting simply makes things worse.

Greens sit on the fence

According to the NZ Herald the Greens are now proudly saying they'll sit on the fence as to which party to back after the election until it sees National policy.

That in itself should tell you how pointless a vote for National is - if the Greens can't even be frightened by it now. Russel Norman harks back a good 27 years to give Labour kudos in saying "Labour had shown leadership in keeping nuclear ships and Springbok rugby teams out of New Zealand in what had been brave moves." What leadership is that Russel? Oh that's right the leadership of distancing New Zealand from the Western alliance against the tyranny and human rights abuses of the USSR, on grounds of total scaremongering. Yes and the Springbok tour, a bit long ago now wasn't it? Labour also set up New Zealand's embassy in Harare after Mugabe's thugs had committed genocide in Matabeleland, but after all he was a Black African Marxist, that made him ok.

Norman said "the parties seems to share a philosophy that beneficiaries and children "must suffer" whereas the Greens wanted benefits and minimum wages raised." That's right. Only the state can make life for poor children better, not the people who took the urge to reproduce themselves. The Greens want more state welfare, that's clear.

To give the Greens credit, they do believe in something. They are the high church for the religion of environmentalism, and all of the faith (rather than evidence) based beliefs attached to it. They advocate shutting down alternative points of view. They promote state constitutional racism. They want more government and more taxes, and believe the state is the answer, believe they can change what's bad and their interventions will make it good. They think people should be penalised for too much success and rewarded the bigger they fail to look after themselves or their kids.

The Greens are the true party of the left in New Zealand. The Green moniker is simply the latest empirical "justification" for large scale state intervention. Green means big government, unless, of course, you are talking about narcotics, and certain civil liberties.

Herald responds to TVNZ's moans about Sky

A NZ Herald editorial rightfully points out that TVNZ's moans about Sky are ill founded, as its competitors never called for it to be dismembered:

"Not so many years ago TVNZ ruled the screens in this country with its twin channels and a seeming monopoly on events of public interest...Both Sky and TV3 have had to struggle at times against the might of the state broadcaster. They did not call for tougher regulation and a compulsory carve-up of TVNZ's business. They took their losses, regrouped and competed.

At one time TVNZ was Sky's largest shareholder. After it sold in 1999, the subscriber channel strengthened and TVNZ's troubles began. Since then the state broadcaster's commercial performance has been as dismal as its content. A change of Government will probably end its charter confusion and force it to stand on its own competitive two feet. That is what it needs."

Yes, TVNZ could be sharing in the profits of Sky but chose not to - hopefully the next government will give it a chance to operate commercially, if not just sell the whole damned thing off. As I've said before, TVNZ had a 29 year headstart on television in NZ, with a statutory monopoly. How much advantage do you want?

NHS - murdering thieving fraudsters

It is about time every British taxpayer stopped for a moment and questioned one of the great legends of our time - that the National Health Service in concept, principle and practice is, by and large, good. I am calling them murdering thieving fraudsters not as an exercise in political hyperbole, but fact. Allowing someone to die without treatment that you deny, for no medical reaso, that you would otherwise provide, is premeditated murder. It is thieving to have used money taken from that person by force and fraud to not provide what would reasonably be expected to be provided for that money. It is repulsive beyond words.

It has been shown now to be an institution of thieving fraudsters, who receive money forcibly extracted from taxpayers, but denies what it says it will provide - healthcare to those who need it when they need it. If it were a private firm, the BBC consumer programme "Watchdog" would be all over it, if it were an oil, gas, telecommunications or water company there would be cries for it to be taxed, regulated, price controlled or otherwise penalised. No. All it gets is more money, and little accountability for how it treats those it is meant to care for.

The Sunday Times today reports the appalling story of Linda O'Boyle. She was diagnosed with bowel cancer and started receiving chemotherapy. Doctors advised her that her chances would improve if she started taking another drug, cetuximab. However, it was "not routinely funded by the NHS". That in itself, is not the primary outrage. Although it does highlight the average production line standard of care the NHS offers, not the best treatment available.

Mrs. O'Boyle then committed the cardinal sin, she decided to raid her savings to pay for the drug privately. After all, her savings were meaningless when she had her life to fight for. The Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation withdrew all her chemotherapy treatment.

