Gay man 'tried to poison lesbian neighbours over three-legged cat feud'
Female predator pedophile stalked public lavatories
The pill gives women a taste for boyish men like Zac Effron
German banker used fake documents to work as a surgeon
Get the sense that Britain really IS about tabloid headlines?
08 October 2009
French Minister of Pedarasty?
So you defend Roman Polanski.
Then someone reads your biography from four years ago where you say:
"I got into the habit of paying for boys . . . The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide"
Then someone reads your biography from four years ago where you say:
"I got into the habit of paying for boys . . . The profusion of young, very attractive and immediately available boys put me in a state of desire that I no longer needed to restrain or hide"
"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously ... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."
Let it be clear the age of these boys is not clear, they may be legal age.
However, it is a big oops.
He COULD come out and say the boys were legal age, I have no shame about exploiting prostitutes from developing countries who consented and were (young) adults (!). There is no proof he has broken any laws.
However defending Polanski does not make for a good look. Polanski no doubt was excited enormously and was in a state of desire, so he drugged and raped a young girl.
It is THAT that denies his moral authority for certain, whether his rapacious hedonism also does so is something we may not ever know.
TVNZ is not a Taonga
Brian Rudman is sad that TVNZ is to broadcast programming of a wide appeal, which he describes as "lowest common denominator pap". He ignores, like all of the elitist snobs in the cultural subsidy industry, that the very people he claims to give a damn about - the poor, the less well educated, the needy - are in fact the broad mass of people who like what he calls "lowest common denominator pap". They are, the lowest common denominators. Those celebrated by the left are also sneered at, for their cultural (lack of) taste, in preferring cheaply made entertainment to local content, American sitcoms to documentaries about the union movement in the 1950s.
They wont admit it, but the overwhelming attitude is supremely condescending, like a ruling elite intellectual class that knows what's best for those poor unfortunate souls that capitalism has rendered victims of its heartless system. Woe is they who must watch TV of such low brow that we must tax them and force them to pay for what is good for them.
They wont admit it, but the overwhelming attitude is supremely condescending, like a ruling elite intellectual class that knows what's best for those poor unfortunate souls that capitalism has rendered victims of its heartless system. Woe is they who must watch TV of such low brow that we must tax them and force them to pay for what is good for them.
To fix the appalling choices of the proletariat, Brian Rudman calling for TVNZ to get special taxpayer money for New Zealand programming (which is also a breach of CER and a breach of New Zealand's GATS commitments). He thinks TVNZ is a treasure and harks back to better days at TVNZ, when it had programming he liked.
He is right that news and current affairs were better, but not by much of course. He then misrepresents considerably the TV licence fee, which ceased directly funding TVNZ in the 1980s, as NZ On Air was created and the licence fee was used to fund programming to all broadcasters on a case by case basis. Indeed all of the licence fee money was replaced by taxpayer funding when it was abolished in 1999, much to the chagrin of those who wanted rid of NZ On Air altogether. The statement "Government was supposed to make up the $100 a household licence fee but that never eventuated." is dead wrong.
The Ministry of Culture and Heritage, which has a demonstrable vested interest in maintaining and expanding this role, said "Important parts of our cultural life would simply not be present without intelligent intervention from the government."
Important to whom? People unwilling to pay for it? The suppliers who couldn't get people to pay for what they provide if given the choice?
Public broadcasting makes cultural elitists feel good, and the left like it for providing more in depth news and current affairs that inevitably has a statist bias. Why? Because by being forcibly funded by the state, such a broadcaster can find it difficult to build a culture to challenge the role of the state in that and other arenas. How CAN you question state funding of businesses, health, education, welfare and the like if YOU are a beneficiary of it?
Public broadcasting becomes a creature of the status quo and an advocate of statist solutions. How often on Radio NZ do you hear someone arguing for less government against one arguing for more government, rather than 3 all talking about different ways of having more government to resolve an issue of the day?
No. TVNZ is not a Taonga. TVNZ is a commercial broadcaster that seeks to maximise audiences, it is no more special than TV3. The fact it thinks it is, is a good reason to shut it down.
