Israel votes for security

Well despite Tzipi Livni’s claim of victory, it is unlikely she can form a coalition government, as without the Likud party she can’t get a majority together (assuming those parties more conservative than the Likud reject her). It is more likely that Binjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party will form a coalition with the conservative and religious parties. It is a damning indictment of the Labor Party to slip into fourth.

However, why did Israelis move to the right? Well it is about security. The rocket attacks from Gaza tired many, and they damned Labor for its incompetence, although Kadima got credit for confronting Hamas directly. There is also the Obama factor.

With Obama talking of change and talking to Iran (which has called for Israel’s destruction), Israelis fear insecurity and the US pushing for concessions to Israel’s enemies. So they vote for the parties most willing to take a hardline against the Palestinian political parties and Israel’s enemies.

Parties like Yisrael Beitenu, which calls for the boundaries of Israel to be redrawn to effectively evict most Israeli Arab citizens and include Jews in West Bank settlements. Shas wants Israel governed by Jewish religious law.

So the challenge for the Obama Administration is how to deal with Netanyahu, who has called for an “economic peace” before a political peace. In others words, encouraging Palestinian economic activity, trade and development, ahead of deciding the political status of the occupied territories. This was to give Palestinians a better life and a stake in peace, before negotiating peace. However, he also supports expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank – which is hardly going to engender support among Palestinians who see Netanyahu as a man who has in the past supported a Greater Israel, and opposition to any Palestinian state.

The sad tension of Israel is that it is a country based on ethnicity, targeted by religious fundamentalist Arabs, and needs security from them. Meanwhile its own religious fundamentalist Jews gleefully treat Palestinian and Israeli Arabs as second class citizens. The more secular Israel can be the better it will be for Israel and for the Palestinians.

However, one thing that Israel can claim, over its neighbours - even Iraq with its embryonic democracy - Israelis can choose their leaders, have a vigorous vibrant liberal democracy and they can criticise their leaders.

That is a freedom that should spread throughout the Middle East, and it is the honest beautiful truth about Israel that its leftwing worldwide opponents ignore - just as they ignore the dictatorships, absolute monarchies and tyrannies that exist in virtually all Arab states.

National's police state

It is no surprise that Simon Power is gleefully pushing legislation allowing the Police to collect DNA samples from people it "intends to charge". At university, Simon had thoroughly conservative views that clearly showed his intended path to power. While refreshing against the vile vapid leftwing quasi-liberal nonsense of Victoria University, it was clear to most who knew him that he wanted to repeat the revolution of the 80s, but do it without the liberal Labour social agenda.

Everyone charged with an imprisonable offence will have their DNA taken, and held by the state, regardless of guilt. So a nice cozy database of citizens will be built up. Similar to the one the UK government has built up, and has been damned by the EU for it.

Idiot Savant at No Right Turn has got it right.

"It makes the mere fact of suspicion itself (rather than the grounds for suspicion) enough to take evidence and conduct searches which may have no connection to the original offence. And it does this for a particularly invasive form of search. Taking a DNA sample is not like taking a fingerprint (something which can be done to anyone arrested). It yields far more - and far more private - information, and uses far more invasive methods. It requires them to stick needles into you. That should require a very high threshold. Instead, the police want to do it to anyone who comes into their hands as a routine procedure."

Well it doesn't require needles, but beyond that he is correct. It should have a threshold of being charged, not merely arrested.

However, who said a National government would mean less nanny state?

and what does ACT think?

Justice system working

Bailey Kurariki's final chance? Oh please.

Look, you have a choice. Either pour time and money into serious rehabilitation - which means him NOT returning to the community of trash he hangs around with, being placed in a job that is physically demanding and banning him from associating with those who live on the level of scum that will lead him into offending again.

Or, throw him away and lock away the key.

Because this guy doesn't give a shit, he has no sense of right and wrong, and couldn't care less - he was an accessory to manslaughter, and has spent a few years learning how to be tough. The only chance he should be given is one that doesn't involve just being released to live the parasitical existence he did before - it is something different. If you believe he should have that chance (and arguably, convicted of manslaughter, not murder - and of the age he was, he should), then you need to pay for it. If not, then you either release him if he is expected to not be a danger to anybody else (which isn't optimistic) or lock him away and throw away the key.

You see the criminal justice system can either rehabilitate, punish or prevent crimes. Your first strike is the chance to be rehabilitated. The second is another attempt, but with punishment for stuffing up, the third should be it - you're no longer fit to remain in society so it is preventive detention.

Bailey is sadly going to get many chances.

Zimbabwe's new chapter?

After the cowardly strong arming of South Africa, Morgan Tsvangarai has been sworn in as Zimbabwe's new Prime Minister, leading a Cabinet the majority of which does not include the murderous gangster group - Zanu PF.

According to the BBC, Tsvangarai has said the first priority is to get the economy working again, with an end to political violence and all public sector workers to be paid in foreign currency - effectively declaring an end to the virtually worthless Zimbabwe Dollar.