The reason given was "Mrs O'Boyle is clearly a rich bitch who can afford whatever the hell she likes, she probably had those savings taken from the palms of begging children and was some Dickensian slave merchant who stole from the working classes, so fuck her. She can pay for all her treatment, we can use her taxes and National Insurance contributions to pay for the wounds and diseases she inflicted on the poor as she was saving up for her hoity toity upper class lifestyle. She probably liked Thatcher too, the heartless cow. We keep the red flag flying here"

Well not quite, but may as well have been. It did say "A patient can choose whether to continue with the treatment available under the NHS or opt to go privately for a different treatment regime. It is explained to the patient that they can either have their treatment under the NHS or privately, but not both in parallel". So you see, you either have inadequate NHS treatment, or you pay for the lot yourself. She asked if she could pay for the NHS to dispense this one additional drug, but no.

The NewLabour socialist prick who authorised this is Health Secretary Alan Johnson who claims "that co-payment would create a two-tier NHS, with preferential treatment for patients who could afford the extra drugs. Last year he issued guidance to NHS trusts ordering them not to permit patients to pay for additional medicines.".

Preferential? The preference to pay to live or die under your inferior compulsory system? How much envy must drip from the veins of Johnson to deny people to top up their inferior (but paid for) state healthcare with their OWN FUCKING MONEY? He takes your money, spends it on healthcare that doesn't meet your needs (you know, reducing your chances of survival meets that test) then says effectively "want a bit more? Well fucking pay for the lot yourself you ungrateful sod."

I'd like to see Johnson face up to Brian O'Boyle, her husband, and see how courageous the little socialist bastard is defending this outrage. Johnson of course deserves a smack in the face for being part of the thieving fraud that is the NHS. Of course if this happened in the USA, it would be the fault of the insurance company, but at least you would have clear grounds for court action.

Six other patients have undertaken legal action to seek judicial review of the decision.
.
Adding to the outrage is the mealy mouthed David Cameron, ever keen not to offend the bludging lumpen-proletariat he can now get votes from. He said it was "tempting" to allow top ups, but the Sunday Times says the Tories are reluctant to express an opinion as it could be seen as "favouring middle class people who can afford to buy extra treatment".
.
Oh spare me. Those scum, we can't possible defend the bulk of taxpayers, who save AND look after themselves can we?
.
The NHS exists and serves well those who don't look after themselves, who pay next to no taxes and don't make any provision for their future. Those who pay for it though, can just go and fuck off and be happy with whatever they get.
.
You see there already is a two-tier health system in the UK. Those who rely fully on the NHS, and those who can rely fully on their own funds or private health care. The middle classes who can't afford to pay twice get screwed in the middle. Clearly old Labour doesn't give a damn and is willing to let people die and take their money for the privilege, the Tories even more disgustingly show that courage left them with Lady Thatcher.
.
According to the Sunday Times editorial, lung and stomach cancer survival rates in the UK are below that of Germany, Belgium and the USA. Yes the USA, the bastion of evil profit oriented healthcare. It might be that the incentives in the USA are to detect early, treat quickly and ensure you keep paying premiums by not being dead. Germany has an insurance based model with a basic level of state run health insurance, but the option to top up with private care. Private insurers vary premiums based on risk.
.
It describes further how two men who paid for their own cancer treatment "they are regarded as non-people. The authorities would rather see them die than treat them again"... "there remains in some parts of the NHS an almost Maoist determination that the collective must always reign supreme over the individual"
.
It's time for British people to stand up and demand that either the NHS grant them all what it says it will, or you have the right to opt out and get your money back. Otherwise is it fraud, rewarding the indolent and self destructive, and thieving from the hard working and spendthrift. The NHS is willing to let people die for the sin of wanting to pay for more treatment that its leviathan like bureaucracy is willing to provide - for that it should spark an outrage throughout the country, and that very wealthy fat socialist git from the USA - Michael Moore - should be told to shut the fuck up about something he knows nothing about, after all, how many people has he paid health insurance for?

Oh and I forgot one thing, the drug Mrs O'Boyle sought is free under the NHS in Scotland, you see, that's because the socialist government in Scotland gets more money per head of population than is spent in England (without needing to tax people for it). Now that can't possibly be because so many Labour seats are north of the border can it?

Globalisation and free trade creating jobs

In the Daily Telegraph on Saturday was a report that Hornby Group, manufacturer of model trains, Scalextric slot car sets, Corgi model cars and Airfix model planes, has enjoyed substantial growth thanks to outsourcing much production to China.

Yes I can hear the moans from the left "our jobs gone to foreign folk in China". In fact when current CEO Frank Martin joined it employed 120 people in its UK premises in Margate, now it employs 150 - and that is following shifting manufacturing to China. Why?

