Well so CNN reports.
However really it is part of a game. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It has every means to hide any facilities it wishes underground. Can you ever trust a regime that lies as a matter of course, or one that imprisons young children as political prisoners? Frankly unless North Korea's exports can be monitored, or it can be open to full free inspection, it's just another dictatorship doing as it wishes. It should remain on the axis of evil - for the price of peace with North Korea is the slave state that it remains for most of its people.
28 June 2008
Mandela's limp response and his birthday
Yes Nelson Mandela lamented the "tragic failure of leadership". Oh please. How impressed should Zimbabwe be that Africa's great political hero wont call a spade a spade? How many people have to be murdered so that pussy footing about, dancing around the issue and trying not to offend evil has to end? Lindsay Perigo is far better at calling for what is needed - assassination.
So meanwhile TV is broadcasting his 90th birthday celebrations as a fundraising event, with a long list of celebrities.
Of course it would be nice if Mikhail Gorbachev got similar treatment, as he freed many more than Mandela did. It would be nice if those participating did something for Zimbabwe at the same time...
but singing about the past makes them feel good doesn't it?
So meanwhile TV is broadcasting his 90th birthday celebrations as a fundraising event, with a long list of celebrities.
Of course it would be nice if Mikhail Gorbachev got similar treatment, as he freed many more than Mandela did. It would be nice if those participating did something for Zimbabwe at the same time...
but singing about the past makes them feel good doesn't it?
Zimbabweans find their own way to defy
The sham election that Robert Mugabe hoped he could rig to show how popular he is, is turning out to be a fizzle. The Daily Telegraph reports that Zimbabweans are showing they can't be forced to turn out to vote or to vote properly:
"Despite threats from Mr Mugabe's thugs to beat those who refused to vote, many polling stations in the capital Harare had not seen a single ballot cast three hours after opening.
Others remained virtually empty and many of those who did vote simply spoiled their ballot papers. "
Good for them.
There have been moments in history when despite the overwhelming brutal weight of totalitarianism, a tipping point is reached, and people are brave enough to say no. In Romania it happened when a pro-Ceaucescu rally turned on him as seen below...
May the brave citizens of Zimbabwe reach the same turning point - most dictators are full of fear of those they rule. I hope you can all give him cause for that fear, and that he and his lackeys can run as Ceaucescu did.
"Despite threats from Mr Mugabe's thugs to beat those who refused to vote, many polling stations in the capital Harare had not seen a single ballot cast three hours after opening.
Others remained virtually empty and many of those who did vote simply spoiled their ballot papers. "
Good for them.
There have been moments in history when despite the overwhelming brutal weight of totalitarianism, a tipping point is reached, and people are brave enough to say no. In Romania it happened when a pro-Ceaucescu rally turned on him as seen below...
May the brave citizens of Zimbabwe reach the same turning point - most dictators are full of fear of those they rule. I hope you can all give him cause for that fear, and that he and his lackeys can run as Ceaucescu did.
25 June 2008
Union membership bonus
There has been much coverage of this outrageous waste of taxpayers' money (the left doesn't get that idea often enough), which I remember being introduced.
However, I also vaguely recall a conversation with someone in the state sector at the time who was told by his boss that those on individual employment contracts (who were valued) would also get the same bonus as those in the union. Presumably the relevant CEO decided to recognise that the relevant government agency didn't want to lose people who'd rather resign that be treated inferior to their colleagues who want to join the union, and found the budget to do this. I wonder if anyone in the state sector knows of this continuing today?
See some parts of the state sector are not heavily unionised, those involving employing people for their individual experience, talent and knowledge, rather than those who are carrying out more drone like tasks. After all, a collective employment contract doesn't really offer you much scope for individualisation does it? I couldn't conceive of going through some union official to negotiate my pay and conditions - it only makes sense if I was doing exactly the same thing as half a dozen other people. I astounds me that teachers and nurses think it gives them a good deal either!
However, I also vaguely recall a conversation with someone in the state sector at the time who was told by his boss that those on individual employment contracts (who were valued) would also get the same bonus as those in the union. Presumably the relevant CEO decided to recognise that the relevant government agency didn't want to lose people who'd rather resign that be treated inferior to their colleagues who want to join the union, and found the budget to do this. I wonder if anyone in the state sector knows of this continuing today?
See some parts of the state sector are not heavily unionised, those involving employing people for their individual experience, talent and knowledge, rather than those who are carrying out more drone like tasks. After all, a collective employment contract doesn't really offer you much scope for individualisation does it? I couldn't conceive of going through some union official to negotiate my pay and conditions - it only makes sense if I was doing exactly the same thing as half a dozen other people. I astounds me that teachers and nurses think it gives them a good deal either!
Mandela could give a birthday present to Zimbabwe
Nelson Mandela is about to celebrate his 90th birthday. However there must be a dark shadow cast across it. His own country is led by a man who provides support to Robert Mugabe, long denied HIV caused AIDS and has led an increasingly corrupt government that is slowly squeezing the Opposition out of politics in South Africa.
Mandela has a profile, status and standing that is unsurpassed of anyone in Africa. While he has used this before to criticise Mbeki on HIV, he has resisted commenting on Zimbabwe, for a man of his considerable bravery it is negligent for him to remain silent.
David Blair of the Daily Telegraph does not believe he can speak up nor should he. I disagree.
Yes he is retired, yes he has called on Mugabe to retire before. However the argument of Blair is that he does not wish to undermine Mbeki his successor - but you must ask why? Misguided loyalty to the ANC - loyalty which is costing lives. Maybe he believes Mbeki will ignore him, but can he? Can he ignore the national hero, Nelson Mandela? How could he dare turn on Mandela?
After all the choice is clear for Mandela:
- Keep quiet, don't use your tremendous influence, and watch Zimbabwe burn, bleed and starve while Thabo Mbeki shrugs; or
- Upset Mbeki, some of the ANC (and certainly Mugabe), and shame a change in stance by any of them that may help end the violence.
Yes Mandela isn't obliged to do anything, but a man who is far from poor, who travels extensively being lauded for being a hero, who does nothing while his neighbour's backyard burns, is either resting on his laurels, too tired to care or simply too old to know his mistakes.
Mandela has a profile, status and standing that is unsurpassed of anyone in Africa. While he has used this before to criticise Mbeki on HIV, he has resisted commenting on Zimbabwe, for a man of his considerable bravery it is negligent for him to remain silent.
David Blair of the Daily Telegraph does not believe he can speak up nor should he. I disagree.
Yes he is retired, yes he has called on Mugabe to retire before. However the argument of Blair is that he does not wish to undermine Mbeki his successor - but you must ask why? Misguided loyalty to the ANC - loyalty which is costing lives. Maybe he believes Mbeki will ignore him, but can he? Can he ignore the national hero, Nelson Mandela? How could he dare turn on Mandela?
After all the choice is clear for Mandela:
- Keep quiet, don't use your tremendous influence, and watch Zimbabwe burn, bleed and starve while Thabo Mbeki shrugs; or
- Upset Mbeki, some of the ANC (and certainly Mugabe), and shame a change in stance by any of them that may help end the violence.