Mugabe will hope this will shield him and his gangsters from scrutiny and attention, and that it protects their booty from being taken off them, and them all from arrest for the violence and kleptomania they are guilty of. Mugabe undoubtedly also hopes it can mean aid flows freely, and his fellow thugs can claim their share - and his lavish lifestyle can continue uninterrupted.

However, it is difficult to say what will happen. The government may not achieve much if policies don't change, if Mugabe's mob stop political intimidation and free speech cannot return to Zimbabwe. For without fundamental change, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mr Tsvangarai will hope he can exercise authority to make some improvements, and that Mugabe is weakened - or better yet, that if it all stalls he can blame it on Mugabe and Zanu-PF, and he will have some power base to call for new elections and for them to be monitored and policed effectively.

I am not optimistic though. The best answer for Zimbabwe would have been mercenaries to stage a coup and overthrow Mugabe - because he and his thugs have rampaged through that once wealthy land and taken what they wished, and harmed those in their way. There should be no Western aid to Zimbabwe, except through private channels that have nothing to do with the state, whilst Mugabe is in power. Let's hope the change in Zimbabwe is the beginning of the end of this vileness. Africa must surely be tired of being ruled by thieving murdering thugs and their henchmen.

"Green" council policies saw death and destruction

A report in The Age in Melbourne claims that local authorities contributed to the seriousness of bushfires, by refusing permission for residents to cut down trees on their properties.

“Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council's help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said. “We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can't even cut the grass for God's sake."

Yes, so private property rights are ignored, so trees survive – to burn and destroy homes and kill people.

“Another resident said she had asked the council four times to tend to out-of-control growth on public land near her home, but her pleas had been ignored.”

After all, council’s know how to look after public land don’t they?

So the envirovangelists, after claiming it was the fault of CO2 emitters, actually exacerbated the situation by their tree worshipping. Don’t expect them to admit they were wrong though. Don't expect the so called friends of social justice to encourage the remaining residents to sue the council for negligence - except perhaps for not protecting the trees at all costs.

Keynesia's new plan

So what about that fiscal child abuse then?

Going through the Kiwiblog list:
- 5 new schools? While the private sector closes good schools as it struggles to attract parents forced to pay twice for education if they want to opt out of the state sector. Wonderful stuff - Labour lite indeed.
- School refurbishments and maintenance? So did Labour do this on the cheap or is this just about bringing forward some paint and roof repairs that would have been done anyway? This is the economic equivalent of saying you can stimulate the economy if more windows are broken and need repairing.
- More special schools facilities. Any notion of how many will use these, and whether it would be cheaper to just pay the kids families' directly for a tutor?
- A trades academy on Southern Cross Campus in Mangere. So you couldn't give people taxes back and let them pay for this?
- Help schools accelerate existing building projects that have stalled. What the hell is THAT about? School's mismanaging funds? Funds cut for political or administrative reasons? Or is it just an admission that the centralised socialist education system provides opportunities for such unaccountable mismanagement?

- 69 new state houses. You thought the property market had stagnated, so clap National for wanting to help that along. Isn't it good to get more people housed by the state? Good job Labour won the election.
- Upgrades and renovations to 10,000 state houses! Only worthwhile if they add net value to the houses, before they can be sold. I'm sure that is behind it all right??
- Small regional roading projects? Well given all road taxes are now spent on land transport, this is a subsidy for roads, but are the projects all of a high value? Hopefully we'll find out soon.
- Accelerating large state highway projects? Well here I can add a little value:
- Kopu Bridge replacement? Good, though a prime candidate for a modest toll, one sign this is worthwhile is that Jeanette Fitzsimons doesn't like it.
- Matahorua Gorge realignment. This is State Highway 2 between Napier and Gisborne. Not a bad project, but not particularly high value.
- Hawke's Bay Expressway southern extension. Oh please, this is far from necessary. Hardly any congestion or safety issues here (and you wonder why two projects in Hawke's Bay?)
- Muldoon's Corner easing. Removing a hairpin curve on the Rimutaka Hill Road. Sounds like a cheap alternative to Transmission Gully, improving the second route out of Wellington. Not a high value project.
- Christchurch Southern Motorway. By far the largest project, and one that does ease congestion. A major new route into Christchurch from the south will make living in Rolleston more attractive (seriously).

No extra money for Auckland state highways, which indicates how much Labour poured money into them.

So be grateful the package is rather small, its damage will be relatively small, but hey most of you want the government to "do things" right?

Iran's 30 years of Islamist terror

The 1979 lesson of Iran was a painful one for the United States. The regime of the Shah had spent previous years becoming increasingly authoritarian, despite its secular outlook its intolerance of dissent and its own extravagance sowed the seeds for opposition. Iranians overthrew the monarchy and embraced a new form of authoritarianism. Secularism was gone, the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded.