When he joined it had sales of £24m p.a. with pre-tax profits of an abysmal £1.4m. Now sales are £56m with profits of £8m. Part of it is the combination of Thomas the Tank Engine and Harry Potter reviving interest in model trains, but more importantly outsourcing allowed production costs to be lowered substantially - so more could be invested in new products.

"Before the move to China, there might have been one new model locomotive every three years. We are now introducing to the UK on average four new locos every year and the same applies to Scalextric, where there might have been one new car introduced each year and we are now introducing between 12 and 15 new cars each year."

So you see design staff have trebled, and more products mean more sales. In addition, lower production costs allow for more detailed and authentic designs to be produced at prices consumers are willing to buy.

So better products, jobs in a poor country and more (better paying) jobs in the UK. Isn't the free market oppressive? Read the full story here.

The spin of smear.

Idiot Savant should know better than to put words into someone's mouth by claiming "Former National Party leader Don Brash wishes he'd been more radical and autocratic during his time in Parliament."
.
The article he quotes from never says the word autocratic. It does say "stamping his authority", which is about announcing policy over the heads of his colleagues, not being politically autocratic. That's the realm of the left and the conservative right, which he is hardly a member of.
.
After all, autocracy is part of the leftwing project of higher taxes for the more successful, state subsidised and protected monopolies of healthcare and education, and regulating what people can do with their own property.
.
Since when is less government more autocracy, unless you think the warm bosom of the state run by the people for the people is not autocratic. Honestly, who can think Brash would be as autocratic as Helen Clark, who has run indisputably been in charge since 1999?

Matt McCarten's mindless musings

Lindsay Mitchell and Cactus Kate have both written well on this, we should remember what Matt McCarten's great political achievement has been - the virtual demise of the Alliance. During his reign the Alliance lost the Greens, and then lost its modest personality cult of a leader (his party is still in Parliament, in the form of him).

He thinks laissez-faire capitalism is this "Its ideology is quite simple: we're all essentially greedy and we should be free to make as much money as we can. If we exploit others in the process - well, that's just the free market at work." It isn't that we are all essentially greedy as much as we should be free to do as we wish, as long as we don't initiate force or fraud against others. You see Matt approves of state violence, he thinks it is ok to steal, defraud, and spend other people's money against their will. However you might wonder why he still matters?

Why has Amnesty forgotten North Korea?

Amnesty rightfully calls on governments to address the worst human rights crises, though I question when it says "There is a growing demand from people for justice, freedom and equality" as to what the hell "equality" is. Creating equality can damn people more than letting things be.

It lists countries where it is clearly has the highest concern - China, Myanmar, Russia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iraq and the territory of Gaza.

However, what of North Korea? The only country that imprisons children as political prisoners, that runs the entire country as a prison - that condemns entire families when one speaks out of line. It is an Orwellian horror, but no it first mentions China - yes a place with many concerns, but which has also improved considerably over recent years. North Korea hasn't. It mentions the USA, and as much as modest torture by a Western liberal democracy is unacceptable, it is light years away from North Korea. Russia is getting worse again, which is a genuine cause for concern. It raises the issue of EU complicity with rendition.

This is all small fry compared to Zimbabwe, which itself is small fry compared to Darfur- perhaps the only instance comparable in scale to the North Korean prison state horror.

Amnesty says nothing, although deep in its website it does note North Korea. The Green Party remains absolutely silent about it, like it remains silent about human right abuses in Vietnam, but jumps on the China/Tibet bandwagon because it is popular - even though abuses of freedom and individual rights in China look like a holiday compared to North Korea, but are similar to Vietnam.

So how about it? Who the hell is going to stand up against the child torturing slave state run from Pyongyang? I'm convinced Amnesty doesn't support it, I'm also convinced the Greens don't, so why don't they bother? The more this is publicised, condemned and outrage is expressed, the sooner this will stop.

Labour to let Kedgley damage NZ trade policy

Sue Kedgley, hysterical hyperbolist, according to the Greens "is attending the High Level World Food Security Conference in Rome next week, as a member of the New Zealand delegation."

She is paying her own way, but by what measure does she have the right to be a member of the official delegation? Especially since she will be talking in a way that sabotages and undermines New Zealand's long standing (and bipartisan between Labour and National) call for the liberalisation of trade in agricultural commodities. New Zealand has argued for many years at the WTO that trade in food should be free from export subsidies (like manufactured products), free from trade distorting subsidies and free from non-tariff barriers to trade (that are not genuinely about biosecurity), with tariffs on food imports being capped and negotiated downwards.

Now Kedgley is going to mouth off nonsense like "We need to challenge the doctrine of free trade and accept that people's right to food, to be free from hunger, must have priority over an ideological fixation on allowing market forces to prevail at all costs."