Yes Mandela isn't obliged to do anything, but a man who is far from poor, who travels extensively being lauded for being a hero, who does nothing while his neighbour's backyard burns, is either resting on his laurels, too tired to care or simply too old to know his mistakes.
McCain throwing money away
Yep McCain likes spending money too, according to CNN he is promising a US$300 million prize for whoever develops a revolutionary car battery.
You know it would be ok if it wasn't taxpayers' money?
At least he is opposing subsidising ethanol and tariffs on imported ethanol. That same report notes Obama wants "oversight of energy traders" to reduce speculation on oil. What planet is this control freak on? Typical socialist reaction - if the speculators are wrong, some will lose, spectacularly - but you wont compensate them for that, so why care when they get it right, for now? However, the Obamaniacs don't care, because whatever he says is right, and anyone who says different must be racist right?
You know it would be ok if it wasn't taxpayers' money?
At least he is opposing subsidising ethanol and tariffs on imported ethanol. That same report notes Obama wants "oversight of energy traders" to reduce speculation on oil. What planet is this control freak on? Typical socialist reaction - if the speculators are wrong, some will lose, spectacularly - but you wont compensate them for that, so why care when they get it right, for now? However, the Obamaniacs don't care, because whatever he says is right, and anyone who says different must be racist right?
Yes legalise smacking, but also stories about it
For the reasons I outlined when this was a major debate, I am very torn about this issue.
I don't like smacking. However, it is on a long list of other bad parenting behaviours that are not criminal. Poor nutrition, not giving your kids affection, ignoring them, inviting convicted criminals into your home in their presence, smoking at home with the windows closed, having all adults in a home intoxicated while you have small children. The list is long, and smacking is like that. It isn't good behaviour, but it is not bad enough to give someone a criminal record.
That is a legitimate libertarian position.
However, I don't think owning an erotic story about spanking is bad enough either, but that doesn't get the conservatives concerned about that being illegal. See they'd find it vile that I want to remove a lot of censorship about extreme consensual adult sexual material. It is strange, but some conservatives are arguing that it be legal to commit the very act on children that it is ILLEGAL to write a graphic erotic story about involving adults.
You see the law says:
"In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any publication is objectionable ... particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication...Describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with...Physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain"
So, I suspect, some conservatives are saying it is ok to actually inflict pain upon children for correction, but writing or reading or downloading a story about adults enjoying inflicting or suffering pain, should remain a crime. Libertarianz argued during the review of censorship law a few years ago that New Zealand should follow the line of the United States, which allows written free speech that includes any erotic stories for consumption by adults. David Cunliffe simply responded like a prick saying "Oh why should we follow America?" sarcastically - because the Minister of Communications can't figure out that there are many such erotic story websites on the internet that are legal in the USA and easy to access in New Zealand (you don't need help finding them), so chasing up everyone who accesses those sites (and many stories on them wouldn't be illegal) is a nonsense.
Of course Parliament voted to INCREASE penalties for producing, distributing and possessing erotic stories about sado-masochism (you see child pornography comes under objectionable, but then so do a lot of things, so nobody was keen to narrow objectionable to just child pornography, as they should've).
So you see, I'll support the smacking ban being overturned - but I wont cheer it, because I don't want to encourage the behaviour. Indeed it is the same reason why I'll support ending censorship of any written matter that isn't defamation (which isn't censorship, just compensation for damage to reputation), it simply isn't the business of the state to criminalise.
I don't like smacking. However, it is on a long list of other bad parenting behaviours that are not criminal. Poor nutrition, not giving your kids affection, ignoring them, inviting convicted criminals into your home in their presence, smoking at home with the windows closed, having all adults in a home intoxicated while you have small children. The list is long, and smacking is like that. It isn't good behaviour, but it is not bad enough to give someone a criminal record.
That is a legitimate libertarian position.
However, I don't think owning an erotic story about spanking is bad enough either, but that doesn't get the conservatives concerned about that being illegal. See they'd find it vile that I want to remove a lot of censorship about extreme consensual adult sexual material. It is strange, but some conservatives are arguing that it be legal to commit the very act on children that it is ILLEGAL to write a graphic erotic story about involving adults.
You see the law says:
"In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any publication is objectionable ... particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication...Describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with...Physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain"
So, I suspect, some conservatives are saying it is ok to actually inflict pain upon children for correction, but writing or reading or downloading a story about adults enjoying inflicting or suffering pain, should remain a crime. Libertarianz argued during the review of censorship law a few years ago that New Zealand should follow the line of the United States, which allows written free speech that includes any erotic stories for consumption by adults. David Cunliffe simply responded like a prick saying "Oh why should we follow America?" sarcastically - because the Minister of Communications can't figure out that there are many such erotic story websites on the internet that are legal in the USA and easy to access in New Zealand (you don't need help finding them), so chasing up everyone who accesses those sites (and many stories on them wouldn't be illegal) is a nonsense.
Of course Parliament voted to INCREASE penalties for producing, distributing and possessing erotic stories about sado-masochism (you see child pornography comes under objectionable, but then so do a lot of things, so nobody was keen to narrow objectionable to just child pornography, as they should've).
So you see, I'll support the smacking ban being overturned - but I wont cheer it, because I don't want to encourage the behaviour. Indeed it is the same reason why I'll support ending censorship of any written matter that isn't defamation (which isn't censorship, just compensation for damage to reputation), it simply isn't the business of the state to criminalise.
Auckland doesn't need mini government
Alex Swney is wrong, with his solution to the problem "the current regime was fragmented, duplicated, obstructive and costly". You see it wouldn't be if politicians stuck to their statutory minimums.
The question of how much local government Auckland needs is a function of how much you believe Aucklanders need to be forced to pay for what they may or may not use, and how much you believe their private property rights (or extensions of them) can't be an effective delineration of rights.
Until you confront the issue of what local government should do, you can't answer the question of how to set it up. At the moment legislation says local government has a power of general competence, it can do whatever it sees fit short of passing bylaws beyond statutorily defined limits.
If the debate isn't going to confront that, then it is a complete waste of time engaging in this debate. What matters is what National thinks, and sadly there is little sign that it thinks local government should, at least, be confined to what can be generously called "public goods".
So John Key, what is it? Or should I ask Hone Carter? There is enormous potential to make a real difference to ratepayers.
The question of how much local government Auckland needs is a function of how much you believe Aucklanders need to be forced to pay for what they may or may not use, and how much you believe their private property rights (or extensions of them) can't be an effective delineration of rights.
Until you confront the issue of what local government should do, you can't answer the question of how to set it up. At the moment legislation says local government has a power of general competence, it can do whatever it sees fit short of passing bylaws beyond statutorily defined limits.
If the debate isn't going to confront that, then it is a complete waste of time engaging in this debate. What matters is what National thinks, and sadly there is little sign that it thinks local government should, at least, be confined to what can be generously called "public goods".
So John Key, what is it? Or should I ask Hone Carter? There is enormous potential to make a real difference to ratepayers.