From then, the Iranian regime has brutally oppressed those within its borders who wish to see an end to secular rule. An Islamic cultural revolution was imposed, with the Committee for Islamization of Universities ensuring an "Islamic atmosphere" for every subject, including engineering. Broadcasting and the press was severely restricted with only Islamist programming permitted. While discussion and debate is allowed, it is within an Islamist context. In other words, you can criticise policies, but you can't criticise the Islamic Republic.

Women have a lesser status in Iran. For example:
- A woman needs her husband's permission to work outside the home or leave the country;
- the value of woman's life is half that of a man;
- Daughters are entitled to half the inheritance of sons;
- Women are required to cover their bodies and hair.

Notice how the peace loving feminist left regularly protests outside Iranian embassies about this. Yep, notice how invisible they are.

Apostasy (converting from Islam to another religion) is punishable by death, so tough luck being raised as a Muslim.

The criminal age of legal responsibility is 15 for boys and 9 for girls. Iran has executed 26 people under 18 since 2005. I have noticed the extensive protests and flag burning about that by the peace loving left. It executes over 300 prisoners every year.

According to Human Rights Watch "Iran retains the death penalty for a large number of offenses, among them cursing the Prophet, certain drug offenses, murder, and certaincrimes, including adultery, incest, rape, fornication, drinking alcohol, "sodomy," same-sex sexual conduct between men without penetration, lesbianism, "being at enmity with God" ( haddmohareb), and "corruption on earth".

Internationally, the Islamic Republic has annually called for death to the USA and death to Israel. It has supported the IRA, Hamas, Hizbollah and been a base for training terrorists. It thumbs its nose at the IAEA while it develops its nuclear programme.

Meanwhile, it has a President who denies the holocaust, who cheers on the eradication of Israel.

The Islamic Revolution is a reason to jeer. Not because the regime it overthrew was good, but because this is worse. It was like the Khmer Rouge overthrowing the corrupt nasty Lon Nol regime in Cambodia.

So today why don't you tell your local Iranian embassy to fuck their revolution, and that you can't wait till Iranians can live their lives the way they wish, without the Islamist bullies spying, arresting, torturing and murdering them. While you consider that, ask yourself why so few of the leftwing protest movement give a damn about Iran. Ask why they tolerate women being treated as men's chattels (and no, comparatively liberal Tehran is not the measure of that country). Ask why they are silent over the execution of a 16 year old girl because she had sex with unmarried men, but will jump at the chance to damn Israel to hell for engaging in a war of self defence. Ask why they protested en masse against US nuclear warships, but wont raise a banner against Iran's nuclear programme.

The sooner the Islamic Republic of Iran is an era (error) in history of Iran, the better, the safer for the world and Iranians. The secularist bullies need to be sent back to the mosques, out of Parliaments, out of laws and let Iranians be free.

Iran's government is evil. If you doubt it, then read this post I made two and half years ago, about the children the scum execute. Yes lovely types.

The flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran isn't worth wiping your arse on and setting fire to - but it would be nice if someone did it.

Obama's confusion of whose money he is spending

"Only the federal government has the resources necessary..."

That's called a lie. It doesn't have it, it is printing it, borrowing it from future childrens' taxes.

You see that's the problem. Mortgaging future taxpayers now, and NO accountability for it.

Maiden Speech 3: Kevin Hague: Green and confused

In my ongoing series catching up with the new MPs, there is Kevin Hague. A new Green list MP. My hopes weren't high, but he was CEO of the West Coast District Health Board - you would hope someone of that position, responsible for a region's healthcare, would be clever.

His maiden speech is here.

So:
- He is keen on the Treaty of Waitangi (whatever rocks your boat, funny how the Green party does so badly in Maori seats).
- He doesn't believe in objective reality instead "a new economics that values intrinsic natural characteristics and recreational use". Presumably if different people value things differently, Kevin will sort them out?
- He doesn't believe that you can change your health by your eating, drinking, exercise, smoking, drinking and drug taking because "the health of a population group is largely a reflection of the power it has over its own circumstances, and the environment surrounding it, and that good health improvement can only result from political will". Yep, only politics can make you healthier. Idiot.
- You can only be happy once? "Growth achieved through the bubble economics of speculation is exploitation of another sort, where the non-renewable resource is human dignity and happiness". Happiness isn't renewable?
- Yet he is an atheist and proud of it. Wonderful stuff "I absolutely reject the idea that ethical or moral behaviour has its source in religious faith." I absolutely agree that it need NOT have such a source.

Then he goes off beam:
- "In the absence of such external power then the responsibility for determining how we should live together, and for acting to achieve that state, is solely, but collectively, ours". See no objective basis for it, people vote for how they should live together. Like some tribe.
- "Only two coherent philosophies are possible: survival of the fittest, with no regard to the effect on any other person, or a world in which we recognise our interdependence and respect for the equal and inalienable rights of every person. I have a passionate allegiance to the second of these belief system" Bollocks, there are other philosophies. People are not interdependent, but they can enhance their lives by trade and exchange and being social.
- Now we know what he means, he likes Marxism "It has echoes in ‘to each according to their need; from each according to their means’ or in my personal motivator "If not me, then who? If not now, then when?"