For starters, there is no free trade in food, secondly why DO we need to challenge it? How do you guarantee this fictional "right to food", proposing a global social welfare scheme are you? How do you propose food production increase unless prices increase to encourage it? How about the boondoggle of subsidised biofuels, which Labour is continuing with, the Greens are supporting and which is contributing towards higher food costs worldwide? Diddling with the market doing wonders there isn't it? Thought of attacking the EU, USA and Japan for grossly distorting agricultural subsidies and protectionism which has stifled agricultural production in other countries?

No - you're a vapid idiot.

SO why the hell has Labour let this banal control freak loose on the world when she says "I expect there will be intense debate between the free trade marketeers and those who believe the free trade agenda is one of the causes of the present crises"

Yes New Zealand is the free trade promoter, and by no stretch of the imagination can anyone outside the manufactured propaganda laden hysteria of Kedgley can honestly assert free trade is to blame for higher food prices - because it simply doesn't exist in food.

Kedgley is a vapid control freak who has for years sought to ban what she hates, make us do what she likes, make us pay for what she thinks is good for us and tax what she doesn't like. She distorts, peddles hysterical unscientific nonsense again and again, and has been the snake oil merchant for opposing genetic engineering, and concern about "safe food".

This woman shouldn't be let near any conferences claiming to be speaking on behalf of New Zealand. At best her views are economic nonsense, and as shallow as the rhetoric in her press releases, at worst she will provide succuour to the agricultural protectionists in Brussels, Washington, Tokyo and Paris who want to continue undermining world trade in food, world food production and currently strip around 1-2% GDP growth p.a. from the NZ economy.

So why is Labour letting an anti-free trade nutcase argue against government trade policy at an international forum?

Maori Party defends constitutional racism

The Maori Party unsurprisingly condemns the Business Roundtable calling for the abolition of the racially determined Maori seats, because without them, it may not be in Parliament.

It says "A recent Business Round Table report tries to rein in the resurgent political power of tangata whenua. It recommends abolishing the Maori seats out of pure self-interest, and definitely not for the good of Maori"

The Maori Party isn't self interested in defending the Maori seats? It never polls over the 5% threshold for party representation, and would fight to get maybe 1 or 2 electorates if the Maori seats were abolished (Maori votes changing the dimensions of general electorates like East Cape and Northland).

Parliament is not about representing races, it is about representing the views of individuals who vote. It does so in two ways, by representing communities defined by location and by representing parties that people want represented in Parliament. The Maori seats balkanise the country into Maori locations and non-Maori.

They are racist, they have no place in a modern 21st century liberal democracy, and no collectivised mumbo-jumbo can disguise that they are racist. The Maori Party wants to entrench this racism, rather than let Maori stand tall as people, as individuals with a shared national/ethnic identity, that don't need to be treated differently from everyone else. It could embrace the opportunity for electorates with high Maori populations to have Maori MPs, but no - it wins out of the current system, and will defend it to the end, and call anyone opposing it to be selfish and racist - which is so ironic.

Lorries protest fuel tax

Thousands of lorries blockaded streets around London this week, most notably parking on the A40 Westway (one of the short pieces of incomplete motorway scattered round London) reducing it to one lane. The reason? Fuel prices.

You see in the UK governments have for some years regarded the road transport sector as a light touch for taxation. Fuel taxes have been increased year on year to match inflation, and absolutely none of it is dedicated to roads. They are taxes, pure and simple. As a result UK fuel taxes are the highest in Europe. The reason for the high taxes?

1. Fuel tax is easy to collect and hard to evade (although having different coloured fuel for road and offroad use with different taxes is a problem);
2. Increasing fuel tax looks like it’s environmentally friendly, although if the fuel tax was only charging for CO2 emissions it would be far lower, and it does not reflect exposure to emissions. You pay the same whether you drive round the Highlands of Scotland or if you drive in suburban London;
3. Increasing fuel tax has a modest effect on congestion by keeping the cost of using cars up. However, given this has paralleled a paucity of road building, the UK now has the second highest levels of road congestion in Europe.

Fuel tax in the UK is 50.35p per litre for both petrol and diesel. To put that in context this is NZ$1.27 per litre in fuel tax alone, before VAT of 17.5%. In NZ petrol tax is NZ$0.42524 per litre before GST, ACC levy and a couple of minor other taxes.

One problem faced by trucking companies (road hauliers as they are called in the UK) is that trucks from continental Europe enter the UK with large fuel tanks full of diesel taxed at lower rates. So there is unfair competition.

