What the Presidential candidates DIDN'T talk about

- China
- Somalia
- Food
- Illegal immigration
- Drug gang violence in Mexico

So says Foreign Policy and it is concerned that there has been so little on these.
In terms of where the candidates stand:

Virtually no difference on China - both will engage, both concerned about debt owed to China, both concerned about human rights.

Virtually no policy on Somalia - concerning, since it is a failed state, a haven for Islamists, a hell for its residents (you can't be a citizen of a non-existent state), and a location of US intervention disaster from the 1990s, which happened under the Clinton Administration. Yes I know you'd forgotten that. Obama did too.

Big difference on food. Obama supports subsidies for biofuels, McCain opposes them. They are a significant contributor to the increase in food prices. Obama also supports higher agricultural protectionism, McCain opposes it.

Virtually no difference on illegal immigration - Obama wants immigrants to be legal, McCain wants a secure border. Most voters get heated up about this issue, which frankly isn't where McCain is at personally.

Virtually no difference on the war on drugs - Both praised the Mexican government's crackdown on the drugs trade, despite 4,000 lives being lost and the violence growing. As noted in the article, the US government subsidies the Mexican government's war on drugs, and US citizens buy the drugs, and sell the firearms used in the war - on both sides. This policy failure is not something either side will touch - because regardless of the blood spilt, being soft on drugs doesn't win votes.

Iran hoping for US withdrawal

The Tehran Times is not picking a winner of the US election (although the headline is "Waiting for Obama", but is calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and is calling for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital (notably not calling for the destruction of Israel).

Imagine if Iran would stop its interference in the affairs of its neighbours.

Braindead presidential election

US Presidential elections are remarkable experiences. The wonderful primaries give a chance for the public to choose the candidates they think best represent them and give their parties a chance to win. It is a two party system, and only with enormous money can a third party candidate be a spoiler. Ross Perot did this in 1992 and 1996, Ralph Nader can't be said to have done it in 2000, even though if they who voted for him had gone for Gore, history would have been different.

So it is between two big parties, with long, distinguished and not so distinguished histories. Few now see in the Democratic Party the party of Thomas Jefferson, or indeed the party of southern segregation which it was until Lyndon Johnson turned his back on all that. Few African Americans probably know the Republicans freed the slaves, because it was the Democrats that bravely confronted segregation in the 1960s and handed over a core constituency to the Republicans - the south.

In a world of asinine urges to split arguments into two - it is all too easy for the media and the public to paint both major US parties as miles apart, as representing two very different visions of the future. In truth both are very broad churches. The stereotype of the Democrats being the party of social liberalism and secularism is as inaccurate as saying the Republicans are conservative evangelicals. Both are right and wrong. Both are full of people who despise freedom, and reject science. It's just that the Democrats will prefer this on economic matters, and reject science on the environment, whereas Republicans prefer regulating social matters, and reject science on education and ethical issues. Generally speaking.

So what of Barack Obama and John McCain?

Barack Obama has inspired millions, a good part of that is because of race. Few can deny the importance that having a major party Presidential candidate who is part African American shows how far the USA has come in a couple of generations. That will, understandably, motivate almost all African-Americans to vote for him, but beyond that there is little positive to vote for. Obama has been propelled to where he is because he has star qualities. He looks good, he speaks good, what he says isn't important except you hear the same words again "change", "bring together", "new beginning". He talks about a different politics, but nothing he sells is different. He's a leftwing Democrat who has never steered away from that course. That none of this has had more than cursory attention from the bulk of the US media is scandalous. If John McCain had spent time promoting ultranationalist causes, there is little doubt it would have been an issue.

Obama's foreign policy is essentially to talk to everyone, and focus on Afghanistan rather than Iraq. He'll be liked internationally and he'll be tested, by the enemies of the USA, and that will be the supreme test - to see if he hesitates or can be decisive to take military action when required. Obama's domestic policy is also nothing new. Tax cuts for many, tax hikes for "the rich", he wants to grow the Federal Government with umpteen new spending promises and to radically reform health care. He offers the status quo on social security and education. He has a consistent record of supporting "pork barrel" subsidies and programmes.

Change you can believe in? Hardly.

Obama's chief campaign message has been change, it doesn't look like anything not tried before. Obama has also campaigned blaming the economic crisis on the Bush Administration, which he must know is a lie - as the conditions for the crisis go well beyond Bush. That's the old politics that Obama happily taps into, with little criticism from the media.

You see Obama is Hollywood, and the USA loves Hollywood.

McCain is an old hand, he had the potential to really mean change. He was right about the surge in Iraq, and he could do the same in Afghanistan. He believes in fiscal prudence, cutting spending, opposing any "pork" and cutting taxes. He believes in free trade, critical at this time of global recession, and he doesn't think the answer to every problem is government. Obama is friendlier towards government being the solution.

However McCain has done appallingly for several reasons. He has tried to throw dirt at Obama when the media wouldn't play ball, although some of the dirt is well worth looking into (Jeremiah Wright). He has made umpteen blunders in front of the camera and has not sold himself on a confident platform of less government. Worst of all he failed to differentiate himself from the White House financial bailout plan, which would have given him leverage and credentials on small government and opposing "pork". He played a card, that the party pressured him into, by accepting Sarah Palin as his running mate, which scared a majority of voters away. Palin is feisty and curious, but her ignorance is palpable. She'll fire up some on the religious right, many who she will fire up match her ignorance, most opposing her see a woman who shouldn't be near the White House. She was, on balance, a wrong move - because she performed so badly. McCain is now fighting back, with great difficulty. The damage has been done. McCain has sought to fire up the Republican base - which is as banal as ever. This isn't the real McCain, it is sad that he has had to resort to this, instead of attacking Obama in the centre battleground.

As a libertarian, both major parties turn me away. The Democrats are the repositary of the left, and the environmentalist movements in the US. I've seen how appallingly they have misgoverned cities, and spread the envy message throughout the country. They have played the xenophobic card, differently from Republicans. They think government is the solution and they listen, too intently, to the pseudo science of the environmentalist movement, and the identity politics of the left. They continue to oppose school choice. The Republicans are a true conservative party, containing far more bigoted banal Christian halfwits than the Democrats - the type who think the planet is a few thousand years old, that Darwin was wrong and few things should get you more worked up than a homosexual (!). They happily censor away, and like to treat non-Christians with suspicion and science if it is to interfere with their literal interpretation of the Bible. The Republicans do have a liberal small government side, but sadly it isn't dominant.

Both being defeated would please me, but for now one has to win.

On foreign policy it is a closer run race than it was some months ago. Obama has stopped talking about withdrawing from Iraq quickly, and has moderated his speech about talking to the enemies of the USA. Biden strengthens Obama's ticket on foreign policy. Palin weaken's McCain's. McCain would be comforting on foreign policy and a strong advocate for a new open trade round at the WTO. That could help spur on global recovery, something I see Obama being far less enthusiatic about. McCain after all votes against protectionism and subsidies, Obama has voted for them. On security matters, Israel would feel more comfortable with McCain, but I don't doubt the rest of the world would embrace him, they would see a USA willing to compromise - which on too many things would be unthinkably wrong.

On domestic policy Obama wants big government, McCain has always wanted less before, but who knows now.

The worst that can happen under McCain is that he passes away and Palin becomes President, a scary thought. However, beyond that McCain may simply spend his term vetoing budgets because the Democrats keep trying on new spending.

The worst that can happen under Obama is that he negotiates away Iraq, forces Israel to batten down the hatches with less support, and dramatically grows the federal government - FDR style. He isolates the USA with trade protectionism, and directs the economy.

For McCain the best that can be said is similar to Lindsay Perigo's comment that voting for McCain is about opposing Obama as it:

"may buy the country some time: time to reverse its slide into a European-style 'social democracy' - i.e., full-blown collectivist tyranny based on the airheaded consent of the tyrannized. For that to happen, not just Senator McCain and Governor Palin but millions more Americans need to snap out of their addled airhead postmodern stupor and acquaint themselves with Ayn Rand"

Some think it is better to smash and punish the Republicans because of much incompetence since 2000. I can empathise with that view, but I believe it is mistaken - the world needs decisiveness on foreign policy, a free trade President and a President who will say no to more government spending. That is NOT Barack Obama, and it might just be John McCain. McCain will prove to Republicans that they can win if they choose a moderately liberal supporter of less government. It will prove to Democrats that an agenda of more government is not enough to win. However it is more than that.