$400 million more for the rails
Yes according to the NZ Herald, Ontrack, the state owned company responsible for the railway network, wants another $400 million to upgrade the rail network.
To which I say - fine - once the government owns the rest of the railway operations, let Ontrack borrow the money and repay it from track access charges from the people who will people from it - the rail freight customers.
Let's ignore this pleading from the Ontrack CEO, which is a try on to force YOU to pay for it:
"Compared with some other forms of infrastructure development, the planned investment in rail is modest and will enable rail to grow and take pressure off the roads - saving money, improving safety and benefiting the environment,"
It's modest! $100 for every man woman and child. So go on Cam Moore, start walking around your neighbourhood and ask for the money from every household, per person of course. See if THEY think $100 is modest. If you wont ask the customers, why not ask the people you REALLY want to force to pay for it?
and what is this "compared with other forms". You mean like airports which make a profit and pay dividends? You mean like telcos and power companies that do the same? You mean like the road network which generates enough revenue that it can reinvest in upgrading the network and throw 15% of its money at public transport (including YOUR network)?
How does it "save money", when your network costs more to maintain than the users are prepared to pay, but the road network generates more revenue than it costs to maintain? and safety and the environment? Well go on say how many lives it will save, and the environmental claims are dubious at best.
So good on you Ontrack, get the bucket out and go door to door to do fundraising, because the appropriate answer to the question "can taxpayers pay", should be rather obvious.
Great investment Dr Cullen, yep, economic genius.
To which I say - fine - once the government owns the rest of the railway operations, let Ontrack borrow the money and repay it from track access charges from the people who will people from it - the rail freight customers.
Let's ignore this pleading from the Ontrack CEO, which is a try on to force YOU to pay for it:
"Compared with some other forms of infrastructure development, the planned investment in rail is modest and will enable rail to grow and take pressure off the roads - saving money, improving safety and benefiting the environment,"
It's modest! $100 for every man woman and child. So go on Cam Moore, start walking around your neighbourhood and ask for the money from every household, per person of course. See if THEY think $100 is modest. If you wont ask the customers, why not ask the people you REALLY want to force to pay for it?
and what is this "compared with other forms". You mean like airports which make a profit and pay dividends? You mean like telcos and power companies that do the same? You mean like the road network which generates enough revenue that it can reinvest in upgrading the network and throw 15% of its money at public transport (including YOUR network)?
How does it "save money", when your network costs more to maintain than the users are prepared to pay, but the road network generates more revenue than it costs to maintain? and safety and the environment? Well go on say how many lives it will save, and the environmental claims are dubious at best.
So good on you Ontrack, get the bucket out and go door to door to do fundraising, because the appropriate answer to the question "can taxpayers pay", should be rather obvious.
Great investment Dr Cullen, yep, economic genius.
Taxpayers don't want to pay more and get nothing either
The PSA, which backs the Labour Party and which consistently supports growth in government spending, growth in the number of bureaucrats and resists competition from the private sector with state provided services, has conducted a survey - which of course is not political, no, never - which according to Stuff says "60 per cent (of those surveyed) did not want tax cuts bigger than those in the May budget if that meant reduced public service spending or increased Government borrowing." So an implied reference to Labour policy, and National, ACT, Libertarianz, United Future and any other policy of higher tax cuts - but it's ok under the Electoral Finance Act isn't it? Of course - because it benefits Labour.
The problem with the survey is obvious in three ways.
First it implies that the government is optimally efficient, that there is no scope at all to cut spending significantly without cutting the "services" people love, which basically means health, education and law and order (how many really give a damn about welfare benefits, or the good part of the bureaucracy dedicated to giving advice or dishing out small subsidies here and there, unless you benefit from it). This of course is nonsense. The government does a fair bit that if cut wouldn't hurt the services people love, just look at the names of so many government agencies to see that we wouldn't miss the Families Commission, Te Mangai Paho, NZ On Air, the Human Rights Commission, Office of the Childrens' Commissioner. All small fry mainly, but they do add up. Beyond that, who can pretend the big government agencies of education and health are all well focused on delivering optimal outcomes for consumers. They don't have the incentives to do so.
The second problem is that the counterfactual isn't placed either. Do people support paying more in tax, over and above inflation, to see no discernible improvement in services? You see I pointed out a month or so ago that had Labour simply increased spending to reflect inflation, the government would be spending NZ$12 billion LESS this year than it currently is. However it has spent far more, and have you noticed it? Maybe you have, maybe your school has had a new building - but would that have happened anyway? What it is hard to say is that increasing spending by double the rate of inflation has generated improvements of the same order. You see you ARE paying more in tax in real terms than you were in 1999, has it been worth it? Would you spend more and get the same improvement in quality? No the PSA wont confront that.
Thirdly and more importantly, the PSA wont ask whether you'd rather have the option of getting some of your taxes back to buy your own health care and education for your family. You see the idea you could opt out of the monopolies it makes you fund is an anathema. I wonder why they are so scared of competition, so scared of consumers putting their money where they want it?
Maybe because the PSA is interested first and foremost in protecting the jobs and wages of its members - if it means taxpayers paying more, their members working less, and being less accountable, they will support it - and that is what's fundamentally wrong with statism. No accountability to individuals for failing to deliver what is promised and what they have been forced to pay for, just moans that "well if you paid more tax then....".
It's quite simply fraud.
The problem with the survey is obvious in three ways.
First it implies that the government is optimally efficient, that there is no scope at all to cut spending significantly without cutting the "services" people love, which basically means health, education and law and order (how many really give a damn about welfare benefits, or the good part of the bureaucracy dedicated to giving advice or dishing out small subsidies here and there, unless you benefit from it). This of course is nonsense. The government does a fair bit that if cut wouldn't hurt the services people love, just look at the names of so many government agencies to see that we wouldn't miss the Families Commission, Te Mangai Paho, NZ On Air, the Human Rights Commission, Office of the Childrens' Commissioner. All small fry mainly, but they do add up. Beyond that, who can pretend the big government agencies of education and health are all well focused on delivering optimal outcomes for consumers. They don't have the incentives to do so.
The second problem is that the counterfactual isn't placed either. Do people support paying more in tax, over and above inflation, to see no discernible improvement in services? You see I pointed out a month or so ago that had Labour simply increased spending to reflect inflation, the government would be spending NZ$12 billion LESS this year than it currently is. However it has spent far more, and have you noticed it? Maybe you have, maybe your school has had a new building - but would that have happened anyway? What it is hard to say is that increasing spending by double the rate of inflation has generated improvements of the same order. You see you ARE paying more in tax in real terms than you were in 1999, has it been worth it? Would you spend more and get the same improvement in quality? No the PSA wont confront that.
Thirdly and more importantly, the PSA wont ask whether you'd rather have the option of getting some of your taxes back to buy your own health care and education for your family. You see the idea you could opt out of the monopolies it makes you fund is an anathema. I wonder why they are so scared of competition, so scared of consumers putting their money where they want it?