The UK government twice looked at measures to address this, but doesn’t know how many foreign trucks enter the UK. It looked at an electronic distance based charge for all heavy vehicles and rejected it, and then looked at the vignette system, commonly used in Europe, whereby foreign vehicles buy a licence to operate for a certain number of days in the UK and are checked at the “border”.

So what SHOULD it do? First it should define why it is taxing fuel at all. If it is about paying for roads then part of the tax should be dedicated to funding roads (and there should be an independent non-political funding agency set up to manage that). The UK Treasury hates hypothecation because it fears waste, and loses control, but it has worked in New Zealand for many years. Indeed NZ is seen in some quarters as a model for how to manage road funding (shows you how bad the rest of the world is). If the tax is environmental, then have an honest debate about why, how effective it is and how fair it is at all? If it is revenue, be honest that road transport is being pillaged to fund social welfare and education, and see how the public taks that.

Sadly the UK is stuck in a bureaucratic arrogance that “nobody else in the world does it better” and wouldn’t look to NZ, or even to France and Italy which run motorways as private and government run businesses (with tolls). It taxes bluntly, it runs roads as political driven bureaucracies and decides road funding on a loose economic appraisal approach, whilst funding roads barely higher than it subsidises rail transport. The cost this underfunding of roads and blunt overtaxing of road users upon the UK is considerable, and it hides the true cost of the UK leviathan state – as it keeps income taxes down. It’s about time this was reversed and road use was charged on an economically efficient basis.

Tax on fuel is only justified as a transition to proper road pricing. It should be capped, roads should be privatised, and motorists able to contract with road providers for road use, and opt out of paying fuel tax in exchange. It is technically feasible, the problem is the political instransigence that treats roads as special. Roads are a network that needs maintenance and investment, and provide an economic good. Is it any wonder people complain about them when their management is subject to the appalling incentives of politics and bureaucracy, rather than investors, producers and consumers.

Kedgley's latest brainless rant

The government announces a trial whereby existing trucks (not bigger ones) might be able to fill up more capacity to carry more freight! What a travesty, time to wide up Sue Kedgley and have her spew forth a press release of absolute brainless emotive nonsense.

Give me strength! The same woman who constantly claimed the two-lane one way street in Wellington called the Inner City Bypass would be a “motorway”, now claims that letting existing trucks carry 50 tonnes instead of 44 tonnes (when their design weight allows it) will be juggernauts (they are the same trucks as we use now you dizzy bitch) and “endanger lives”.

According to the government's own study in 2003, 5.5% of road accidents are the fault of trucks, a rather more relevant figure than Kedgley’s unsourced claim that they are involved in 23% of crashes.

She claims that you have less chance surviving a 50 tonne truck crash than 44, well Sue much like you have less chance surviving a bus hitting you than a car, but it doesn’t stop you promoting buses does it? However, trucks baaad, trains good.

The proposal is simply a trial existing trucks that are designed to handle heavier loads filling up their capacity to carry 50 tonnes instead of 44. In other words the truck will be more fuel efficient, and more productive, but it’s a truck – and in the faith based world of Green transport policy trucks are baaaadd like brainless sheeple worshipping a religion.

She bleets out the discredited “rail is five times more fuel efficient” piece of history ignoring the fact that rail and road freight have similar environmental impacts on average per tonne km, because it doesn’t suit her creed of truck baaaaad, train good. She then argues that "We need to get freight off our roads and onto rail where it belongs, and invest in building more track to places not currently serviced." What Sue? All freight? Why does it belong on rail, what would YOU know, you don't consign freight, you don't operate any sort of business involving goods or trading? What the fuck do you know about transport in the real world instead of your maniacal ramblings like some sort of fundamentalist worshipping at the side of a railway track? When was the last time you consigned 100 tonnes worth of goods?

What's this abuse of the term "invest in more track to places not currently serviced"? What everywhere? Nelson, Kaitaia, Waimate, Queenstown, Taupo, Havelock North, Raetihi, Akaroa, Te Anau, Roxburgh, Alexandra, Murchison, Opunake, Foxton, Miramar, Takapuna, Kerikeri? You mean like roads?

She is either seriously unhinged, or just a purveyor of manipulative hysteria, trying to scare families into thinking enormous trucks are going to bear down on their children? Either way, she ought not to be in Parliament -

Apologise to Vietnam

Both Idiot Savant at No Right Turn, and Catherine Delahunty, a Green candidate believes the NZ government should apologise to Vietnam for the Vietnam War.

Such a suggestion is morally bankrupt.