The USA deserves better than a man winning the Presidency because he is a star. Obama's celebrity status may say that an African-American could be elected President, but it also says that style wins over substance. Few who support Obama are likely to be able to say what "change" he will bring. Few have really put Obama's policies under the spotlight, few have asked him serious questions about his inconsistencies, and how he thinks spending taxpayers' children's taxes will help. It is truly the "airhead" politics as Perigo describes them - where choosing a radical leftwing pastor was dismissed as being a mistake, as if it didn't reflect on Obama's philosophy. Where a campaign of pure banality is treated as being some great revolution.

That is why Americans should reject Obama/Biden in favour of McCain/Palin. John McCain has made many mistakes, he has floundered and disappointed, almost painfully his campaign has been an appalling series of mistakes. Sarah Palin may be one of his biggest ones. However, he is, for now, the safer pair of hands compared to Obama. John McCain wont be a great President, but he would be one who could contain a Democrat led Congress, who could be a competent Commander in Chief, and would not seek government solutions to every problem. He could lead a new WTO round with some significant liberalisation from the USA to kickstart the global economy. He could be a change.

I know an Obama loss might trouble millions, and may even spark anger from disappointment, but that is not a reason to vote for him. Whoever wins the Presidency has to handle Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, all decisively, I'll pick the man of experience over the man of slogans. As much as McCain's campaigning appalls, as much as Sarah Palin grates, and as much as McCain has looked tired, and his approach to the financial crisis wrong, he is the better choice. A vote for a McCain is a vote for the less government option, and a vote against the anointed believer in wealth redistribution, massive growth in the federal government and a campaign of banality.

Obama or McCain ARI?

It must be troubling them.

The Ayn Rand Institute in 2004 backed John Kerry, in 2000 backed Al Gore.

So does ARI pick the rather leftwing, softer foreign policy of Obama, or the cuddling up to evangelicals centrist tougher foreign policy of McCain?

At the moment it appears to be a curse on both houses.

The Objectivist Center is saying nothing either, but also damning of Obama and McCain.

Lindsay Perigo has said a vote for McCain would be "a vote against Obama bin Biden, and may buy the country some time: time to reverse its slide into a European-style 'social democracy' - i.e., full-blown collectivist tyranny based on the airheaded consent of the tyrannized. For that to happen, not just Senator McCain and Governor Palin but millions more Americans need to snap out of their addled airhead postmodern stupor and acquaint themselves with Ayn Rand".

I'll be posting my verdict on the US Presidential candidates shortly.

Labour lackey gunning for Maori Party

Remember Gregory Fortuin? The sickeningly leftwing former Race Relations Conciliator hand picked by Labour who resigned after he offered to mediate in the political dispute between factions of the Alliance at the time. This was in 2002 when the Alliance split between Jim Anderton's Progressive Party and the Alliance. Fortuin foolishly thought that being a quasi-judicial public servant meant no conflict of interest in helping the government's coalition partner!

He's a professional bureaucrat, now a member of the Families Commission, but he can't keep his mouth shut.

He's interfering in politics again, maybe it's something he learnt from his beloved ANC - which is well known for how corrupt it works within South African politics.

Fortuin is predicting, foolishly, that the Maori Party will win all of the Maori seats and in his article in the New Zealand Herald is all for it. This wont win him friends in Labour.

This identity-politics defined simpleton thinks that because it is the "Maori Party" it represents all Maori - because, of course, a race can only have one political view.

He calls for "sustainable constitutional arrangements that will endure no matter who's in government or whatever happens to our demographics" which is fine, except he doesn't say what this means.

He goes on about nation building and:

"What we need is harmonised diversity; many strings on one guitar making music together. The challenge is to develop the single hymn sheet"

No talk of individuals, and individual diversity. No. He can't think outside group speak.

However surely what is more telling is that this Families Commissioner is endorsing a political party. Good to see public sector neutrality in New Zealand - somewhere.

Electoral Finance Act strikes again

The sycophantic bottom feeders who inhabit the world of the Labour party didn't listen when people from left and right told of how the Electoral Finance Act would suppress political speech.

So how will they react with the report from the NZ Herald that Rodney Hide has now received a letter from the Electoral Commission stating that his yellow jacket might be an "election advertisement" requiring an "authorisation statement".

Never seen Helen Clark's red clothes needing one of course, but she doesn't have a logo on it. Hide has the ACT logo on his jacket.

Apparently some tiny minded little prick made a complaint in July about it. Rodney is ignoring it, thankfully.

John Key has groupie?

In the Hutt too!

Well it makes a change from Che Fu cheering on Helen Clark a few years ago.

and it shows how much hard journalism the mainstream media engages in during an election campaign.

Read a good article about how almost all party education policies are the same lately?

John Key - seeking Anderton voters?

Apparently in the latest leaders' debate John Key pledged to never sell Kiwibank

"ever ... we've ruled it out"

Why John? Is it critical the New Zealand government owns a bank? Why did National so fervently oppose this 8 years ago? Or are you trying to hoover up the votes of Jim Anderton's Personality Cult Progressive Party.

As if anyone who believed in less government needed another reason to vote Libertarianz or ACT!

A vote for Labour is a vote for the Greens

So says Helen Clark who is reported in the Dominion Post as saying:

"The Greens have waited a long time to be in Government. Their time is here"

So if Labour wins it wants to a dart to the left, a dart to the anti-science, control freak, nanny state loving Green Party. This comes along with Clark's declaration, which we all knew anyway, that NZ First is unlikely to get elected. Along with Peter Dunne hopping off the sinking ship, Labour is stuck to going Green and seducing the Maori Party.

So now you know what a fourth term will mean. One could say that at least Clark has nailed her colours to the mast. That's something I can certainly respect. She is not afraid to declare what she stands for and what she seeks, and I see another Labour term being one which intends to change direction, decisively toward the left even more.

Why shouldn't she, when National is so determined to be the classic conservative party and do virtually nothing to reverse anything she does.

John Key ought to think carefully - if Labour wins is it because it actually, convincingly, believes in something other than simply being in power? Labour believes in nanny state, so do the Greens.

Who is campaigning against this?

Grey Power is red

Lindsay Mitchell has written an excellent piece on "Grey Power" that Muldoonist statist group of greedy grey grizzlers who constantly lobby for the state to give them more, whilst moaning about having to pay for it.

As she says:

Grey Power epitomises the pursuit of privilege. They cleverly cover this by tugging on the heartstrings with cases of elderly people shivering in their cold homes, suffering on hospital waiting lists. All the while thuggishly pulling the guilt lever on those who have not yet reached that lofty position of having 'paid taxes and served their countries all their working lives'.

One of the greatest leaps forward for New Zealand would be to declare that the state WONT provide you with a retirement income if you are currently under a certain age, and in return for that here are your taxes - go forth and save, invest and make provision for yourself if you so choose.

Grey Power is against that - it supports the intergenerational fraud that is PAYE National Superannuation.

Moreso, it has provided succour to that aging purveyor of bigotry Winston Peters, but was too stupid to support him in 1999 after he had implemented the abolition of the superannuation surtax - a cause that WAS worthy because it taxed those who had made provision for themselves and because Jim Bolger promised to abolish it in 1990 but didn't.

Many elderly people live dignified lives that they saved up for, and only expect the state to provide the healthcare they've been forced to pay for. It's too late for them to do anything else, but they could at least stop lobbying for the nanny state that has so overwhelmingly let them down time and time again.

State radio openly biased

Not PC points out, the "impartial, balanced and independent" state radio - that you are forced to pay for - has a political editor who is willing, a week out from a general election - to openly call Libertarianz "nutbars".

Now Liz Banas can believe whatever she wants. We all know John Campbell of TV3 is a raving socialist, but you don't pay for TV3, you don't own TV3.

You do own Radio NZ and you are forced to pay for it, whether you listen to it, or not.

It's a mockery of the so-called independence - which of course Labour, the Greens and others on the left say is the hallmark of "public broadcasting".

Liz Banas has proven she isn't impartial, independent or balanced. Many of you may think Libertarianz are "nutbars", but as Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton points out "All parties other than Labour ought to be concerned when a week away from the election, it is clear the RNZ political editor isn't afraid to let her political views get in the way of her job".

Who else does she think are nutbars, who does she not think are nutbars, how can anyone have confidence in her editorial decisions?

Moreover, why should we be forced to pay for a broadcaster that hires people who clearly wouldn't care less about sabotaging a political party's campaign?

Labour transport announcement nothing new

Yes, nothing to see here. It is just trying to publicise what it had previously announced months ago. It isn't a new NZ$19.4 billion.