Maybe because the PSA is interested first and foremost in protecting the jobs and wages of its members - if it means taxpayers paying more, their members working less, and being less accountable, they will support it - and that is what's fundamentally wrong with statism. No accountability to individuals for failing to deliver what is promised and what they have been forced to pay for, just moans that "well if you paid more tax then....".
It's quite simply fraud.
24 June 2008
EU's Common Agricultural Policy exposed
I was recently linked to by "CAP Health Check" a blog that seeks to present as much information as it can about the European Union's dastardly Common Agricultural Policy (you know the policy of food sovereignty and food security that Sue Kedgley effectively has been endorsing). It seeks greater accountability and transparency about expenditure on EU farm subsidies. As someone paying for these (as well as a national from a country suffering from them), I'm rather keen to see it.
A sister site is Farmsubsidy which has some fascinating data, including google mapping the address where farm subsidies are received (so far only Sweden is complete). Go here, focus on Stockholm to see how many farm owners seem to be based in the downtown Stockholm - clearly struggling village producers. A similar map of the UK would have to include Clarence House London, as the Prince of Wales receives taxpayer subsidies for his farms. Nice. It shows the pony clubs in Denmark that receive over 255m Euro in subsidies. Ireland is the biggest per capita net recipient of farm subsidies, Luxembourg the biggest net per capita loser. However per farm the biggest recipient is Denmark, the lowest Malta (average UK farm gets more than the average French farm, because the latter are small and inefficient).
The UK gets 4.3 billion yes billion Euro in agricultural subsidies, but contributes 5.6 billion to the EU to fund agricultural subsidies, so is a net loser. What this means is that the average British taxpayer is paying 22 euros a year to subsidise farms outside the UK. The average UK farm gets around 12,000 euros a year, not bad really. 49% of the UK subsidies go to the top 10% of farms. 295 recipients get an average of over £500,000 a year in subsidies!! The biggest bludger last year was J & T F McFarlane getting around £552 000 (appears to be a Scottish beef farm).
Nice piece of work collecting data, and listing all those who make a living partly out of the theft of taxes from the rest of us through Brussels.
A sister site is Farmsubsidy which has some fascinating data, including google mapping the address where farm subsidies are received (so far only Sweden is complete). Go here, focus on Stockholm to see how many farm owners seem to be based in the downtown Stockholm - clearly struggling village producers. A similar map of the UK would have to include Clarence House London, as the Prince of Wales receives taxpayer subsidies for his farms. Nice. It shows the pony clubs in Denmark that receive over 255m Euro in subsidies. Ireland is the biggest per capita net recipient of farm subsidies, Luxembourg the biggest net per capita loser. However per farm the biggest recipient is Denmark, the lowest Malta (average UK farm gets more than the average French farm, because the latter are small and inefficient).
The UK gets 4.3 billion yes billion Euro in agricultural subsidies, but contributes 5.6 billion to the EU to fund agricultural subsidies, so is a net loser. What this means is that the average British taxpayer is paying 22 euros a year to subsidise farms outside the UK. The average UK farm gets around 12,000 euros a year, not bad really. 49% of the UK subsidies go to the top 10% of farms. 295 recipients get an average of over £500,000 a year in subsidies!! The biggest bludger last year was J & T F McFarlane getting around £552 000 (appears to be a Scottish beef farm).
Nice piece of work collecting data, and listing all those who make a living partly out of the theft of taxes from the rest of us through Brussels.
Survey on political blogging
Other blogs have linked to it, so pardon me if you've seen it before.
University of Auckland MA (Pols) student Andrew Cushen is conducting an online survey about political blogging, with the survey here for those who wish to complete it. It is professional and I wish Andrew the best as the results could be very interesting. Particularly as it is election year it would be interesting to see the footprint of those reading political blogs.
So go on, help a student do something new and interesting.
Democracy in South Africa more vigorous under apartheid?
So says Helen Suzman according to the Daily Telegraph, for many years the lone voice against apartheid in South Africa's white-only Parliament. Mrs Suzman is now 86. Her claims against the South African government include:
- "Debate is almost non-existent and no one is apparently accountable to anybody apart from their political party bosses. It is bad news for democracy in this country. Even though we didn't have a free press under apartheid, the government of that day seemed to be very much more accountable in parliament"
-"The poor in this country have not benefited at all from the ANC. This government spends 'like a drunken sailor'. Instead of investing in projects to give people jobs, they spend millions buying weapons and private jets, and sending gifts to Haiti."
-On Zimbabwe "Mugabe has destroyed that country while South Africa has stood by and done nothing. The way Mugabe was feted at the inauguration last month was an embarrassing disgrace. But it served well to illustrate very clearly Mbeki's point of view....Don't think for a moment that Mbeki is not anti-white - he is, most definitely. His speeches all have anti-white themes and he continues to convince everyone that there are two types of South African - the poor black and the rich white"
- "For all my criticisms of the current system, it doesn't mean that I would like to return to the old one. I don't think we will ever go the way of Zimbabwe, but people are entitled to be concerned."
The Helen Suzman Foundation is one of the best sources of excellent comment on affairs in southern Africa, certainly it beats the mainstream international media which by and large continues to fawn at the feet of the ANC. This statement on its website tells much:
"The Helen Suzman Foundation supports and promotes liberal democratic policies and ideals in the South African political situation. Views such as these are very similar to those held by liberals in Europe and certain countries in the East, where liberals are non-racial in their views, support free enterprise and are generally sympathetic to individualism, although their views on, and support for, welfare policies vary both within countries and between countries.
As we understand it, in the United States of America, however, the way in which "liberals" are defined differs from the South African and European definition. Liberals in the United States include many people who hold "progressive" views in the sense that they are less sympathetic to free enterprise and individualism and more consistently supportive of public welfare. In Europe and South Africa such people are very likely to regard themselves as "social democrats" or socialists, which are less familiar categories in the United States.
American visitors to this website should bear these differences in mind when reading about The Helen Suzman Foundation and its mission."
- "Debate is almost non-existent and no one is apparently accountable to anybody apart from their political party bosses. It is bad news for democracy in this country. Even though we didn't have a free press under apartheid, the government of that day seemed to be very much more accountable in parliament"
-"The poor in this country have not benefited at all from the ANC. This government spends 'like a drunken sailor'. Instead of investing in projects to give people jobs, they spend millions buying weapons and private jets, and sending gifts to Haiti."
-On Zimbabwe "Mugabe has destroyed that country while South Africa has stood by and done nothing. The way Mugabe was feted at the inauguration last month was an embarrassing disgrace. But it served well to illustrate very clearly Mbeki's point of view....Don't think for a moment that Mbeki is not anti-white - he is, most definitely. His speeches all have anti-white themes and he continues to convince everyone that there are two types of South African - the poor black and the rich white"
- "For all my criticisms of the current system, it doesn't mean that I would like to return to the old one. I don't think we will ever go the way of Zimbabwe, but people are entitled to be concerned."