The Vietnam War came about after the decolonisation of the country by the French. The Geneva conference was meant to see elections held throughout both north and south Vietnam, but as the north set up a communist one-party state and started purging political opponents. "Land reform" saw peasant revolts put down in the north. Meanwhile, the south also refused to hold elections. From this Vietnam became a frontline for the Cold War, with the communist north backed by the USSR and China (despite long standing ethnic rivalries and mistrust), and the non-communist south backed by the USA. They started fighting.

Both sides were corrupt, and abused human rights. By no means was the Republic of Vietnam (RoV) regime in the south a great example of freedom and democracy. It imprisoned political opponents and executed some, whilst of course the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) in the north did the same. However, for the US and its allies, including Australia and NZ, there was a fear of what was underneath the "Domino theory" that if Vietnam was communist, then it would spread to Cambodia (correct), Thailand and the rest. So backing was given to the RoV government against the communists. The DRV spread insurgency in the south flagrantly, and found supporters amongst those hurt and affected by the incompetence and repression of the RoV.

The war ensued and the US slowly escalated its support for the RoV. Americans saw the first war televised, saw body bags come home, saw its young men getting conscripted for a war to defend a corrupt autocracy. Life in the communist north was not televised, nobody ever saw the brutality of the DRV insurgency, its oppression of political opponents.

New Zealand became involved because of the belief in the domino theory, genuine fear that communism needed to be fought in our backyard and a belief that it was better to defend the bad but anti-communist RoV regime than let all of Vietnam become Marxist-Leninist. That is not something to apologise for.

The Paris Peace Accords which were meant to end the war, and allow free elections in South Vietnam were breached wholeheartedly by the DRV. The US withdrew and the DRV forces ignored what had been negotiated, and with the backing of the USSR and China (Western opponents of the war claim it was a US imperialist war ignoring the massive Soviet and Chinese support given to the DRV side) Vietnam was taken over by the DRV and it declared the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
.
2 million people fled communist Vietnam, hundreds of thousands dying in boats as they did. 200,000 officials from the RoV government were sent to "re-education camps", a brutal experience for some and many died. That was the legacy of letting Vietnam go.
.
Today Vietnam has no freedom of speech, it imprisons those who criticise government policy, there is no room for human rights organisations to operate or prisons to be inspected.

So what of that which Idiot Savant says? "Vietnam was an unjust war, fought for America's imperial aggrandisement. It caused the deaths of over a million North Vietnamese soldiers and two million civilians - over 10% of the North Vietnamese population. We should not have participated, and that fact needs to be formally acknowledged."

No, Vietnam was a just war fought to prevent the spread of Marxism-Leninism, an evil, murderous and debilitating political philosophy. The North Vietnamese soldiers were no angels, and many civilians died due to the DRV side, as well as the RoV side. Yes the war was fought badly, yes the support for the RoV regime was grossly mishandled, and in retrospect it was a disaster. However it was moral to try to stop Vietnam being communist. How this was done was a mistake, and so many actions by both sides were appalling.

Yet nobody on the left ever criticises the communist forces, never mentions the brutality and cruelty inflicted by the communists on civilians. It is always a US imperialist war, yet the heavy involvement of the USSR and China in funding and arming the communists, and sending small numbers of troops (and air cover) is ignored. Russia always has a "well that was the Soviet Union, it's different now" card that excuses all of its past atrocities.
.
We owe the Vietnamese communist government nothing. It is morally bankrupt to apologise to a authoritarian government. We should be encouraging the promising reforms of opening up the economy to go further, and for political pluralism and free speech.
.
What is particularly morally bankrupt are those who purport to be concerned about human rights and freedoms who say nothing about the Vietnamese communist regime. The Greens would rather apologise to it, but (rightfully) criticise Burma and China. Presumably the Greens think Vietnam becoming communist was a good thing. Idiot Savant has fallen into the same trap.
.
The Vietnam War was a mistake in strategy and tactics, it had half a goal - to stop communism, but its other half - what to have in its place, was absent and what was in its place was nothing to be proud of. However, there is no reason to celebrate communist run Vietnam, and no reason to apologise for trying to stop it.

Castro endorses Obama

There's Florida gone to McCain.

Given Castro at one time was cajoling Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against the USA, this can't give Obama comfort. Whilst you can't control who supports you, you might ask why someone who has operated a dictatorship, who locks away and executes political opponents, and wanted to wage war against your country, thinks you're the best man for the Presidency.

(Full article at the Daily Telegraph)

Meanwhile, Castro's brother is implementing modest economic reforms that seem to have made a positive difference. Now if only Cubans were free to express what they really think...