It is saying it is dedicating all fuel tax, road user charges (RUC) and motor vehicle registration (MVR) fees to land transport, when the latter two were fully dedicated before Labour was elected. Oh and the fuel tax dedication came after National campaigned on it in 2005.

The NZ$19.4 billion is over 6 years, a good 35-40% of that will be for road maintenance - so business as usual. The rest is divided between public transport and new road construction.

However it ISN'T news. The money is already being collected from road users, the only issue is how that is allocated. Presumably National would spend the same.

Trying to steal another election with other people's money?

Well desperation isn't the word for it.

According to the Press, using your money, through the Labour Party Parliamentary research unit, to dig dirt on John Key should be a turning point for how people with any sense of morality consider the Labour Party.

Labour should spend its own money on digging dirt, not its taxpayer funded policy unit.

Of course given Labour supports compulsory taxpayer funded of political parties, you shouldnt' be surprised. Labour thinks it is good for the country, so you should be made to pay for it.

I think political parties are clubs of like minded people who seek power. You shouldn't have to pay for any of them. You should choose who you pay for.

Remember, Labour believes in making you pay for the party.

Libertarianz unequivocally believes political parties should be funded voluntarily, and broadcast advertising for political parties should be funded and broadcast voluntarily.

National?

Why grow the welfare state?

Think about it:

Been in a job for five years
Lose the job
Doesn't matter if you have a partner or not

Perfect for many outgoing Labour MPs.

Vote communist?

Yes you can do so, if you think the Greens are gutless libertarians in the advance of the state in stealing, thieving, regulating and controlling your life, the Workers Party is for you.

Having said that, a quick glance at its nine policies sees three Libertarianz wouldn't be shy in supporting. Specifically:
- Abolish GST;
- Abolition of all immigration controls (although Libertarianz would deny any access to a welfare state, state health and education, and wouldn't allow those convicted of genuine crimes whereas the Worker's Party would let the world enter!);
- All Elected Representatives on the Average Workers’ Wage. Yep no problem with that.
- and part of the fourth policy which is to abolish the Electoral Finance Act.

However, the other six policies look a lot closer to the Greens. In fact given how close they are, and the Worker's Party is avowedly Marxist-Leninist, thinks Barack Obama is an instrument of capitalism, then you can see how leftwing the Greens really are.

Vote Labour for your taxes to subsidise importers

Yes, the Prime Minister took a train trip from Wellington to Paraparaumu where she was briefed about a very expensive project to duplicate the rail tunnels between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki. The press release says it would cost NZ$150 million, not a small amount of money, and for what? Well it will allow bigger containers to operate on freight trains between Palmerston North and Wellington, and allow more frequent train services to the Kapiti Coast.

Who are the main beneficiaries of this? Well large containers coming into Wellington are primarily about imports, as the goods flow southbound is primarily about delivering consumer goods to Wellington and the South Island, after unloading and dispatching from Auckland based distribution warehouses. Exports tend to flow out of more regional ports, so in fact the south-north rail freight flow has historically been lighter than north-south. Wellington doesn't produce much that goes north by rail.

Secondly, of course, are Kapiti coast commuters who would enjoy perhaps a 3-5 minute travel time saving on the train trip, and the chance for a major increase in train service frequencies at peak periods.

So who is Helen Clark expecting to pay for this? The freight customers who presumably would want to pay a premium for " improving journey times, reliability, and capacity for freight trains" as she says. No. Presumably the benefits aren't good enough for Kiwirail to borrow and charge these customers appropriately for the added convenience.

What about the commuters? Shouldn't they expect to pay more for some travel time savings, and a more frequent service? Shouldn't enough extra passengers make it worthwhile? Well no. You see they already don't pay enough to cover the cost of running the existing trains, and a more frequent service would mean buying MORE trains, which is an added cost - and most of the day those trains would be sitting in yards doing nothing.

So it's simple. Helen Clark wants your taxes (or to borrow, your children's taxes) to give Kiwirail freight customers a subsidy, presumably damaging the business of the competing trucking (and shipping) companies, so they can shift containers of largely imported consumer goods into Wellington and down to the South Island more cheaply. She also wants you to give the safe Mana and highly marginal Otaki electorates Kapiti Coast commuters a subsidy for their trips into Wellington.

I looked at this project in some detail a few years ago, and it isn't worth it. If Kiwirail wants to pursue it, it should borrow the money and recover it from charging customers over the depreciated life of the project - which would admittedly be many years. However it wont. It's not worth it. It's a waste of your future taxes. It's money you should have back yourselves, to decide what to spend it on.

Greens want Nanny State to control broadcasting

Basically the Green Party press release on broadcasting policy says it all:

"It's pretty much open slather in New Zealand. Unlike most countries, there are no rules around local programming, foreign or cross ownership of the media."

so says Sue Kedgley, as if it is a bad thing! This control freak loathes and despises the very notion of freedom in broadcasting, and freedom in the media because how dare people use their own money, buy some spectrum rights and broadcast what they think people want to watch and hear, seeking to attract audiences and give them what they want. Don't people realise that they don't know what is good for them?

It's those foreigners I tell you, once again! Foreign programming, foreign owners. How can our nations socialist kultur be protected from the foreigners.

Typically it calls for more money to be taken by force to pay for programming that the Green Kultur Ministry deems good for the nation and "our children".

Free speech? Screw that because...

"The Green Party believes all broadcasters should be required to meet public service obligations in return for the right to broadcast in New Zealand, such as a requirement to screen local programming"

The fact that local content requirements are contrary to New Zealand's international trade obligations, and CER means that Australian content is deemed to be New Zealand is obviously a detail that wont get in the way of this Nanny State policy.

The Greens would encourage Labour to put more broadcasting under state control and direction, and remove the freedom of broadcasters to broadcast what they see fit. It is an anathema to the Greens that broadcasters broadcast what they want. It isn't good enough for the state to own 7 TV channels and 3 radio networks.

It's a xenophobic rant, it is pure nationalism, that the National Front would support. It is socialist in that the means of communication can't be left to private individuals to decide how to use it.

Do you want the state to have anything to do with broadcasting at all?

Grab the Green sick bag file

"With the Green Party vote spread across the country, only a proportional system of representation will see the future of our children and the planet represented in Parliament at all" says Jeanette Fitzsimons

Whose children? They are not yours, not the state's, not the Green Party's.

and most parents look after the future of their children rather well, without you.

So kindly stop talking about "our children", they are not yours, and more than 9 out of 10 New Zealanders don't want them to be either.

Greens share National Front perspective

Oh dear, the Green Party’s agricultural policy continues the theme of “do as we say”.

It wants 15% of farms organic by 2015 and half of all production organic by 2020. The Greens don’t intend to do this by promotion or market demand. Indeed, they want food self sufficiency. Like Japan, like North Korea, like many dictatorships, like fascists. It smells so much of a centrally controlled state, with an attitude to both imports and foreigners that stinks of xenophobia. Clearly if you hate foreigners and foreign muck, vote Green – somehow I think most Green supporters wouldn’t really like the range of imported foods being banned because they don’t meet the strict standards they demand.

However if you vote Green you are voting to ban things – it’s compulsory or it’s illegal.

According to Stuff the policy includes:
- Sovkhoz (State farms) (ok I used that word) modelling the example of organic farming to other farmers, through Landcorp. Yes comrade farmer, learn from the state farm. Buy your organic produce from state farm number 13675;
- “Regional councils could advise farmers on cost-effective options, and land and water management plans such as nutrient budgets and stocking rate limits” Yes now the regional council is the State Farming Advisory Authority. Turn to your council for advice on how to run your own farm!
- “Landowners would be offered incentives for appropriate land use” Read landowners would be offered YOUR money taken from you to pay for what is appropriate. Don’t want to use your own land “inappropriately now do we”?
- “there should be incentives for maintaining or enhancing the environment, such as riparian plantings or preventing soil erosion and nutrient run-off” Earth to Greens, these already exist it is called “protecting the value of your property”. However that P word is one you just can’t grasp right?
- “cut pesticide use by 50 per cent in five years, and it says landowners using sprays should be responsible for chemical trespass when pesticides affect areas outside their property” Well how will you cut this use? However, amazingly suddenly property matters – and yes, landowners should be responsible, if damage is caused of course. It is basic tort law (just when you thought they didn’t understand);
- “Aerial spraying would only be permitted when it was the safest, least toxic, most effective method of control” Yes zee state wont allow it otherwise (couldn’t just make trespass the issue surely?);
- “levy vessels, passengers and freight entering the country to better fund biosecurity services” ah more taxes on trade and tourism, though the problem isn’t exactly defined. Keeps those foreigners out though from stealing “our jobs”;
- “prevent people buying land here unless they were residents or held New Zealand citizenship” Yes those foreigners, dirty little bastards, let’s decimate the value of existing farms instead. True loyal patriotic kiwi farmers will welcome this. Ka Pai.;
- “farmers should not have to face unfair competition at home from cheap imported food and agricultural products produced with lower environmental, health and safety standards, such as garlic from China and imported pork” No of course not, consumers should never be able to choose from filthy foreign muck. If the dirty foreigners wont let us export there, who cares – our people happily will be self sufficient, and paying a lot more for the satisfaction of food sovereignty;
- “Importers should have to show their products meet minimum environmental, labour, health and safety standards, and country of origin labelling for all single-ingredient agricultural products should be mandatory” Yes those filthy foreigners from poor countries try to undercut us at every moment, because they don’t understand how to run a fair society. We do, we are proud of it, so when you want to buy foreign muck it better meet our standards or else!