The Helen Suzman Foundation is one of the best sources of excellent comment on affairs in southern Africa, certainly it beats the mainstream international media which by and large continues to fawn at the feet of the ANC. This statement on its website tells much:
"The Helen Suzman Foundation supports and promotes liberal democratic policies and ideals in the South African political situation. Views such as these are very similar to those held by liberals in Europe and certain countries in the East, where liberals are non-racial in their views, support free enterprise and are generally sympathetic to individualism, although their views on, and support for, welfare policies vary both within countries and between countries.
As we understand it, in the United States of America, however, the way in which "liberals" are defined differs from the South African and European definition. Liberals in the United States include many people who hold "progressive" views in the sense that they are less sympathetic to free enterprise and individualism and more consistently supportive of public welfare. In Europe and South Africa such people are very likely to regard themselves as "social democrats" or socialists, which are less familiar categories in the United States.
American visitors to this website should bear these differences in mind when reading about The Helen Suzman Foundation and its mission."
$13846 per passenger
According to the NZ Herald that's what Auckland ratepayers (and taxpayers) have already paid for each person expected to use the new trial daily Helensville to Auckland commuter train service. It will be an extension of a single service and carry 65 passengers a day, in addition to those it will pick up on the Waitakere to Auckland section (which would have run anyway).
However, that without a single passenger having been moved, that was just to build the platforms to take the trains. It will be another $400,000 a year in operating costs for the service, around $26 per day per commuter. So you better hope the fare would be that, but you can be sure it wont be. ARC's leftwing Chairman Mike Lee said "he would be most surprised if the Helensville service did not follow the trend of every other recent improvement to the rail network, in becoming over-subscribed very quickly." Well, if you give people something they have only had to pay part of the costs for, that's quite possible. However if you can charge the passengers $35 a day for the privilege (which would cover opex and recover the capital costs), then it will make sense.
However, that without a single passenger having been moved, that was just to build the platforms to take the trains. It will be another $400,000 a year in operating costs for the service, around $26 per day per commuter. So you better hope the fare would be that, but you can be sure it wont be. ARC's leftwing Chairman Mike Lee said "he would be most surprised if the Helensville service did not follow the trend of every other recent improvement to the rail network, in becoming over-subscribed very quickly." Well, if you give people something they have only had to pay part of the costs for, that's quite possible. However if you can charge the passengers $35 a day for the privilege (which would cover opex and recover the capital costs), then it will make sense.
So what IS the cost of drugs?
The NZ Herald is reporting a study conducted called the Drug Harm Index. It reports it was "designed by economists to help police decide where drugs do the most harm and enable them to use resources more efficiently."
On the face of it the report claims a $1.3 billion "social" cost for drugs. That, of course raises some big issues:
- How many of those costs are costs of prohibition? If prohibition ended, how many would go up, how many would go down or disappear?
- How many of these costs could be born by those using if the incentives were in place to do so? These wouldn't be "social" costs, they would be internalised. Indeed how many of these costs ARE internal?
- What are the benefits? People spend money on drugs not for nothing, but because they gain value in it. The value is not dissimilar to the value from drinking, eating a dessert, sex or the like. You see people take drugs because they feel good isn't it missing part of the equation to ignore that?
Now I don't think that long term drug use is a particular clever thing to do. It can be highly destructive and damaging, much as consistently high levels of alcohol consumption can be too. However, it is important to consider drugs dispassionately. It's not me to judge what another adult ingests, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. So let's look at least at some points reported:
- "373,310 people used cannabis, but only 17 per cent of these were frequent users". It may suggest that the bulk of users are getting about their life reasonably well. At least no worse than the regular drinker. However if we enforced the law strictly, that would be equal to the population of Christchurch being in prison. That's what winning the war on drugs would mean.
- "Nearly 23,000 people used crystal methamphetamine (36 per cent of them often)" compared with 81,890 using MDMA and 38,890 using cocaine. Suggests the "P epidemic" isn't quite that, although it is undoubtedly the most destructive of the drugs listed.
- Drug use is related to absences at work, which is hardly surprising. However, this IS a matter between the user and the employer, and if the employer has the legal right to dismiss someone for excessive absences then the issue can be addressed. However, you wouldn't arrest a drug user purely for not turning up at work enough would you?
- 16% of the prison population is occupied by "drug related crimes", although it is unclear whether this is drug crimes per se. $108.7 million per annum to keep them there. However, this isn't a cost of drug use - it is a cost of drug prohibition. Add the $374 million court, community sentence and home detention costs also to drug prohibition, not drug use.
- 2292 patients admitted to hospital for drug related reasons, costing $6.76 million p.a. Hardly noticeable in a health budget of $11 billion p.a. The Ministry of Health says that the annual cost of alcohol related hospitalisations is $74 million p.a. Of course, if drug users had to pay for hospital costs it wouldn't be a social cost anymore.
- 1920 drug related deaths (including associated with homicide and road accidents). That statistic itself sounds like a wide catchment. Does it include people murdered in the criminalised drug sector? Curiously ALAC's website claims in 2000 that 1040 deaths were attributable to alcohol, but 980 were PREVENTED by alcohol, although the deaths were more likely to be premature and the deaths avoided older (presumably the preventive effect of red wine on heart disease and the like). Back to drugs, how many drug related deaths could have been avoided had it been easy to present information on safer use of MDMA and other drugs, for example? How many drug related deaths could have been avoided had drugs not been "fortified" by a range of substances to make them "go a bit further" for dealers - a consequence of prohibition.
- "While stimulants contributed 41 per cent of the total costs, figures showed that in 2006, police and Customs seized 33,480kg of cannabis compared with only 155kg of stimulants." It demonstrates the law enforcement agencies concentrate on the high volume easy catches, not the low volumes harder drugs. What does that say about incentives to target "catching people" rather than harm?
So the story is mixed. Yes drugs undoubtedly cost in productivity, and cost more in less tangible ways socially as their misuse can be highly destructive to motivation, character and attitude to life. However, is that a reason to lock up 1578 people? Are their wider education, cultural and philosophical reasons why this happens?
Yes drugs send people to hospital, but at a fraction of the rate of alcohol. We also don't know whether drugs have any positive health effect - some cancer patients report cannabis soothing their pain. We also don't know what other positive effects they have on people, relieving stress for example. Yes there are sceptics, but I'd like to see someone dispassionately investigating this. The cost of drugs is only half of the equation, what value are there on the benefits? I don't have any idea whether this would be smaller or larger than the costs, but surely we should ask both before coming to a conclusion.
Finally, the cost of the criminal justice system is not a cost of drug use, it is the cost of drug prohibition. That is also worthy of a study. The cost of prohibition includes all of those imprisonment and court costs, and Police costs. It also includes the higher price users pay, and an element of the health costs by reducing quality. Finally, if a cost of drug use is reduced productivity, a cost of prohibition is the cost to individuals of being incarcerated and forever having a drug conviction in their records. The cost in time can be calculated, the cost in lost earnings over life, and reduced opportunities to travel. The benefits would be worth calculating too - what do we save from prohibition?
Now none of this is about developing an economists answer to a question of individual freedom, but it is useful in identifying the consequences of policies and getting some order of magnitude. It is telling in itself that the health costs of drug use are quite low.