What post-modernism does to the mind

Two children die, due to serious head injuries, inconsistent with accidents and consistent with murder, manslaughter and a family environment of neglect and hedonistic irresponsibility.
.
However in the world of the Marxist post-modernist, "colonialism and capitalism" are to blame. So presumably there shouldn't be a Police investigation, violence towards children is simply the fault of "the system". Smashing an infant's head is, not the fault of the person doing it -no - it's what you do when you're a loser who blames everyone else for your problems or when the state doesn't give you the life you think you deserve. She's said it before. "It's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old"

.

So if she had a child, and a "person in poverty" tortured that three year old, she could point a finger at all those business people and blame them. It's rather like accusing the Jews of ruining Germany's economy in the 1920s, or educated people for the war in Cambodia. It denies people have conscience choices, and justifies doing violence to another because of "structural issues". One could argue such issues might "make a man rape a woman", except the post-modernist identity politics type classify people, like Leninists and Nazis did, into powerful and powerless, so that women by definition have less power than men DENYING that it varies enormously by individuals.

.

You see when you're infected by post-modernist relativism, individuals are irrelevant to your grand theory of the universe- the theory that says it's not the fault of Maori people who abuse their kids, for example.

.

Oh and don't forget that when she says "capitalism and colonialism played a large part in those babies deaths" (sic) no alternative is offered. Certainly not the alternatives of communism, Islamism and post-colonial nationalism which have blighted much of the world for decades, although she shows some sympathy towards Islamists fighting for Iraq to be another Iran.

.

Of course I wonder that if "capitalism killed Mrs Muliaga" (despite the evidence of her family having at least made multiple mistakes along with herself, the evidence of multiple warnings of disconnection of something that hadn't been paid for), why Maia didn't pay Mrs Muliaga's bill herself? In fact why don't those who "blame the system" use their own money to help those who "suffer"? For indeed if you are going to blame "the system" for the reason why some people abuse kids, then you should blame yourself for not doing enough for the victims. Her death is sad, but frankly I care about people I love, not some stranger dying because she and those who loved her didn't pay her power bill, didn't call the hospital and didn't follow medical advice.

.

Then you can say "The idea that we can all control our own health, if we have the right 'lifestyle' runs strong in our society" which is true, because to some extent it IS true. If you smoke and take drugs it will more than likely shorten your life, if you are a vegetarian who exercises it will probably lengthen your life. If you don't exercise, eat a lot of saturated fat and sugar, then it will probably shorten your life. It's medical fact, but then if it doesn't suit a post-modernist, she will evade this as being "culturally inappropriate" or whatever new means there is to be wilfully blind. However then to accuse the public hospital system, taxpayer funded, of being culturally insensitive and claim this is "capitalism" requires even more contortions of reality. How is a compulsory state funded hospital's poor advice to the Muliaga family the fault of capitalism? Might the hospital have been more responsive had the family been paying it?

.

So does one book therapy when your mind suffers from the contradictions that:

- People who commit crimes were "forced to" by the system;

- People who neglect their own welfare or that of their family have no responsibility to themselves or their families;

- Those that have not the slightest link at all, on any measure of evidence, causality, intent or responsibility, ARE to blame for the crimes, neglect or simple foolish irresponsibility of "victim groups" (defined by race, sex, class and whatever other silos make you a powerless victim of the oppressor groups);

- Parents who abuse kids are not responsible for it, but policemen who rape women are responsible, but while neither should go to prison, there is no alternative given?

.

Maybe I'm being a "right wing idiot" (another banal simplistic generalisation that there is just a left and right) but when do people become responsible for their own lives, their own actions and their own families? Why are people to be collectivised like sheep in the minds of the post-modernist collectivist, instead of being judged by their actions as individuals? and when do post-modernists ever recognise that, applying their own philosophy, everything they think is coloured and biased by their own experiences and so is, relatively speaking, not applicable to anyone else?

.

I'd simply like to know what the alternative to capitalism is and how it doesn't involve initiating violence against others.

Addressing the Police

Blair Mulholland calls the New Zealand Police a disgrace. In many respects I agree. In my encounters with the Police on a public policy level I wasn't surprised that the prevailing view was "give us more powers", "you can trust us", "it's us against the scum". You don't look for protection of privacy and individual rights by asking the Police what to do.

.

Policing is a core role of the state. There is a fundamental expectation that government will supply the public with an agency you can call upon to respond to crime, to deter crime, and to put in place order when people act disorderly or in a threatening manner. It is, quite simply, protecting our lives, liberties and property from those who threaten it. In that respect we should be grateful for the Police and they should be considered our friends, the so called "thin blue line" between anarchy and peace.