So it's Darwinism or Marxism - nice!

He goes on, he even thinks we should iron out everyone's opportunities to be the same "What are these inalienable rights that each person is entitled to? Eleanor Roosevelt (driving force behind the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, which we celebrated yesterday) referred to equal justice, equal dignity, and equal opportunity." How do you guarantee equal opportunity or equal dignity unless children are raised collectively in some Orwellian nightmare? I doubt he understands that though.

Yet then he just, for a few sentences appears to get it "I think another valuable right to conceptualise is autonomy, provided that the exercise of that autonomy does not reduce that of another person. For me the opportunity to make decisions affecting one’s own life, tempered only by the effect of those decisions on others, is driven directly from this central idea and is exactly the idea captured by the Charter principles of appropriate decision-making, and non-violence."

I'd like to hear him talk about that. The effects of the decisions on others though is not the same as not infringing on the rights of others. After all, if I decide not to spend money, or not to take a job or not to go out with a friend, it affects another - but I should have that right. Why should anyone else make such a decision?

Then we get into the envirovangelism: "My personal principle is to take only what resources I need from the natural world and to harm the natural world to the least extent possible." He wont be driving, flying or eating more than subsistence then. Look forward to Mr Ascetic's principle actually being proven wrong.

He remembers the death of Bobby Kennedy (sad but yawn).

So really, he's a bit confused. How the people of the West Coast coped when he was Chief Executive of the West Coast District Health Board is beyond me. He's a Marxist, a believer in armageddon and has many bizarre ideas (maybe he just doesn't pick his words well, which is particularly bad in a legislator).

Nick Smith gives trolley buses free run?

Government genius Nick Smith has been reported in the NZ Herald saying the government planned to waive road user charges on electric vehicles.

Odd that, given that road user charges are set to recover the costs of road maintenance from vehicles that don't pay petrol tax. Electric vehicles aren't weightless.

However, Smith may learn that opening his mouth before he understands something can cost. You see there have been electric vehicles paying road user charges for years - Wellington's trolley bus fleet being the notable ones. Not many indeed, but these are heavy vehicles that do tear up Wellington streets, and not charging them for doing so (but charging diesel buses) would make Wellington Bus and its owner, Infratil, rather happy.

So Nick, giving trolley buses a free ride on the roads too now? How many more electric cars will be encouraged because they wont be paying 4.5c/km?

A politician who understands

Sir Roger Douglas is showing his value as an MP, by opposing the government's economic "package" in words, although he is unlikely to vote against supply in the House. At the very least he isn't following the sheeple Keynesians who think there is one solution, when that medicine may prove to simply delay the inevitable economic realignment.

Stuff reports Douglas saying:

"When international credit is particularly tight, the Government has announced plans to borrow and spend on infrastructure projects.

"We have now been put on notice that our credit rating may be downgraded."

Sir Roger said New Zealand needed lower spending and lower taxes.

Unless both measures are adopted our children will have to pay back the borrowed money, and interest, in the future, he said.

"The Government is now mortgaging our children for the next round of spending increases."

Citizens have become more concerned with "dividing the pie rather than growing it" and politicians "merely mirror the sentiment" of voters.

He's right of course, but then he shows Bill English up so easily.

Douglas has a far more useful solution than spending your childrens' taxes:

He wants a tax system where an individual's first $30,000 would be tax-free, above that they would be taxed at a flat rate.

The flat rate, and company tax, would be reduced to 15 percent over the next 15 years.

Families with children would receive their first $50,000 tax-free with an increased tax-free threshold based on the number of children.

Families would be guaranteed a minimum income boosted by tax credits if they earned below the threshold.

The flip-side is that individuals would have to foot the bill for their own retirement, healthcare and insurance.

Yes amazing, low flat tax and you'd have to pay for healthcare and your retirement. Sadly though, most New Zealanders are too lazy, too scared and too much like children to want to actually be responsible for themselves.

The report shows a lack of understanding by the reporter, as Douglas says it would be optional to either go for his choice or pay taxes at the moment. THAT is where the real policy revolution should be.

Imagine that - pay the current taxes to access state health, education and promises of pensions OR opt out, get most of your income tax back and don't go crying to Nanny if you stuffed up.

You wont get it voting National.

Obama's big spendup

You’ll hear a lot about Obama’s print money package to stimulate the US economy by mortgaging on the taxes of people’s children. Curious how the left, which goes on endlessly about the suffering children and grandchildren will bear from the environment, doesn’t give a damn about subsidising the follies of imprudent borrowers and lenders with future taxes stolen from the unborn.

So what IS Obama offering? Well let’s start with the, apparent, good. Tax cuts. According to the Washington Post these are 22% of the package, although the Obama Administration claims it is 33%. Why the difference? Well because some of the cuts are tax credits given to people who pay no net taxes at all. That isn’t a tax cut, it’s welfare! I’ll be generous and say that the 22% is a good thing, it is good for the US Federal Government to take less money from people, but the rest? Well it is complicated, but who am I not to try to summarise it all:

The biggest lump is spending called “health, education and labor”. US$91.3 billion worth. It includes money to “renovate schools”, which I’d say the federal government shouldn’t own anyway. It also is money to the Department of Health and Human Services. This means subsidised healthcare, welfare programmes and a large number of other government “public health” initiatives. You might wonder how much of that is sucked into this huge bureaucracy, and indeed how much of the education spending isn’t just going to be absorbed by Obama’s unionised friends.