On the face of it the report claims a $1.3 billion "social" cost for drugs. That, of course raises some big issues:
- How many of those costs are costs of prohibition? If prohibition ended, how many would go up, how many would go down or disappear?
- How many of these costs could be born by those using if the incentives were in place to do so? These wouldn't be "social" costs, they would be internalised. Indeed how many of these costs ARE internal?
- What are the benefits? People spend money on drugs not for nothing, but because they gain value in it. The value is not dissimilar to the value from drinking, eating a dessert, sex or the like. You see people take drugs because they feel good isn't it missing part of the equation to ignore that?
Now I don't think that long term drug use is a particular clever thing to do. It can be highly destructive and damaging, much as consistently high levels of alcohol consumption can be too. However, it is important to consider drugs dispassionately. It's not me to judge what another adult ingests, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. So let's look at least at some points reported:
- "373,310 people used cannabis, but only 17 per cent of these were frequent users". It may suggest that the bulk of users are getting about their life reasonably well. At least no worse than the regular drinker. However if we enforced the law strictly, that would be equal to the population of Christchurch being in prison. That's what winning the war on drugs would mean.
- "Nearly 23,000 people used crystal methamphetamine (36 per cent of them often)" compared with 81,890 using MDMA and 38,890 using cocaine. Suggests the "P epidemic" isn't quite that, although it is undoubtedly the most destructive of the drugs listed.
- Drug use is related to absences at work, which is hardly surprising. However, this IS a matter between the user and the employer, and if the employer has the legal right to dismiss someone for excessive absences then the issue can be addressed. However, you wouldn't arrest a drug user purely for not turning up at work enough would you?
- 16% of the prison population is occupied by "drug related crimes", although it is unclear whether this is drug crimes per se. $108.7 million per annum to keep them there. However, this isn't a cost of drug use - it is a cost of drug prohibition. Add the $374 million court, community sentence and home detention costs also to drug prohibition, not drug use.
- 2292 patients admitted to hospital for drug related reasons, costing $6.76 million p.a. Hardly noticeable in a health budget of $11 billion p.a. The Ministry of Health says that the annual cost of alcohol related hospitalisations is $74 million p.a. Of course, if drug users had to pay for hospital costs it wouldn't be a social cost anymore.
- 1920 drug related deaths (including associated with homicide and road accidents). That statistic itself sounds like a wide catchment. Does it include people murdered in the criminalised drug sector? Curiously ALAC's website claims in 2000 that 1040 deaths were attributable to alcohol, but 980 were PREVENTED by alcohol, although the deaths were more likely to be premature and the deaths avoided older (presumably the preventive effect of red wine on heart disease and the like). Back to drugs, how many drug related deaths could have been avoided had it been easy to present information on safer use of MDMA and other drugs, for example? How many drug related deaths could have been avoided had drugs not been "fortified" by a range of substances to make them "go a bit further" for dealers - a consequence of prohibition.
- "While stimulants contributed 41 per cent of the total costs, figures showed that in 2006, police and Customs seized 33,480kg of cannabis compared with only 155kg of stimulants." It demonstrates the law enforcement agencies concentrate on the high volume easy catches, not the low volumes harder drugs. What does that say about incentives to target "catching people" rather than harm?
So the story is mixed. Yes drugs undoubtedly cost in productivity, and cost more in less tangible ways socially as their misuse can be highly destructive to motivation, character and attitude to life. However, is that a reason to lock up 1578 people? Are their wider education, cultural and philosophical reasons why this happens?
Yes drugs send people to hospital, but at a fraction of the rate of alcohol. We also don't know whether drugs have any positive health effect - some cancer patients report cannabis soothing their pain. We also don't know what other positive effects they have on people, relieving stress for example. Yes there are sceptics, but I'd like to see someone dispassionately investigating this. The cost of drugs is only half of the equation, what value are there on the benefits? I don't have any idea whether this would be smaller or larger than the costs, but surely we should ask both before coming to a conclusion.
Finally, the cost of the criminal justice system is not a cost of drug use, it is the cost of drug prohibition. That is also worthy of a study. The cost of prohibition includes all of those imprisonment and court costs, and Police costs. It also includes the higher price users pay, and an element of the health costs by reducing quality. Finally, if a cost of drug use is reduced productivity, a cost of prohibition is the cost to individuals of being incarcerated and forever having a drug conviction in their records. The cost in time can be calculated, the cost in lost earnings over life, and reduced opportunities to travel. The benefits would be worth calculating too - what do we save from prohibition?
Now none of this is about developing an economists answer to a question of individual freedom, but it is useful in identifying the consequences of policies and getting some order of magnitude. It is telling in itself that the health costs of drug use are quite low.
Transmission Gully non-announcement?
The Dominion Post today is reporting the rather exagerrated comment that the Transmission Gully boondoggle cargo cult "has passed a crucial hurdle" without actually saying at all what that is.
It isn't resource consents, it doesn't have those.
It isn't funding, it doesn't have that (and the funding earmarked for this project reduces in value every year due to inflation).
It isn't owning the land, that hasn't happened either.
It could be the completion of the investigation phase, but I thought that had happened.
The "government green light" could only mean funding, Transit board approval to proceed to the design phase or some special porkbarrel approval to change the law to bypass the RMA. If it is the "next phase of planning", it is simply design. Don't get too excited.
I do note finally someone has noted that costs don't remain static and it now costs $1.025 billion - for one road (I said $1.04 billion a few month ago). That makes it more expensive than any other road project in the country that us well developed other than the Waterview extension in Auckland, tunnelled under the PM's electorate.
Meanwhile Peter Dunne remains obsessed about it (Wellington needs another outlet, besides the current highway, State Highway 2, the two railways, the airport, the sea, the Akatarawas).
The enthusiasts all want a regional Wellington petrol tax (because you see, the users wont pay the toll necessary to pay for it - which tells you how bad a project it is), and tolls and "some other source" of funding. So if Wellingtonians are worried about petrol prices now, it seems Labour and United Future would increase petrol taxes to help pay for one road, and find other money elsewhere to pay for it OH and have you pay a toll, and demote the current highway (lower speed limits) so you'd have to use Transmission Gully for through traffic.
Nothing like politicians trying to buy the votes of some people by taxing the hell out of everyone else. Remember the extra Wellington petrol tax would also increase GST so 5c/l becomes 5.625c/l, remember also that Wellington region includes Wairarapa - how many people there will use Transmission Gully? How about Upper Hutt residents? How about all those Wellingtonians who DON'T commute by car from Kapiti every day, or DON'T have properties there?
Yep, and will National say it's a bad idea?
UPDATE: Yes I was write, investigations are over and the price is over a billion. The government is saying it has saved $275 million, which is only if you take a saving over the Land Transport NZ index of costs (an inflation that the government is hardly immune from blame over). Of course the "saving" is a nonsense, because the money doesn't exist to pay for it, or hasn't been taken from taxpayers yet. A toll wont come remotely close to being enough to fund it, neither would a 5c/l petrol tax on all Wellington motorists.