Oh that’s enough. I mean take this “Urban sprawl should be limited to stop prime agricultural land being taken for housing, lifestyle blocks and commercial developments”. Taken? Taken from whom by who? Taking is what the state does. It takes your money, you didn’t choose to do that.
Buying is what individuals do. They use their own money and buy from a voluntary seller.

You don’t know the damned difference. You also want “affordable housing”, but want to forcibly limit the amount of land available to it – so you can effectively force housing to be high density London type high rise next to your beloved railway stations.

The Greens are, once again, proving their addiction to big Nanny State, addiction to telling people what to do and not do, banning, regulating and subsidising. It is socialism, but the agricultural policy is far more sinister. It has so much that is “anti-foreign” that the National Front would have little to disapprove of.

Why do you trust them?

It's a simple point. One I have made before.

How much trust, belief and even faith does the average person put in the average MP?

How much trust, belief and faith does the average person put in the average bureaucrat?

So why would you choose to give up between 30 and 50% of what you earn/spend so such people can buy your:
- Healthcare;
- Childrens' education;
- Retirement income;
- Accident insurance;
- Income protection insurance.

Would you own shares in an airline, railway, logistics company, power company, bank, coal company, if you knew those choosing the directors faced no financial risk in getting it wrong?

So why do you vote for this?

At this election a vote for National (let alone Labour, NZ First, Greens etc etc) is a vote for the status quo - it is a vote for state funded and controlled education, health care and retirement income. It is a vote for MORE welfare. It is a vote for maybe getting competition into ACC employer accounts. Does that get you excited?

A vote for Libertarianz is a vote to say no to all of this. No to the fraud of National Superannuation, no to the fraud of state rationed health care and state dictated education. No to trusting people you wouldn't let do your grocery and clothes shopping from spending money you spent 2 days a week working for.

I know some on the less government end of the spectrum want to vote National. If this doesn't make you think again, what will? You already fear Labour could get in with less votes than National because of coalition deals with the Greens, Maori Party et al. Don't fear National getting less than Labour - because a National government that includes Peter Dunne - a man who created a new bureaucracy for families, and the Maori Party, a party full of Marxists and other collectivists who think in group speak and group responsibility, rather than individuals - will be nothing more than a different crew, same ship, same direction, slower speed.

Yes, I know, you're going to say what about ACT? Stay tuned.

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

The New Zealand Police catch on quick. Given the report that the UK government is looking to ban anonymous prepaid cellphone accounts, they are looking to do the same thing according to the Dominion Post.

Yes, a government mandated national database of everyone using cellphones. Although it is remarkable that there isn't one to require everyone using internet messaging services to display IP addresses, or indeed one to require everyone with a PC to be registered, or every letter. How have the Police coped? As I said before, in communist Romania the Securitate required all typewriters to be licensed. In the former East Germany, the Stasi kept meticulous notes on everything suspects did, down to the minute. The film The Lives of Others, gives a chilling insight into this.

Of course, Detective Senior Sergeant Darrin Thomson has the classic response to those who might query it:

"I certainly don't think that this is a system to be implemented that would be abused - it's no different from you and I having a landline. People who are going about their lawful business, which is a great majority of the community, have got nothing to worry about".

Which of course is how the Police will justify any intrusion into your privacy. After all, you could let the Police search your home without warrant under that basis, open all your mail, tap your phone calls, read your emails.

Why fear the state?

The Police say it is no different from having a landline after all - except that the phone company HAS to know where you are since you are connecting fixed infrastructure. This is different. This is the state demanding that there be no anonymity when you do something that 9 times out of 10 is innocuous.

Of course criminals will all be caught through this. After all, none would use false or temporary addresses. This couldn't possibly increase the attractiveness of stealing phones. No. In fact, it wont cause a run on prepaid phones now will it? Then a legal market in prepaid SIM cards. No, the Police are totally switched onto this.

However, this is hardly surprising. Only an idiot or someone blind to history about police states would let the Police determine public policy. However, both Vodafone and Telecom are quite happy to do so, which begs the question, why the hell aren't you doing it now? If it makes sense to you, do it, don't want for the state to make you. Maybe it's because enough people WANT anonymity, maybe people want to be able to share a cellphone and as long as someone pays, who cares?

So people, which political party will oppose this? Labour? Hardly, it greatly enhanced the laws on telecommunications interception this term. National? Likewise, it is all about the war on crime - National has never been a secure believer in civil liberties. ACT? Well it is about zero tolerance as well now, but I'd like ACT to state its position - clearly. Given Australia already requires ID for purchasing cellphones, I'm not hopeful. The rest? Well United Future who knows, NZ First will happily go along with this, the Maori Party and the Greens will oppose it, because they fear their violence loving mates being caught.

So, which MP or candidate is the first who is going to trot out the Orwellian title to this post as the justification for this extra inch of Police state?

Aotearoa Central Television Pasifika

Yes, Labour is trying to bribe Pacific Islanders to voting for it, as according to Stuff it promises to force you to pay for a Pacific Islands television channel.

That would bring the number of state owned TV channels to 8 (One, Two, TVNZ 6, TVNZ 7, Maori Television, Te Reo, Parliament), one more and it will half the number the state runs in China. Of course in the UK the state owns more (BBC1, BBC2, BBC3/Cbeebies, BBC4/CBBC, News 24, BBC World, Channel 4, E4, More 4, Film4).

So go on, vote for a government friendly channel, that you have to pay for whether or not you watch it, all specialised at the Pacific Islander audience.

Mana MP Winnie Laban justifies it saying "We are committed to ensuring that Pacific voices and cultures are well represented on the airwaves". Why can't Pacific voices do it themselves, with their own money? Why aren't other cultures equally as important? What about libertarian, objectivist voices, what about Bahai, Chinese and Greek voices? Why must they be "ensured"? What about ensuring them in newspapers as well?

What does it take for the Labour Party to want to set up a TV channel for you? Ah, couldn't be votes could it. I mean, there isn't a state owned channel for Asian New Zealanders (although they are more numerous than Pacific Islanders).

It's simple identity politics. Labour wants Pacific peoples to see it as their saviour, and is bribing them with their own money, being the colonial mistress patronising them as if they can't organise themselves, set up their own radio station (they did of course, but the state effectively nationalised it by setting up a state funded network privately owned). It implies Pacific Islanders aren't up to the mark, that they need Nanny State to give them what they want. Don't ever expect state owned broadcasting to give much time to those who think there should be less government - how can they?

It's very simple, National should promise to not proceed with this. The state should NOT be involved in broadcasting. It should simply get out of the way. Government should not own radio or television stations.

Dunne choosing before the election

Really, it isn't that important. The man who spent the last two terms of Parliament keeping Labour in government has now decided to not support a Labour led government after the election according to the Dominion Post. A party that polls no better than Libertarianz has been promised a seat at the Cabinet table in exchange.

Dunne has been gutless. On the one hand he has supported Labour up till now, and is still a Minister. He always maintained he couldn't back a government the Greens were a part of. Now he is saying he couldn't back a government the Greens would be a part of, and National "policies lined up "far better" with his own and would move the country in the right direction." Clark maintains "I remember at the last election Peter Dunne went for coffee with Don Brash, and that didn't stop him becoming a minister in a Labour-led government, so I wouldn't read too much into what happened today". Indeed. Although it is almost certain Labour would also need the Greens to govern after the election.