US$89.7 billion is boosting Medicaid temporarily, the socialised healthcare scheme for children of poor families, the disabled and other categories of low income people. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.

US$79 billion for the state fiscal stabilisation fund, essentially bails out states so they can keep spending money on education primarily. Again, unlikely to stimulate the economy.

US$62.3 billion for transportation, housing and urban development. Half is to build roads, but the US has an appalling system for deciding how to build roads. Politicians set priorities, so again this could be money down the plughole if unnecessary roads are built. The rest is public transport and housing assistance, again more money down the drain. The best housing assistance is the one provided by the deflating market.

US$48.9 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, including subsidising electricity infrastructure. You might think there would be more efforts by individuals at energy efficiency if they paid themselves for the cost of core electricity infrastructure. Again another fundamental failing in how the US does infrastructure.

US$45.7 billion Essentially a boost to unemployment benefits.

US$40.8 billion Welfare so the unemployed can buy health insurance (don’t laugh, they’ll get better care than New Zealand or UK unemployed people using socialised medicine).

US$26.9 billion. Agriculture, nutrition and rural. More money for foodstamps (welfare) and subsidising broadband to rural areas. US$4.1 billion included for “rural development” whatever that means.

The rest are smaller (!) sums for all sorts of pork like:
- Improving national parks
- Improving water infrastructure (couldn’t just privatise it or run it commercially so users pay? No this is the United Socialist States of America)
- Science and technology grants.

All in all, change? Hardly, it’s just throwing money at bureaucracies to spend money like they always have done. No confrontation of why the Federal government thinks it should pay for water or electricity or education. No change to how transport is funded, just throw money at the bureaucracies that spend money where politicians think, while bridges collapse because there aren’t votes in maintenance.

Oh and investment? Yep there will be jobs, bureaucratic unproductive ones. They wont be jobs that are better than those created by people spending that money themselves. They wont be better than setting free the government regulated (and in most cases owned) power, water and road systems, which are America’s tribute to socialism in how badly they are all run.

Obama is just trying to kick the recession into the future again. His soundbite moment of capping chief executive pay for subsidised banks will be popular, and understandable, but he's pouring money down the fat pig laden hides of congressmen and women, state governors and others who leech off of the productive, and by and large show little interest in changing the USA to fix the most badly run parts of the economy.

Never mind that he never had any great new ideas for reform, his personality cult lives.

Prick of the week award goes to

Australian Environmaniac Bob Brown for claiming the deadly fires in Australia, partly because of arson are due to global warming, as reported by ABC Radio.

"Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more," he told Sky News. "It's a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change."

Way to help the victims Bob. Wouldn't be better to have as a priority catching arsonists, larger firebreaks, more responsive fire services? Nah, cycle to work instead of driving, it will really help the victims of the fires.

Notice the Australian Green Party website has a press release on the fires that doesn't express this viewpoint. You see, it didn't go down well to point score from other peoples' misery.

Of course the Guardian takes it all seriously, even though one expert it talks (Roger Stone, a climate expert at the University of Southern Queensland,) said: "It certainly fits the climate change models, but I have to add the proviso that it's very difficult, even with extreme conditions like this, to always attribute it to climate change." While also reporting the imminent blizzard conditions in the UK.

Don't let the facts get in a good story Bob, or you doing as much good for the victims of this disaster as pissing on the fire.

Maiden Speech 2: Rahui Katene: Te Tai Tonga

In order to give balance to reviewing the maiden speeches, I figured I'd try to alternate between opposition and government MPs. In this case, Rahui Katene is the Maori Party's new MP in 2008, taking Te Tai Tonga from Mahara Okeroa of Labour.

Her speech is here on Scoop in full.

Early in the speech is a statement that effectively says she is a Mormon ("That life of service to, and love of, others is a lesson well learnt as a member of my whanau, hapu and iwi, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."). Of course she can believe what she wants, but frankly someone believing in a church founded by a relatively modern day fraudster deserves some ridicule (Christopher Hitchens has a short summary of the bizarre story behind this ridiculous church).

Beyond that most of the speech is about her family. Dad protested at Raglan, Bastion Point and at the Springbok tour. Mum went with the New Labour Party. Great stuff! Red flows in her veins in more ways than one. A minor error saying "as a University student I protested against the Springbok tour in 1986" which was the Cavaliers's tour of South Africa.

Unsurprisingly she is big on genetic identity "My politics have always been defined by my upbringing and my experiences as a Maori, a Maori woman and a mother of Maori children." Because, she understands the experience of not being one?? Of course most of the rest of her speech is about how she became a lawyer and part of the Treaty of Waitangi industry. Again, hardly surprising, but nothing outstanding out of this, beyond the strong alignment between who she is, and ethnicity.