The Q&As are a nonsense. The project now has a preferred route, but landowners need to be talked to, property needs purchasing, and detailed design will determine exactly what the costs are likely to be. It's not that significant. The big issue remains funding - and more importantly why should motorists, ratepayers and general taxpayers pay for a road most of them wont use, and which by and large simply delivers property value windfalls to Kapiti residents, as it effectively subsidises car commuting from Kapiti to Wellington - not exactly lowering CO2 emissions is it?
UPDATE: The NZ Herald gets it wrong too. Transmission Gully hasn't "got the go ahead", it has funding for design. Property purchases not complete, no resource consent granted, no funding to built it. Come on, how hard is it to do more than report what politicians say? You could actually do a little research!
It isn't resource consents, it doesn't have those.
It isn't funding, it doesn't have that (and the funding earmarked for this project reduces in value every year due to inflation).
It isn't owning the land, that hasn't happened either.
It could be the completion of the investigation phase, but I thought that had happened.
The "government green light" could only mean funding, Transit board approval to proceed to the design phase or some special porkbarrel approval to change the law to bypass the RMA. If it is the "next phase of planning", it is simply design. Don't get too excited.
I do note finally someone has noted that costs don't remain static and it now costs $1.025 billion - for one road (I said $1.04 billion a few month ago). That makes it more expensive than any other road project in the country that us well developed other than the Waterview extension in Auckland, tunnelled under the PM's electorate.
Meanwhile Peter Dunne remains obsessed about it (Wellington needs another outlet, besides the current highway, State Highway 2, the two railways, the airport, the sea, the Akatarawas).
The enthusiasts all want a regional Wellington petrol tax (because you see, the users wont pay the toll necessary to pay for it - which tells you how bad a project it is), and tolls and "some other source" of funding. So if Wellingtonians are worried about petrol prices now, it seems Labour and United Future would increase petrol taxes to help pay for one road, and find other money elsewhere to pay for it OH and have you pay a toll, and demote the current highway (lower speed limits) so you'd have to use Transmission Gully for through traffic.
Nothing like politicians trying to buy the votes of some people by taxing the hell out of everyone else. Remember the extra Wellington petrol tax would also increase GST so 5c/l becomes 5.625c/l, remember also that Wellington region includes Wairarapa - how many people there will use Transmission Gully? How about Upper Hutt residents? How about all those Wellingtonians who DON'T commute by car from Kapiti every day, or DON'T have properties there?
Yep, and will National say it's a bad idea?
UPDATE: Yes I was write, investigations are over and the price is over a billion. The government is saying it has saved $275 million, which is only if you take a saving over the Land Transport NZ index of costs (an inflation that the government is hardly immune from blame over). Of course the "saving" is a nonsense, because the money doesn't exist to pay for it, or hasn't been taken from taxpayers yet. A toll wont come remotely close to being enough to fund it, neither would a 5c/l petrol tax on all Wellington motorists.
The Q&As are a nonsense. The project now has a preferred route, but landowners need to be talked to, property needs purchasing, and detailed design will determine exactly what the costs are likely to be. It's not that significant. The big issue remains funding - and more importantly why should motorists, ratepayers and general taxpayers pay for a road most of them wont use, and which by and large simply delivers property value windfalls to Kapiti residents, as it effectively subsidises car commuting from Kapiti to Wellington - not exactly lowering CO2 emissions is it?
UPDATE: The NZ Herald gets it wrong too. Transmission Gully hasn't "got the go ahead", it has funding for design. Property purchases not complete, no resource consent granted, no funding to built it. Come on, how hard is it to do more than report what politicians say? You could actually do a little research!
Tsvangarai seeks refuge in Dutch Embassy
The Dutch Foreign Minister told CNN "Tsvangirai has indeed asked through the MDC, his party, if the Netherlands would be able to provide him with security in the coming days."
Of course if Tsvangirai were murdered it surely would bring Zimbabwe close to civil war. Another day of violence continues, and South Africa watches on deliberately being impotent and helpless, when Africans are murdered and abused the South African government lets it be.
Of course if Tsvangirai were murdered it surely would bring Zimbabwe close to civil war. Another day of violence continues, and South Africa watches on deliberately being impotent and helpless, when Africans are murdered and abused the South African government lets it be.
A tiny tiny challenge for National
Promise to abolish the Families Commission, as Lindsay Mitchell says it is part of the problem.
I didn't exist nine years ago, it doesn't need to exist now. $9 million a year saved, to help slip back into the paypackets of families (and $0.4m in assets to flog off).
Nobody will miss it, except Peter Dunne and he'll be a single MP party (again) after the election, so he shouldn't hold that much weight.
unless you believe the nonsense in its own material. This includes having as a strategic objective "Significant progress has been made towards preventing family violence." fine. How does it contribute to that? It did research into elder abuse, completed a report on statistics of family violence (shouldn't Justice have that?) and started an advertising campaign about it (again shouldn't Justice do that?). It talks about "promoting a change in society’s attitudes and behaviours relating to family violence." Who is this "society"? I don't tolerate it, I know of few who do. Isn't this just crime prevention? According to its own measure it has met that strategic objective - I wonder how many homes suffering under violent abuse have noticed?
So come on John Key, or is that too scary? Is a vote for National that utterly pointless?
I didn't exist nine years ago, it doesn't need to exist now. $9 million a year saved, to help slip back into the paypackets of families (and $0.4m in assets to flog off).
Nobody will miss it, except Peter Dunne and he'll be a single MP party (again) after the election, so he shouldn't hold that much weight.
unless you believe the nonsense in its own material. This includes having as a strategic objective "Significant progress has been made towards preventing family violence." fine. How does it contribute to that? It did research into elder abuse, completed a report on statistics of family violence (shouldn't Justice have that?) and started an advertising campaign about it (again shouldn't Justice do that?). It talks about "promoting a change in society’s attitudes and behaviours relating to family violence." Who is this "society"? I don't tolerate it, I know of few who do. Isn't this just crime prevention? According to its own measure it has met that strategic objective - I wonder how many homes suffering under violent abuse have noticed?
So come on John Key, or is that too scary? Is a vote for National that utterly pointless?
Scratching round for desperate wins
When Otaki MP Darren Hughes can put out a press release about how wonderful widening a roundabout is, you know that things are getting desperate. Apparently there isn't much else for him to be proud of as a government MP.
Yes traffic delays in Otaki are bad and the roundabout widening is helpful, but really this is $600,000 on a state highway. Darren's role? Well he probably met with Annette King and the Transit CEO to say "this matters to me".
You said he says he worked with the Community Board to secure $600,000 for the project. Which seems like he actually "fought for the project". This is a bit of a stretch, no doubt he cheered it on. However it is one thing to cheer on a big project (like a major bypass of Otaki), another to cheer on this very modest road project (yep don't get too excited).
You see Transit consulted with the Community Board on the project, but it is Transit's road (well the Crown's road managed by Transit). It's a state highway, so it is up to Transit's board to advance the proposal which it would compared to other priorities in the region. Yes Darren could have said do it this year instead of next year, but there is no indication that it was a low priority. In fact the development has been getting funded for the last 3 years.