Note Dunne's statement said "his own". Even Dunne knows he will be a one man band after the election. United Future is about to go back to whence it came, it is an irrelevance, and Peter Dunne's future is up to the people of Ohariu. I can only hope they will vote for Katrina Shanks so the Minister of Revenue has to get a real job, and stops demanding Transmission Gully.

Rating Labour's top 19

Oh yes, finally I've decided to profile the top 19 on the Labour list. I said I would. Now I'm expecting all these people to be MPs under the list, so really it is about whether the electorates stay red. All have profiles, all have photos so here goes:

Darren Hughes - Otaki - number 19: The 30 year old MP claims to have brought his Otaki electorate many things. Hmmm. New health centres. The Kapiti Western Link Road (a council project and no, it actually hasn't even started yet). Mackays Crossing overbridge (actually outside his electorate, and had nothing to do with him at all). New pensioner housing (council again). Rail electrification to Waikanae (um nothing to do with him either). Transmission Gully (if you call a green light money to do investigation, not construction, and again outside his electorate and nothing to do with him). Yeah well done claiming pork that wasn't up to you Darren. He won it with a slender 382 vote lead last time, so it would be fair to say that the people of Otaki are unlikely to reward Darren for his truth stretching, especially since the Kapiti Coast has a fair share of people who have worked for their money. Prediction: This fresh faced young leftie will be defeated by National's Nathan Guy, already a list MP.

Clayton Cosgrove - Waimakariri - Number 18: What DID he do to please the feminocracy? After all he is one of Mike Moore's acolytes and would have had to be staunch to stick through the Maoist coup that instituted Clark after the 1993 election. His profile lists portfolios and awards, like a CV, although when you include "Minister for Rugby World Cup", "Senior Parliamentary Advisor to then Prime Minister the Rt Hon Mike Moore" (surely his shortest tenure position, as was Mike's), "Public Affairs Manager, Clear Communications Limited (then New Zealand’s second largest Telecommunication Company)" (it wasn't your fault Clayton!), finally "A member of the New Zealand Labour Party since age 14". Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear! Why? Why? Why? He had a 14% majority over National in 2005 (48.6% vs 34.3%) with Ron Mark making a respectable third place showing at over 10%. On the list vote though the Nats slipped ahead with 41.7% vs 41.5%. Yep those boguns aren't a fan of Clark and co. So Cosgrove has a local following, which may just protect him, but only just. Prediction: Cosgrove will hang on, because he's not the typical Labour MP, but it wont be by much.

David Parker - Waitaki - Number 17: Parker is a list MP and is Minister of Energy, State Services and Land Information. However, his passions are clear on the website profile:

"David became active in Labour in the 1990s, incensed by the last National Government forcing local authorities to sell community-owned electricity assets". Yep those communities looked after those well!

Furthermore "He believes in an open trading free-market economy which funds quality public health and education services and avoids extreme divisions between rich and poor. His policy interests include structural unemployment, energy, environment, justice and economics." Yep foot in both camps. However, he's against the madcap party pill opponent Otago MP Jacqui Dean. Prediction: He hasn't a chance against her in this election.

Shane Jones - Northland - Number 16: Shane of course is a list MP, one of the rising stars of the party. His profile is nice "I understand the need for efficient broadband network, well maintained roads, user-friendly public transport, well-resourced schools, and accessible health services." Fair enough, but he doesn't say what he has done "I ask that you vote for me because I pledge to deliver even more than I have already done in my first three years in Parliament." We just don't know what that is. Of course he has no hope of winning Northland. The Maori seats suck up the Maori vote, so it is comprises mostly non-Maori voters, so Hone Carter was 30% ahead in 2005 with 54.1% of the vote for National, Jones only got 23.8% for Labour, not helped by Sue Bradford taking the loser vote of 9%. Only a little closer on party vote, with National on 45.7% and Labour on 30.2%. Prediction: Shane knows he has no chance.

Lianne Dalziel - Christchurch East - Number 15: Once one of the rising stars, but she lied so is in some abeyance at the moment. She blathers on about pork with new state housing in her electorate, increases in the minimum wage, some government programmes she credits and Welfare Working for Families. She also blathers on about Aranui being devastated with "market rents for state house tenants", "the Employment Contracts Act", "the virtual freeze of the minimum wage", clearly indicating her electorate has many at the bottom end, living partly off the state - making her look good. Now in 2005 she won convincingly. She got 60.3% of the electorate vote against National's David Round on 25.9%. Party vote was also a clear win for Labour on 53.4% vs 27.9% for National. So National's Aaron Gilmore has little chance of picking this up, sadly. Prediction: Dalziel has her electorate in the bag.

Trevor Mallard - Hutt South - Number 14: Yes fighting Trevor is still battling on. Trevor was once a Hamilton MP until the 1990 landslide by National, and he picked Pencarrow in 1993. He has led opposition to polluters like Exide apparently, and he talks of a few local and national achievements like lower unemployment, four weeks annual leave, paid parental leave and interest free student loans. Not much on the profile about his Ministerial career hmmm, so what has the Minister for the Environment, Minister of Broadcasting and Minister for State Owned Enterprises done lately? Trevor got 50% of the vote in 2005 against National's Rosemarie Thomas on 32.2% of the vote. Party vote saw Labour get 47.5% against National's 35.1%. There has been some talk that Mallard's more recent antics, like punching Tau Henare, haven't won him support, but I'm sceptical that he is in serious trouble. Wainuiomata votes Labour, and not enough of Petone has been gentrified yet to put Mallard in serious trouble. The gap will close, but it wont be enough for Paul Quinn. Prediction: Mallard will quack in (yes yes I know).

Ruth Dyson - Port Hills - Number 13: Yes nothing like drink driving ex. ACC Minister to make you proud to vote Labour. "I have always tried to be accessible, hard-working and to get things done!" The last thing I want in a Labour MP, I want them to do nothing! Not much else in her profile at all really, you need to go to the Parliamentary site to see she is Minister for Disability Issues, Senior Citizens and Social Development and Employment. Unnecessary portfolios all of them. With new boundaries, Port Hills will be a closely fought race between her and, oh, National's Terry Heffernan? Frankly, I'm stuck. Heffernan is an idiot, he was with Social Credit for many many years, which is a sign of some sort of mental illness. Dyson is far from being an angel, but she did win in 2005. Prediction: Heffernan will make it into Parliament as part of the swing against Labour. Good luck John Key.

Rajen Prasad - list only - Number 12: Look he's a nice man, my ex.wife often assured me of this. He is the chief Families Commissioner, a role which is of course, contrary to the welfare of families, since it is funded by taking money from them. His profile is quite disturbing though: "I am committed to working for a society in which we aspire "to wipe every tear from every eye" and where we guarantee dignity and control by people over their destiny. Such a society will not emerge automatically from the operation of the market. It has to be carefully constructed in partnership with citizens."

Sheesh, the state will wipe every tear from every eye? A carefully constructed society? Shudder. He'll be on the list, so no point in predictions. He will be an asset to the Labour caucus without a doubt, if only because so many of the caucus are such under achievers.

Winnie Laban - Mana - Number 11: Oh smiling Winnie, though her website is rather inert.. Her odd electorate includes Labour core state dependents in Porirua and half of Kapiti. Fortunately she doesn't lie about transport achievements by outlining her main achievements as "increased employment opportunities, cheaper health care, income-related state house rents, Working for Families, 20 hours free early childhood education. So nothing new there. Winnie got 53.2% of the vote in 2005, against National's Chris Finlayson on 31.8%, so she's pretty secure. Party vote only slightly tighter with Labour on 50% but National did worse with 31.5%. It's safe territory for her. Prediction: Winnie is probably Labour's most secure Wellington MP, and she wont be worrying.

Nanaia Mahuta - Hauraki-Waikato - Number 10: Yes Princess is back. She is Tainui MP and that seat is being replaced with Hauraki-Waikato. She is Minister of Customs and Youth Development. "I am proud to be a member of a Labour-led government who understands the importance of a good paying job" which is presumably what she has got by her measure. She's up against Angeline Greensill, former Mana Maori Party candidate, now Maori Party. Greensill is daughter of the late Eva Rickard, and has solid leftwing credentials. It will quite a battle, although you'd have to think that Princess Mahuta's family would bring a lot of votes with it. Prediction: It will be very tight, but her sad personal circumstances (and decision not to be too public about them) will mean she'll squeak in.