Verdict? Well she has hardly a wide range of experience or exposure to different ideas of philosophies. She has been brought up by socialists, and matured in an environment of ethnically based nationalism. She believes in collective responsibility and " Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly".

You wont find an advocate of individual freedom here, you'll find socialism, nationalism, stirred with the mysticism of a loony church, but be grateful - she's not Kennedy Graham!

Maiden speech reviews: Kennedy Graham: control freak

Yep, I'm a bit late on these, so thought I'd better catch up. Starting with the far left of the House with Kennedy Graham, brother of ex. Cabinet Minister Doug Graham. However, whereas Doug went with the Nats (and had his proudest moment after the 1987 election when he admittedly wholeheartedly that National should have embraced the free market years ago) , Kennedy is a Green socialist.

Sadly reason isn't one of his fortes. Take this part of his speech:

"For ours is the first generation to confront problems of a planetary scale – daunting in their complexity, seemingly intractable in nature."

World War Two? Risk of nuclear annihilation? Those were past generations. Give up the dramatics.

"- As our human numbers increase, our earth-share diminishes."

A new piece of GreenNewSpeak. "Our earth share diminishes". Sounds like voluntary human extinction could help out.

"- As our materialistic lifestyle expands, our ecological footprint grows ever larger."

alone with our lifespan, our time for leisure, and opportunities for happiness, but fuck that right?

"Humankind today, casting precaution to the wind, is recording an ecological overshoot beyond the planet’s carrying capacity, anthropogenically inducing climate change of unprecedented magnitude and alarming danger."

Utter bollocks of course, since there has been far more dramatic climate change in human history than is even forecasts by the most pessimistic of major climate scientists.

"We are drawing down on Earth’s natural resources, borrowing forward on the human heritage, irretrievably encroaching on our children’s right to inherit the Earth in a natural and sustainable state. It is the uniquely dubious fate of our generation to have broken the eternal promise of inter-generational justice. "

Ah, "we" and "our", the words of the collectivist. The eternal promise of inter-generational justice? More Green NewSpeak, what the hell is he on about?

"We in New Zealand are part of the problem, not yet of the solution. Our ecological footprint is three times higher than the global average, our carbon emissions five times higher."

Dodging a definition, I assume he means per capita. Probably explained by this being a developed country Kennedy, of low density and high agricultural output. You could try North Korea which is almost certainly below average, or Equatorial Guinea, or how about Sudan? Yep they get up every morning glad they are your heroes.

" It is time we measured national success, not through mindless material growth but through genuine progress in human well-being"

It is time individuals measured their own success. Mindless material growth is it? So you tell people wanting to earn more that it is mindless? Ah genuine well-being, well go tell a trade union that they should give up material growth for their members.

"It is time we relinquished our feverish ranking within the OECD, and began contributing to the true advancement of the emerging global society"

Yeah man, let's drop down like Argentina once did, for the "emerging global society".

Vapid onanism par excellence so far. However, he's not just silly, he's downright dangerous. His speech took a far more ominous tone when he talks about individual freedom (emphasis added below)

"Sustainability is the supreme political value of the 21st century. It is not a concept of passing political expediency – a clip-on word for post-economic environmental damage. It is now the categorical imperative of personal behaviour. Individual freedoms are no longer unlicensed, but henceforth subordinate to the twin principles of survival and sustainable living. The political rights we enjoy today are to be calibrated by the responsibility we carry for tomorrow."

Get it? The categorical imperative of personal behaviour is NOT "do no harm to others", it is not "obey the law", it is not "respect the bodies and property of others", it is "sustainability". Furthermore individual freedom is subordinate to the "twin principle of survival and sustainable living". Think how much freedom you can lose by this idiot pursuing "sustainable living" because he thinks this is more important than your political rights. Not a libertarian, possibly not even a democrat.

He waffles on about international commitments, worrying about tomorrow's children (sacrifice you and your current children though), and respecting all civilisations and faiths with due humility (yep the Taliban, the North Koreans, respect them all!).

He misquotes the UN Charter saying "Today, armed force may no longer be used by Member States save in the common interest". Bollocks, as every member state can use armed force for self defence, and the UN Security Council can authorise it against threats to international peace and security (and has done so). He wants it to be illegal for New Zealanders to commit aggression. By that he means war, which undoubtedly includes mercenaries. He doesn't mean himself and other politicians against New Zealanders, although the state is by its very nature aggressively initiating force every day. He undoubtedly wouldn't like mercenaries from New Zealand trying to overthrow any dictatorships, as he probably sees them as civilisations to respect.

So he's a fool and has the inklings of a fascist in his willingness to sacrifice freedom for "sustainability". He says "Generations gone before have sacrificed for our cherished freedoms – freedom of speech and association, freedom to practise our religions, freedom from want and freedom from fear" yet he is willing to sacrifice freedom for his religion of "sustainability", using fear of Nanny State to practice it.