.

However.

.

Having the authority to arrest people, to use violence against people and the culture and training needed for people to undertake what can be a dangerous and threatening job does bring with it enormous risks. The obvious one is corruption, as badly paid cops can be "paid off" by organised crime to turn the other cheek. Even well paid cops can be tempted by luxury items and all sorts of goodies, you only need to look at Australia to see a policing culture endemically malignant with corruption, albeit efforts to reduce this have been somewhat successful.

.

Another risk is the ability to use violence to threaten and intimidate to engage in criminal behaviour. When those who are meant to protect you do the opposite then where do you go? It is rather akin to parents who abuse their kids.

.

More common is the way the Police can be politicised. Clearly the Police have not acted when there may be reason to do so against the PM's high speed cavalcade in the South Island a few years ago, or under the Electoral Act. The mere fact of concern about this should concern the Police, but it is a closed shop - and this is the most fundamental problem of all - accountability.

.

The Police operate as a quasi-military hierarchy. Questioning those above you is difficult and unpopular, but more importantly actually getting the Police to respond to incentives on performance is tricky at best. Holding back funding and the Police know exactly how to pull the heart strings of the public by cynically reducing Police Station hours and saying there will be less cops "on the beat". They could do less traffic work, or be more administratively efficient, or target less victimless crimes, but no - they always want more money, and they are more popular than teachers and nurses.

.

You see to have a Police strike worries people, and if you think performance pay for the Police is easy then think again. If a Minister says the Police get nothing more, they strike or rally for public support, and the incumbent government looks "soft on crime" or "mean to the wonderful Police".

.

Police performance is a huge issue. It's not just that having a car stolen is almost not worth reporting beyond insurance purposes, but that if the Police don't respond what can you do? Take the matter into your own hands and they don't like the competition. The legend that if you call the Police concerned you have an intruder they'll respond quicker if you say you have a gun is more fact than fiction. Indeed, the Police will go for drug offences more than any property offences. Who knows why they seem keen to prosecute cases of consensual adult incest?

.

So what to do?

.

First, review all criminal law to eliminate victimless crimes. This will, at least, stop the Police from pursuing people who hurt no one. This means changes to drug laws, to focus attention on supply to minors, and away from personal use in the home where there are no children.

.

Second, contract out those activities that the Police need not do. This means community support and many traffic activities (including directing traffic at accidents). The Police could bid for such work, but the role should be confined to law enforcement.

.

Thirdly, split the Police into local authority controlled entities and a central crime intelligence agency (to handle organised crime and cross border crime). Put local Police into democratically elected control, so that communities can monitor performance, with elected commissioners. Commissioners and Police subject to independent pay reviews, so they are driven by performance not political pressure. The central agency works for the local ones, and is judged by them.

.

Fourthly, review the right to self defence of body and property. The laws are adequate, but it is worthy reminding the Police of these rights.

.

Finally, a fuller review of sentencing and the approach to recividist offenders. Repeat offenders who should be in prison for life are set free, receive benefits and raise children. It's time to no longer tolerate those who, having committed a crime and given a chance to rehabilitate, hurt more people. They should be removed from circulation if they are repeat violent or sex offenders. This should reduce the workload of the Police.

.

There is no simple solution, some argue privatising and opening the Police to competition may help. While it may be helpful for direct action against offenders, it is unlikely to be so when undertaking major investigations or dealing with organised crime. However, I am happy to hear from those who think private competitive policing could work, and avoid the risk of police being bought and sold by wealthy criminals, or politicians.

.

This is an issue that will be central to political debate when a libertarian government has shrunk the state to its core roles.

.

UPDATE: Forgot Trevor Loudon's recommendations to improve the Police, they are worth looking at (Hat Tip: Not PC)

Don't forget the Maori Party is a Marxist Party

Lindsay Mitchell rightly points out the socialist nonsense of the latest Maori Party policy. Increase benefits, increase minimum wages, cut some taxes but find new ones.

.

None of this should be news, it is a party of collectivism, that believes in the use of the state to achieve collectivist goals. I blogged some time ago about the Marxist leanings of the Maori Party, and how it is a mismash of conservatives and socialists basically seeking to compete with Labour in the Maori political sphere.

.

Sadly it offers Maori nothing more than another form of statism, a more extreme and naive one. It is statism that has failed many Maori, and the Maori Party seeks simply more state dependency rather than setting Maori free.