However the actual decision to proceed was from Land Transport NZ - which decides on funding bids from Transit (admittedly for another week!), and cannot be directed by the Minister to fund (or not fund) any specific project. So although Darren isn't the Minister, the Land Transport NZ Board is understandably rather averse to being told what to do politically.
Nice try Darren, you were a cheerleader and that's about it. Aim modest and you'll win (yes he's cheerleading Transmission Gully too though sparing his words). So how are hospital waiting lists, crime and traffic congestion in your electorate then? Made some stunning wins then given the massive increase in taxes collected from there since Labour was elected? Thought not.
Yes traffic delays in Otaki are bad and the roundabout widening is helpful, but really this is $600,000 on a state highway. Darren's role? Well he probably met with Annette King and the Transit CEO to say "this matters to me".
You said he says he worked with the Community Board to secure $600,000 for the project. Which seems like he actually "fought for the project". This is a bit of a stretch, no doubt he cheered it on. However it is one thing to cheer on a big project (like a major bypass of Otaki), another to cheer on this very modest road project (yep don't get too excited).
You see Transit consulted with the Community Board on the project, but it is Transit's road (well the Crown's road managed by Transit). It's a state highway, so it is up to Transit's board to advance the proposal which it would compared to other priorities in the region. Yes Darren could have said do it this year instead of next year, but there is no indication that it was a low priority. In fact the development has been getting funded for the last 3 years.
However the actual decision to proceed was from Land Transport NZ - which decides on funding bids from Transit (admittedly for another week!), and cannot be directed by the Minister to fund (or not fund) any specific project. So although Darren isn't the Minister, the Land Transport NZ Board is understandably rather averse to being told what to do politically.
Nice try Darren, you were a cheerleader and that's about it. Aim modest and you'll win (yes he's cheerleading Transmission Gully too though sparing his words). So how are hospital waiting lists, crime and traffic congestion in your electorate then? Made some stunning wins then given the massive increase in taxes collected from there since Labour was elected? Thought not.
The man who helped defined censorship in the US, dies
George Carlin never meant to become the centre of a court case on freedom of speech in the USA, but he did with his famous "seven dirty words" which wikipedia summarises rather well (and yes the words are there). In fact the whole famous monologue is in a transcript here (at a law school website no less).
They form the basis of the seven words that are prohibited from US BROADCAST television (i.e. over the airwaves, not cable) and even today two of those words are not an issue during "adult" broadcast hours.
However, George was about being funny, and provocative. He sought to highlight the absurdity of offence being drawn purely about words, rather than context. I heard him often in the 1980s on Radio Active's (in Wellington) comedy show on Thursday evenings (back when regulated radio offered few choices), and he was sometimes shocking but more often just hilarious. Yes he was leftwing, he was no objectivist at all. However his challenge on free speech, he deserves some applause and besides, if all anyone with leftwing inclinations did was make jokes we would all be in a better world. He passed away yesterday of a heart attack.
If you are easily offended then don't read further, for below is a segment of his famous monologue - it's about the word that really isn't the most obscene in the English language, but isn't far short. Yes it is childish, yes it is unnecessary, but I really don't care.... you have been warned, don't read any further....
The big one, the word fuck that's the one that hangs them up the most. Cause in a lot of cases that's the very act that hangs them up the most. So, it's natural that the word would, uh, have the same effect. It's a great word, fuck, nice word, easy word, cute word, kind of. Easy word to say. One syllable, short u..... Fuck.... You know, it's easy. Starts with a nice soft sound fuh ends with a kuh. Right?....A little something for everyone. Fuck. Good word. Kind of a proud word, too. Who are you? I am FUCK. FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. Tune in again next week to FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. It's an interesting word too, cause it's got a double kind of a life -- personality -- dual, you know, whatever the right phrase is. It leads a double life, the word fuck. First of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuck. What does it mean? It means to make love. Right? We're going to make love, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to make love. we're really going to fuck, yeah, we're going to make love. Right? And it also means the beginning of life, it's the act that begins life, so there's the word hanging around with words like love, and life, and yet on the other hand, it's also a word that we really use to hurt each other with, man. It's a heavy. It's one that you have toward the end of the argument. Right? You finally can't make out. Oh, fuck you man. I said, fuck you... Stupid fuck....Fuck you and everybody that looks like you..... man. It would be nice to change the movies that we already have and substitute the word fuck for the word kill, wherever we could, and some of those movie cliches would change a little bit. Madfuckers still on the loose. Stop me before I fuck again. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. Easy on the clutch Bill, you'll fuck that engine again.
and for those of you for whom this isn't enough, here is 2443 dirty words.
They form the basis of the seven words that are prohibited from US BROADCAST television (i.e. over the airwaves, not cable) and even today two of those words are not an issue during "adult" broadcast hours.
However, George was about being funny, and provocative. He sought to highlight the absurdity of offence being drawn purely about words, rather than context. I heard him often in the 1980s on Radio Active's (in Wellington) comedy show on Thursday evenings (back when regulated radio offered few choices), and he was sometimes shocking but more often just hilarious. Yes he was leftwing, he was no objectivist at all. However his challenge on free speech, he deserves some applause and besides, if all anyone with leftwing inclinations did was make jokes we would all be in a better world. He passed away yesterday of a heart attack.
If you are easily offended then don't read further, for below is a segment of his famous monologue - it's about the word that really isn't the most obscene in the English language, but isn't far short. Yes it is childish, yes it is unnecessary, but I really don't care.... you have been warned, don't read any further....
The big one, the word fuck that's the one that hangs them up the most. Cause in a lot of cases that's the very act that hangs them up the most. So, it's natural that the word would, uh, have the same effect. It's a great word, fuck, nice word, easy word, cute word, kind of. Easy word to say. One syllable, short u..... Fuck.... You know, it's easy. Starts with a nice soft sound fuh ends with a kuh. Right?....A little something for everyone. Fuck. Good word. Kind of a proud word, too. Who are you? I am FUCK. FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. Tune in again next week to FUCK OF THE MOUNTAIN. It's an interesting word too, cause it's got a double kind of a life -- personality -- dual, you know, whatever the right phrase is. It leads a double life, the word fuck. First of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuck. What does it mean? It means to make love. Right? We're going to make love, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to make love. we're really going to fuck, yeah, we're going to make love. Right? And it also means the beginning of life, it's the act that begins life, so there's the word hanging around with words like love, and life, and yet on the other hand, it's also a word that we really use to hurt each other with, man. It's a heavy. It's one that you have toward the end of the argument. Right? You finally can't make out. Oh, fuck you man. I said, fuck you... Stupid fuck....Fuck you and everybody that looks like you..... man. It would be nice to change the movies that we already have and substitute the word fuck for the word kill, wherever we could, and some of those movie cliches would change a little bit. Madfuckers still on the loose. Stop me before I fuck again. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. Easy on the clutch Bill, you'll fuck that engine again.
and for those of you for whom this isn't enough, here is 2443 dirty words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)