For a man with several degrees, he has foolishly bought into the Green hysteria, the moral relativism of post-modern political philosophy, and is happy to sacrifice individual freedom for the new religion of environmentalism.

If he was just an airy-fairy hippie with silly optimism about the world he'd be harmless, but he worships sustainability over individual rights. He is, in other words, a rather dangerous man.

Discriminate away

Catherine Delahunty, one of the new intake of post-modernist reason evading socialist MPs is upset that Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, has told a businessman to avoid the instructions of his local authority on a planning requirement. These apparently have no legal force.

According to Stuff, the council said that if the man, an employer, were to install a shower for staff, it would have to be wheelchair accessible. According to the employer, that would make it prohibitively expensive.

Catherine Delahunty's reality evasion sees her blogging that "There is a growing body of evidence that tells us people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met" and goes on to give no evidence at all, showing how shallow her argument is. That's it, just make it up, the Greens are used to faith based initiatives. Think about it - people with impairments are above average employees if their needs are met. However she did make the faux pax in saying "And if you build a walk-in shower everybody can use it, whether they have been cycling on two wheels or rolling to work on the two wheels of a wheelchair". Yep those two wheeled wheelchairs are a real hit!

Idiot Savant is upset because a Cabinet Minister is advising someone to break the law. A position I am sure he wouldn't have had a problem with if it was a law he didn't agree with, like laws on blasphemy perhaps. It is hardly being a gangster saying "if you want to build a shower, build it how you like it". Particularly since it isn't a legal requirement (although Hide didn't know that at the time).

The point is simple, the law should leave this man well alone regardless. If he wants to install a shower for his employees, good for him! He probably figures that it is a good way of helping retain valued staff. If he doesn't want it to be available for those in wheelchairs, why the hell is it anyone else's business? Why is it the state's business if he doesn't want to employ people in wheelchairs?

In fact if Catherine Delahunty believes so passionately in "transition from a disabling environment to an equitable environment" why doesn't she offer to help pay for it? Does any property she own have fully accessible access, to all floors, rooms and showers?

Making the fun police squeal

I'm unsure what it is, whether it is some sort of inate desire to evade the parenting finger pointing and "do what I say" judgmental nannying of do-gooders, but few things are quite as satisfying as pissing off Sue Kedgley.

The government decision to scrap the "only healthy foods" policy for schools is one I don't get too heated up about myself. You see I think schools should make their own decisions on this sort of thing (in fact all decisions if they could get funded from parents directly), so this is a minor step forward. However, for the chief conducator of nanny state, Sue Kedgley to describe it as "an astonishingly stupid move which will cost the nation dearly" is her usual hysterical cry of nonsense.

Kids can eat some unhealthy food, it's fine. You see, they ENJOY it. Enjoying some unhealthy food is part of life Sue - enjoying non-organic, sugar salt or fat laden deliciousness - like a decadent chocolate cake, like deep fried fish and chips. It's part of living, and the do gooding harpies like yourself make people want to do it more.

Because frankly the more you tell people to not do something, the more they want you to just fuck off and mind your own business. Especially since you want a state run health monopoly that doesn't charge people more or less if they live less or more healthy lifestyles, and rations due to politically agreed criteria instead of price.

It's like telling teenagers not to drink, not to smoke, not to have sex - the obvious response is to want to do it, just because you say no, and because the common theme among do-gooders is to want to regulate having fun.

That's the same response I give to Dr Alan Maryon Davis in the UK, who the Daily Telegraph reports as saying "I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves". He WANTS more Nanny State, he thinks people are stupid and should be treated like children and saved from themselves.

What he wants and needs are two different things. What he needs is, as Bob Jones would say, a smack in the chops. People take risks about their health because they face no consequences in the Soviet style National Health Service. The ultra healthy gain nothing, the ultra sick get all the health care the system can ration their way. If you change that, then it shouldn't be any else's business if you want to risk a short life being decadently unhealthy, or a long life being frigidly good - or indeed the opposite, as both happen.

The fun police are to be scorned and loathed and exposed for what they are, with their only argument of merit - that it is useful to inform people of risks and behaviour that can harm them - being something that the fun police should direct attention to. I like knowing blueberries are very good antioxidants, and butter really is rather bad for the circulation (with little else going for it). However, damn the health fascist who tells me off from lathering butter on toast once in a while, or tells me I am not eating enough blueberries.

In the meantime, upsetting Sue Kedgley is a pleasure - so let's all have a chocolate bar, hamburger or the like this weekend, to make her writhe.