Maryan Street - Nelson - Number 9: Don't be fooled, Street is part of the central committee, she is smart, hard working and core to the Clark government. Her profile is nothing controversial or exciting, focusing on skills and the cost of housing for Nelson. She is a list MP now, Minister of Housing and Minister for ACC. It would be fair to say she's been a reasonable performer in those roles, for one who supports Labour. However, in Nelson she has little chance. Nick Smith has the control freak centre-left vote sewn up getting 55.7% of the electorate vote last time, against 27.7% for the Labour candidate, though Mike Ward did pull in 11.7%, for the fruitcake vote. On the party vote side it is a Labour seat (see? the left loves Nick Smith), with Labour getting 43% of the party vote against National's 37%. Smith performs well as a Green/Labour MP in drag so. Prediction: It will remain a Labour lite seat, Maryan wont win, though given the electorate profile she should.

David Cunliffe - New Lynn - Number 8: Old silent "T", Minister of Communications, once a consultant, diplomat and this from someone educated at Pleasant Point High School (where the pleasance was left). "he has championed regional development, environmental protection, education and health care, and multiculturalism in a diverse and growing area of Auckland" well he's an over achiever isn't he? Silent "T" got a fair majority in 2005, with 56.1% of the vote against National's Mita Harris on 31.1%. This time he is against Tim Groser list MP, a better match. Party vote was 49.2%v vs 33.1 for National, so it is solidly Labour. Prediction: Silent "T" confounds the reputation, as the boguns give him the tick.

Chris Carter - Te Atatu - Number 7: The man who used to play North Korean songs when he had a slot on Radio Liberty. "I have involved myself in a huge range of local issues from the $60m upgrade of Waitakere Hospital to the double tracking of the Western rail-line. One of my proudest achievements was playing a significant role in saving at least half of the former Harbour Board land on Te Atatu Peninsula for a public park". Good on you Chris, and he is Minister of Education and Ethnic Affairs. He was once Minister of Conservation, you know the one that liked making unilateral decisions under the RMA. 59.4% of the vote in 2005 means Chris is pretty secure, when Tau Henare got 25.1%. Labour got 52% of the vote in 2005 against National's 30.4%. Prediction: Carter wont be worrying either.

Pete Hodgson - Dunedin North - Number 6: Grumpy Pete. He loves his electorate. His profile is like a travel brochure "Where we live in Sawyers Bay, near Port Chalmers, we are surrounded by bellbirds, tui, keruru – you name it. If we decide to jump in our kayaks at Aramoana and cross the harbour entrance then it’s shags, seals, sea lions and albatrosses". Frankly Pete I don't need to know where you go in your kayak to go shagging (yes yes obvious I know). You can't blame Pete for undercooking his electorate, check this out:

"Dunedin North is where lots of things started – university education, teacher training, Plunket, the finance sector. These days other things are also at play – fashion, film, design, biotechnology, IT. Our health, social and community services are simply the best." So Cambridge and Oxford (England, not Waikato and Canterbury) weren't where university education started? Sheesh, the cradle of civilisation Pete.

However, why did it happen? Pete's not modest. He did it all!

"I’ve been the MP for a while now. Long enough to simply say that with almost every major development or change, I have had some involvement."

Don't hold back Pete, I mean really, at least the Southerner's gone so your head doesn't need to fit through the tunnels northwest of Port Chalmers on the railway! Pete got 55.1% of the vote in 2005 against Katherine Rich on 31.4%, party vote was 54.8% vs 25.1% for National (so Rich won more votes than she did for National). This time it wont change. Prediction: Pete's cockiness is for good reason, it's his seat.

Parekura Horomia - Ikaroa-Rawhiti - number 5: This enormous man as Minister of Maori Affairs cites as achievements "tuning into iwi radio stations and not one but two channels on our own Maori Television network". Admittedly after healthcare and education, but wow listening to the wireless too, cool! I'll give him a point for saying "I promise to tackle the hard issues facing whanau like domestic violence " I'd have put it over the TV mate, but good for mentioning it. He will give his voters a voice too, well no surprise there. In 2005 he won with 53.8% of the vote against the vile Atareta Poananga from the Maori Party on 42.8%. Labour got 58.3% against Maori Party on 28.1%. This time he faces Derek Fox. That will be a battle. Prediction: Parekura will squeak in, the electorate wont want a National victory and the Maori Party is not riding on the wave it did last time.

Annette King - Rongotai - Number 4: Yes, when this is what Labour offers at number 4 you know things are sad. She cites nothing specific about her electorate though "Labour has helped families, older New Zealanders, students and children through a vast array of health, education, law and order, social justice and superannuation policies that are making a real difference to the lives of people everywhere, including Rongotai, of course" Vast array! She is Minister of Justice, Minister of Police and Minister of Transport. Lot of work, not much for the electorate of course. I know Rongotai well, since I grew up there and besides being an odd name for an electorate (Rongotai is, after all, just the name of an industrial area near the airport, an all boys high school and the airport), it is solidly Labour since it combined Miramar with Island Bay. King got 59.4% of the vote in 2005 against 24.3% for National's Nicola Young in 2005. A huge majority. Party vote was slightly closer, but Labour still got 50% against National's 27.8%. Prediction: King has this one in the bag

Phil Goff - Mt Roskill - Number 3: Possibly the next leader of the Labour Party, Minister of Trade, Defence and Disarmament. He claims creating Kiwibank and renationalising Air New Zealand and Kiwirail as achievements. Oh dear, he has been too close to the Labour left hasn't he? The future? "I want to see strong investment in public transport and infrastructure continued, greater emphasis on ensuring our economy and the environment are sustainable and New Zealand’s independent foreign policy and nuclear free status retained" Hmm, bleh. With 59.9% of the vote in 2005 against National's Jackie Blue on 29.5%, it's clearly his seat still. Party vote was 49.7% for Labour against National's 34.8%. Jackie Blue is a list MP and standing against Phil again, but it's a lost cause Prediction: Goff's only going to be unseated by a volcanic eruption.

Michael Cullen - list only - Number 2: The Great Helmsman, the economic wizard, the Fat Controller. "Most New Zealanders like the fact that Labour has stopped the sale of strategic assets and that we have made strategic investments in the country’s future – from the rail system to a controlling stake in Air New Zealand and the establishment of the New Zealand-owned nationwide retail bank, Kiwibank." Yep Mike, the bank was Anderton's idea, but hey. Little point saying more, unless Labour announces it will release all rapists from prison immediately, Cullen is in Parliament.

Helen Clark - Mt Albert - Number 1: No photo! Maybe because you can see it everywhere, on websites, like Kim Jong Il! Of course she claims credit for doubling the price of the Waterview extension of SH20 "As a local MP I’ve worked to protect the character of the electorate. I’ve supported the building of a tunnel to ensure that the extension of State Highway 20 doesn’t have an undue adverse impact on our suburbs and parks." Well, what can be said about the Great Leader. She commanded 66.6% of the vote (well 66.55% really not so ominous) in 2005, against National's Ravi Musuku who got a sad 19.6%. Labour got 54.3% against National's 26.4%. Ravi's a glutton for punishment, having another shot, but he wont win. Prediction: Ms "the state is sovereign" is sovereign over Mt Albert.

Now I need a bath, I need to wash myself after that cornucopiae of mediocrity. Ugh, should I do National?

Green Party so wrong on oil

US$60 a barrel! That's right, it was never going back down, it was running out, panic panic, make you all pay for low carbon energy and transport modes you'd rather not use. All those predicting it would drop are wrong. You see the Greens have maniacally been cheerleading, gleefully, the rise in oil prices in the last year. Oh how wrong they have been...

Let's look at the forecasting geniuses got it wrong:

Greens describe Treasury, MED and Reserve Bank forecasts of prices dropping "dishonest" 20 February 2008
Greens debunk Treasury, MED and Reserve Bank view that oil will return to US$60-US$70 within two years 6 May 2008
Maybe we are at the peak now 7 May 2008
Greens debunk John Key's view that the supply side will respond 23 May 2008
Oil's going to hit US$150 a barrel - it's peak oil! 7 June 2008
There could be pre-emptive war against Iran because of the price of oil 20 July 2008
"We" need to do something about "our" reliance on oil 28 July 2008
Not believing oil will drop below US$100. 3 September 2008

Yes and they still have a "peak oil" policy which hasn't changed. It still believes in forcing you to pay for different transport modes, it doesn't believe that you make the best decisions about your energy and transport use. No.

Oil isn't running out, the price has dropped dramatically because demand has weakened, and supply increased at the peak of price in response to demand.

It's called a market- something the Greens can never understand, because they are far too busy planning for what hasn't actually happened. The price of petrol went up, and you and millions around the world drove less. Transport companies consumed less, so the price has dropped. Amazing really.