Waterview connection business case

The Minister of Transport has kindly released a report on the business case of the Waterview Connection of SH20 in Auckland - the NZ$2.8 billion motorway that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) wants in a bored tunnel, even though the two other sections under construction are of standard surface level cutting design - surely not because it partly goes through the former PM's electorate. Current legislation, heavily influenced by the Greens, probably means the tunnel makes sense if all that matters is to minimise environmental impact. Anyway, the main points I got are:

- While this is only for four lanes, having six lanes would add another NZ$390 million to the project. Given growth in Auckland traffic in recent decades you'd be mad to assume that a four lane route is all that will be needed in the medium term.
- The benefit cost ratio is 1.15/1, which means it is barely worthwhile doing. However, if delayed ten years that goes up to 1.7/1. Cutting costs from the project would do a lot more.
- The appendix at the back of the report shows you could do a six lane cut and cover tunnel for 10-15% less than the four lane bored tunnel. Better yet you could shave 20-25% off the cost if it was built just like the other sections of SH20. Doing this of course makes the project worthwhile.
- Pushing the project forward at current costs will delay many many others which are more worthwhile.
- A toll could only hope to pay around NZ$400 million of the cost, suggesting that those who would directly gain from the road wouldn't be that interested in directly paying for the time and operating cost savings. That should in itself set off some alarm bells.

There is some analysis that is missing that could enlighten further of course. First, it would interesting to see what "shadow tolling" would say about the revenue the road would generate from those using it, that is from fuel tax and road user charges, which are "paid" whenever any road is used. If you combine that with a toll (or even on its own), would enough be paid over 35 years from users to pay? THAT is the true "toll" from a financial perspective.

Secondly, what would the toll revenue be if the parallel route was also being properly tolled. In other words, if the local roads the motorway would bypass were charged by a company seeking to maximise revenue. You see, many more may pay to use the toll road if the slower local streets were priced at peak times also.

Anyway, the NZTA has been sent back to find ways to trim the cost of the project, and I think this has to mean at least going partially cut and cover, if not abandoning the nonsensical tunnel idea altogether.

Personally, I'd prefer it a decision on whether to proceed were delayed until the other sections under construction are completed. Then we will know how bad the congestion is between SH16 and SH20, and for how long. It can also exploit the recession to get a better price for construction. (Steven Joyce might also consider the removal of the Avondale to Southdown railway designation, because frankly that railway wont ever be built, isn't worth building and can provide some of the land for the motorway).

The bigger truth is that the government is operating in a non-market mode, with roads priced as taxation, so the roads parallel to this motorway are too cheap to motorists (as around 60% of the cost of maintaining them comes from ratepayers), and inadequate analysis of revenue generated from road taxes from use of the road. Most of all, the pressure to build the road comes from planners and politicians.

What this doesn't tell you is that the primary blame for the problems around this project is the stupidity of Auckland City Council in the 1970s in abolishing motorway designations, on unbuilt land.

Designations were retained for the Mt Roskill to Manukau section, but not beyond. Without it, the land has been built on, unlike the designated land which always has temporary use (and little property purchase was needed). That's local government failing again. There was a designation for a motorway from Upper Queen Street parallel to Dominion Road to Mt Roskill as well, but all you see of it today is a cheaply built section from New North Road to Upper Queen Street. See how good planners are? The country is full of examples like that by the way.

Government cuts spending on broadband pork

Well, the NZ$340 million broadband subsidy that Labour proposed.

Because National has a bigger one, which I can only hope doesn't go anywhere. If the telecommunications industry could be certain of its private property rights, it would invest where it would see returns in providing broadband capacity.

Labour's Clare Curran (who I described as a vile little PR hack) is screeching saying it is "gut wrenching and wrong", presumably because delaying some people having subsidised access to swap music, download pirated videos, porn and do high end gaming is "wrong". Not that she knows right from wrong, as she actively tried to position National as "enemies of the people". You can just see what she'd have been doing had she lived in East Germany before 1989. She says it sends the industry tumbling backwards. Well any industry that needs shots of money taken from taxpayers shouldn't be our concern.

Broadband has become the new political pork of the 21st century. Those who want it aren't prepared to pay for it. Some suppliers are gagging for subsidies to expand their "businesses" and it has become the cargo cult "essential for the economy". Remarkable how something so essential doesn't get investors excited or the users willing to pay for what it costs.

However, I wont hold out hope that the government will keep its sticky fingers off this, restore private property rights to Telecom over its network and remove the ability of councils to block the roll out of new telecommunications networks through the RMA

In the "get over it, you lost" file

A report that Prince William is to be sent to the Falklands with the RAF as a search and rescue pilot has upset the Argentine government.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

"Jorge Taina, an aide to Argentina's foreign minister, said the move would reopen debate about the future of the islands.

"This circumstance only serves to once again highlight Britain's ongoing military presence in land and sea areas that are part of the Argentine Republic's national territories," he said."

Guess what Jorge. The people of the Falklands don't want you there, the territories are de-facto and de-jure recognised as part of the United Kingdom. Falkland Islanders do not want to be ruled by a developing country that comparatively recently was run by a mindless and incompetent military junta.

If they don't want you, then you should kindly fuck off and leave Falkland Islanders alone, look at your own bizarre little leftwing government to find reasons why your economy isn't as much of a success as Chile. It isn't that different from Spain and Gibraltar. Spain wants Gibraltar, most people in Gibraltar don't want to be governed by Spain.