The only people disappointed with the drop in oil prices are the ecologists, who absolutely love people not being able to drive and fly, they want peak oil. They are looking for your vote to take your money to act as if it still is happening.

UK economists reject big Keynesian spend up

In a letter to the Sunday Telegraph, 16 economists oppose plans by the British government to spend its way out of recession, by borrowing from future taxpayers.

The letter states:

"It is misguided for the Government to believe that it knows how much specific sectors of the economy need to shrink and which will shrink "too rapidly" in a recession. Thus the Government cannot know how to use an expansion in expenditure that would not risk seriously misallocating resources. Furthermore, public expenditure has already risen very rapidly in recent years, and a further large rise would take the role of the state in many parts of the economy to such a dominant position that it would stunt the private sector's recovery once recession is past."

Indeed, the state is too arrogant to know it doesn't know best and that what it does crowds out the private sector. Now these economists are clearly not of the small state Austrian school kind, but they do come to one conclusion:

"If this recession has features that demand more active fiscal policy, which is highly disputable, taxes should be cut. This would allow the market to determine which parts of the economy shrink and which flourish to replace them".

Indeed. Politicians of all persuasions and parties may think about that.

Oh and if you continue to believe that all of this is about the failure of free market capitalism, then you might read George Reisman's response to this (Hat Tip: Not PC)

UK sex pay gap is not about discrimination

Professor J R Shackleton in the Sunday Times writes that the so called "gender" pay gap is not an issue for public policy concern:

"What accounts for the gender pay gap? Not discrimination. For one thing, you find differences within male and female populations that employer prejudice can’t explain. As an example, although married men earn more than married women, single women earn the same or, as they get older, more than single men."

Don't see too much concern about THOSE variations do we? Furthermore:

"There are differences between ethnic groups. Black Caribbean women earn slightly more per hour than black Caribbean men, while Bangladeshi women earn a quarter more than Bangladeshi men. Or consider sexual orientation: gay men earn more per hour on average than “straight” men, while lesbians earn more than heterosexual females. How does that fit the view that labour markets are riddled with discrimination? These pay differentials arise partly from differences in the jobs people do. Few Bangladeshi women work: those who do are well educated and so have jobs where they earn more than the typical male, a third of whom work in restaurants. Gay men are relatively highly educated and concentrated in a narrow range of well-paying jobs. "

On top of that there are other factors, such as risk:

"Men are 1½ times more likely to be made redundant than women and 2½ times more likely to suffer a serious injury at work."

The UK's pay gap is higher than other European countries, but only because of a higher proportion of women in work. Bahrain, Shackleton notes "has a pay gap of about 40% – in favour of women. Very few women, only the educated members of elite families, are in paid work". I doubt whether leftwing feminists would regard that to be a role model country.

As British "Equality Minister" Harriet Harman said, her new "equality bill" will be about "empowering the resentful". Surely public policy can be on a basis of evidence and rational analysis, not the anger of aging socialist feminist politicians?

UK government could learn from the Stasi

The report last week of the proposal of a compulsory national register for everyone who owns a mobile phone in the UK harks back to the era of Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania. There, everyone who owned a typewriter had to have it registered, so that any anti-government literature could be traced to the person who typed it.

GCHQ wants to keep a database of every single phone call, email and website accessed by the general public. The presence of millions of anonymous prepaid cellphone accounts interferes with this. This is being sold, obviously, on the basis that "terrorists and criminals" are the ones with such accounts, because obviously if you're innocent, why would you fear such surveillance? That, you see, is the answer of every defender of dictatorship.

You shouldn't fear the state, unless you have a good reason to do so, and a good reason obviously is because you've done something wrong.

Simon Jenkins in his final Sunday Times column makes a plea for liberty. He notes:
- Privacy International put Britain bottom of the European league for surveillance and civil intrusion (A mistake as Belarus would be lower, he means EU);
- The "interception modernisation programme" is budgeted at £12 billion, on top of ID cards;
- How 25 million child benefit recipients had their personal details, addresses and bank accounts lost by the state;
- How the anti-terror laws have been used to seize Icelandic bank assets, and for councils to monitor rubbish disposal by residents;
- the Association of Chief Police Officers warned that collecting so much data was "a real threat to the individual".

Virtually nobody defends the innocent British citizen from this Stasi like growth in state surveillance. It is fueled by a pernicious infectious desire by security services to "know more", be "more intelligent", to be "more responsive" oblivious to who they are serving and why. It ignores the sheer incompetence of such a state, and its complete lack of accountability when it gets it so very wrong - my mismatching data, by leaking it, and most of all by accusing the innocent.

Jenkins concludes:

"The war on terror has been a wretched blind alley in British political history. It has revealed all that is worst in British government – its authoritarianism, its sloppiness and its unaccountability. Yet restoring the status quo ante will be phenomenally hard.

In all my years of writing this column, from which I am standing down, I have been amazed at the spinelessness of Britain’s elected representatives in defending liberty and protesting against state arrogance. They appear as parties to the conspiracy of power. There have been outspoken judges, outspoken peers, even outspoken journalists. There have been few outspoken MPs. Those supposedly defending freedom are whipped into obedience. I find this ominous."

However, I expect few will do anything. The Conservatives get sold this snake oil on the basis that it fights criminals. Labour gets sold on it making the state "more efficient in delivering services". The public shrugs it off and doesn't care. The criminals care even less. After all, what nincompoop in Whitehall thinks registering prepaid cellphones will stop criminals getting falsely registered or unregistered ones? Ah, so there needs to be more surveillance...

(Check out the NZ ranking by Privacy International here)

GM tomatoes with higher antioxidants

The Sunday Times reports scientists at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK have developed genetically modified tomatoes, including snapdragon genes, to produce anthocyanins, which are antioxidants that offer some protection against cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This complements the lycopene in tomatoes.

A great step forward which potentially could enhance the health and wellbeing of millions.

So of course Pete Riley of the anti-science group "GM Freeze" says that even the idea of "GM superfoods is fundamentally flawed". There being "no need" for foods to ward off cancer. Furthermore it is unlikely to "benefit the world's poor". How utterly evil. Almost every single major advance in medical science has not benefited many of the world's poor, because they are hardly in a position to access it or afford it. Pete Riley would presumably prefer that research on disease stop till the "world's poor" (him not being one) have access to all other treatments, something he no doubt is doing little to achieve himself.

My own family, and a friend of mine both have propensities to cancer, without smoking, without any of the other lifestyle factors, it is genetic. Anything which can help ward off cancer is welcome, but the ecologist zealots, worshipping their "nature is better than science" dogma would stop that.

This is one area where it is clear what the Green Party (in any country no doubt) would think. It would say no. Ask yourself on what basis. Is it evidence of ill effects of genetically modified food? No. It is purely a belief that there are no positive effects and people "don't want it". People not wanting something is a good reason to ban it, apparently. That's what the Green Party is about.

The sad filthy fury of the Red Army in Berlin

"A Woman in Berlin" is a film to be released early next year about the experiences of women raped by Red Army soldiers as Nazi Germany fell. According to the Daily Telegraph:

"An estimated two million women faced savage, multiple attacks which would start with the spine-chilling words – 'Frau, Komm'. The film is based on "Anonymous," an autobiographical account originally published by a German journalist and editor in the 1950s, describing her experiences between April and June 1945...Most have hidden their agony and shame since those terrible days in 1945 when girls as young as seven and grandmothers as old as 90 were attacked by legions of drunken, depraved and diseased soldiers. Women were raped on their death beds, pregnant women raped hours before they were due to give birth. Some women were raped by 30 men one after another and day after day. "I can smell them now," said Ingeborg Bullert, now 83, but 20 when the soldiers came for her in her bomb cellar in Berlin."

It is clear the atrocities of that era remain to be uncovered, but sadly it is unlikely that the current Russian government is likely to countenance any denegration of the great myth that the Red Army "liberated" Berlin. For it would be justice if those who committed such crimes could be brought to trial. Sadly it almost certainly is not to be.

Richard Dawkins going off beam

Yes, I can see my conservative friends smiling.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Professor Richard Dawkins, author of the compelling book "The God Delusion" has declared that he is to "write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales."

Oh dear oh dear. His concern is that fairy tales might have an insidious effect on rationality! This being because there is no scientific evidence to back them up.

"Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards". "I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know".

Professor Dawkins, I am an atheist. I enjoyed fairy tales and other such stories from a very young age, with talk of magic and the like. I always knew they were stories and made up. It is called fun. Do your research of course, but do you not see parallels between your own desire to combat all that is fiction and magical with that of evangelicals who think Harry Potter is satanic?

That's the irony. I will happily take up serious reasoned arguments against organisations and individuals who wish to use their supernatural beliefs as a basis for government or to initiate force or fraud agaist others.

Go on Professor Dawkins, write your children's book on how to think about the world, even have a go at children's fiction. You are an intelligent thoughtful man with much to add to secular society, and to increase the understanding of science. Waging war against fairy tales will alienate many with a sense of life and fun, and they are hardly the enemy when the world remains infected with the likes of this and this. Teaching children martyrdom is a little more disconcerting than magic.

One NHS fraud may end

According to the Daily Telegraph, NHS patients will be permitted to pay for drugs that are not funded by the NHS AND not lose their NHS treatment. I blogged on the current scandalous state of affairs some months ago. In short, the status quo is this:

Say you have cancer, and you receive treatment. You are made aware that there is this new, expensive drug, that is probably your only chance of recovery and saving your life. However, the National Health Socialists wont pay for it. You say you'll pay for it, you are desperate after all. The National Health Socialists say, "oh you're rich are you? Well pay for all your treatment now, bye".

The philosophy being simple - the NHS is either something you pay into and take what it gives you and be grateful it exists, or you buy something yourself and having taken you money, it gives you nothing. Nobody on the NHS should get a higher standard of care than anyone else, even if that higher standard is paid with using your money.

Apparently, the Brown government may relent. Apparently it can see how unpopular it is for people to pay to the socialist health system, and then have it turn its back on them when they want care that might actually save their lives. The left's magnanimity to those who pay for its totems knows no bounds!

McCain not tortured? Who can you believe?

I'm not inclined to fully believe the story of John McCain's jail director - Tran Trong Duyet - from the Vietnam War who claims "I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff" which comes from an article in the Times by Leo Lewis.

John McCain does, of course, have every incentive for hyperbole, but so do those interviewed in the article, including nurse Nguyen Thi Thanh who looked after him. It seems Leo Lewis has forgotten that Vietnam remains a one-party state, with the communist party firmly in power. Those who looked after him are hardly going to confess to torture or mistreatment, and indeed the regime itself does not admit to how it currently treats political prisoners.

In the report there is nothing much other than a statement that “I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff" and " He was very brave, very manly, he dared to argue with me and he was very intelligent. But all the talk of being tortured is for the sake of votes". In response "The McCain campaign refused to comment on the claims yesterday."

Now it would have been more helpful had others who stayed there spoken up, it would have been even more helpful if others who were on guard were talked to, off the record. However no, we just have a claim by those living and who fought and worked for a communist insurgency that they never tortured, against those who said they did. It's not convincing.

Times calls for review of euthanasia laws

It's always one of those difficult issues. On the one hand, the assertion that you own your life, including the right to terminate it when you choose to do so. On the other hand, the fear that putting that decision in the hands of others creates, however small, the risk that you really didn't want to do it at that point. After all, the decision is irreversible.

Few argue for open slather, after all those who do what is asked of them want legal protection from accusations of murder. However, whilst many defend the status quo I find that morally reprehensible as well.

This is where I think of values. Objectivists value life, but also that you own your life. This means that nobody else can tell you how to live it, or even to live it. Assuming you are sane, there should be no legal barrier to you ending you life, and being able to express that. This is not just about pain, for many who suffer terminal illness also suffer in great agony, or with great despair about what they have lost in dignity and independence.

The Times on Saturday contains a short editorial asking that Parliament reconsider a Bill on death with dignity. This is due to the growing number who go through the effort to be "assisted suicide tourists" to Switzerland.

In New Zealand, of the political leaders, Helen Clark, John Key, Winston Peters, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Tariana Turia and Rodney Hide all voted for the Death with Dignity Bill, Peter Brown's only political moment I give him credit for. Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne were the leaders who voted against it. However, only NZ First and ACT all voted in favour. (Sue Kedgley was opposed, presumably because it wasn't banning anything).

It is a worthy issue to debate, across parties, because this should be about balancing the right to own your life, and the right to terminate it under clear and consistent guidelines. There are legitimate fears about misuse of such a law, but let us not close our eyes to the agony doing nothing creates. Regardless of the political, religious or personal views you may have about it, and how it may apply to those you love, you cannot - ever - have the right to decide what another person does in these circumstances. I know if someone I loved had clearly expressed a will to die under circumstances of great pain, indignity and with no hope for recovery, I would do what I could to end that person's agony.

Fueling child murderers

Yes, makes you proud doesn't it? The "independent" foreign policy of New Zealand, so moral, claiming the high ground internationally.

What that means is that this Labour/Anderton/United Future/Winston Peters government is considering using your taxes to buy oil for a regime that arrests whole families for political crimes, from infants to the frail elderly, and keeps them in gulags. That is what Stuff is reporting a Japanese newspaper is saying.

Why? Because it was good enough to disable a nuclear plant it should never have built in the first place.

Japan is postponing it because it, rightfully, wants some answers about Japanese citizens abducted by this hideous regime. You see various Japanese citizens, from children to adults, have been abducted by North Korean agents over many years, and the fate of some is unknown. North Korea returned some remains that DNA testing proved could not have been of the people concerned.

However, to New Zealand presumably the abduction of innocent people, the imprisonment, enslavement, abuse and murder of children for political crimes, comes second, to the great goal of denuclearisation.

It's quite simple, if you are going to give this aid then make it conditional on two simple points:
1. Address the Japanese government's concerns about abductees;
2. Allow the ICRC and MSF into the gulags to observe the release of all persons under 16 into their aid and custody.

It's the bare minimum. So come on John Key, Rodney Hide, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Tariana Turia, leaders of all parties NOT giving this government confidence and supply, declare whether you think the taxes of hard working kiwis should reward this murderous tyranny for not wanting to threaten its neighbours, whilst treating children as it does.

Helen, if you want to donate the oil do it with your own money. Same with you Winston, Peter and Jim. After all, it is your government.

A word to be wary of

"Invest"

You'll see it being used by politicians of all stripes. Labour, National, the Greens, NZ First, Maori Party etc etc. They all want to "invest".

However, when have you ever gained a return from one of their investments better than you would with your own money?

I invest. It involves a simple concept:
- I use my own money;
- I choose where I want to invest it, seeking a return that increases the value of my initial investment;
- I use that return to invest more, or purchase something else;
- If I get it wrong, I lose my own money, learn something and move on.

When politicians say "invest" they mean:
- They use YOUR money;
- They wont ask you before they take it, and will use force to make you pay it;
- They choose where they want to invest it, and they are almost always not seeking a return that increases the value of the initial investment;
- Virtually none of their investments mean you get any of your money back, let alone more;
- If they get it wrong, they don't compensate you, they keep getting paid well above the average wage and face virtually no accountability for it.

Want an examples?

Dr. Cullen buys the Auckland rail network. Treasury valuation at best NZ$20 million, Dr Cullen pays NZ$81 million. Current market valuation? About NZ$20 million.

John Key promises to invest in the Waikato Expressway. Net financial rate of return zero. Economic benefit/cost ratio, 1:1 over 25 years (in other words you - by which I mean everyone on average, will only get your money back after 25 years, except you wont really, some people will save a lot of money on time and fuel, but you - by which I mean you and everyone else - will have paid for those people to get that).

Green party promises to invest in housing. Net financial rate of return zero. If you own a property already it will depress the price. You wont get any money back from that.

So next time you hear a politician talk about investing, ask them what rate of return you'll get from them spending your money.

It isn't an investment to spend someone else's money on something they didn't approve of and which wont see them get any of their investment back.

It's called spending other people's money.

So I am calling for some simple honesty. Don't say invest, when you just mean spend. You are campaigning for people to elect you so you can spend everyone's money on what you think is best for them.

That's not investment. It's being Nanny.

Wellington City Council to cut spending

According to the Dominion Post

"The rocky economic climate has forced Wellington City Council to review its performance and cut spending by more than $50 million.

The move is to ensure that future rates increases do not exceed inflation and cause undue hardship to cash-strapped ratepayers"

Which of course is the least it should do, which begs the question why ACT's policy of restricting rates increases to inflation plus population isn't National policy, when Wellington's Mayor - a long standing National Party member - can implement it?

Of course Libertarianz would go a lot further. I'd start by prohibiting rates increases, at all, ever. So councils could shrink, and shrink. Imagine not having local government, I find it hard to imagine what you need it for, once property rights are fully applied, and services are privatised.