He is right that news and current affairs were better, but not by much of course. He then misrepresents considerably the TV licence fee, which ceased directly funding TVNZ in the 1980s, as NZ On Air was created and the licence fee was used to fund programming to all broadcasters on a case by case basis. Indeed all of the licence fee money was replaced by taxpayer funding when it was abolished in 1999, much to the chagrin of those who wanted rid of NZ On Air altogether. The statement "Government was supposed to make up the $100 a household licence fee but that never eventuated." is dead wrong.
The Ministry of Culture and Heritage, which has a demonstrable vested interest in maintaining and expanding this role, said "Important parts of our cultural life would simply not be present without intelligent intervention from the government."
Important to whom? People unwilling to pay for it? The suppliers who couldn't get people to pay for what they provide if given the choice?
Public broadcasting makes cultural elitists feel good, and the left like it for providing more in depth news and current affairs that inevitably has a statist bias. Why? Because by being forcibly funded by the state, such a broadcaster can find it difficult to build a culture to challenge the role of the state in that and other arenas. How CAN you question state funding of businesses, health, education, welfare and the like if YOU are a beneficiary of it?
Public broadcasting becomes a creature of the status quo and an advocate of statist solutions. How often on Radio NZ do you hear someone arguing for less government against one arguing for more government, rather than 3 all talking about different ways of having more government to resolve an issue of the day?
No. TVNZ is not a Taonga. TVNZ is a commercial broadcaster that seeks to maximise audiences, it is no more special than TV3. The fact it thinks it is, is a good reason to shut it down.
Maori TV offended - so what?
I didn't see the TV3 sketch obviously, I don't care whether I did or didn't, but notwithstanding that TV3 should have a right to free speech. It is privately owned, you don't have to pay for it or watch it. If its customers are offended then they can pull advertising if they wish.
There is no right to not be offended. It doesn't matter if you didn't find it funny.
In a free country nobody else is required to please you.
After all, the Maori Television Service is highly offensive to those who don't want to be forced to pay for any TV channels. I have never considered TVNZ to be anything to do with my values or my culture, for example.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority is increasingly anachronistic when anyone can easily obtain video and audio content from across the world via the Internet, not that international broadcasting is new. It is time to wind it up, and for people, parents especially, to be reminded that:
1. Owning a TV is voluntary. I know of at least two families who deliberately do NOT.
2. Turning the TV on is voluntary, and you can turn it off too.
3. What is broadcast by television is the choice of the broadcaster. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
4. Unless a broadcasting is inciting commission of an actual crime, the broadcaster is party to a crime, engaging in defamation of an individual or breaching copyright, there should be no legal remedies against it.
So next time TV3 offends you, turn it off. Next time Maori TV offends you, turn it off.
Shame you can't stop paying the state when it offends you.
There is no right to not be offended. It doesn't matter if you didn't find it funny.
In a free country nobody else is required to please you.
After all, the Maori Television Service is highly offensive to those who don't want to be forced to pay for any TV channels. I have never considered TVNZ to be anything to do with my values or my culture, for example.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority is increasingly anachronistic when anyone can easily obtain video and audio content from across the world via the Internet, not that international broadcasting is new. It is time to wind it up, and for people, parents especially, to be reminded that:
1. Owning a TV is voluntary. I know of at least two families who deliberately do NOT.
2. Turning the TV on is voluntary, and you can turn it off too.
3. What is broadcast by television is the choice of the broadcaster. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
4. Unless a broadcasting is inciting commission of an actual crime, the broadcaster is party to a crime, engaging in defamation of an individual or breaching copyright, there should be no legal remedies against it.
So next time TV3 offends you, turn it off. Next time Maori TV offends you, turn it off.
Shame you can't stop paying the state when it offends you.
Helen sends UNDP back into North Korea
Despite a major report outlining questionable UNDP practices in North Korea before (such as hiring North Korean staff selected by the regime for sensitive job positions), the UNDP is back.
UNDP Watch notes:
The regime employees filled such critical jobs as UNDP finance officer; program officer slots that helped to design and oversee UNDP projects in the country; technology officer, who maintained all of UNDP’s internal and external communications and servers; and even the assistant to the head of the UNDP office, who presumably was in a position to see much, if not all, of the boss’ paperwork.
The staff were paid in US$, and the capacity for fraud and diversion of aid for political purposes was enormous. $9.13 million was paid directly from UNDP to North Korean government agencies for projects approved by UNDP.
Who says the UNDP is back? Well the Korean Central News Agency. All other reports rely on that coverage. So who knows how true it is.
The Heritage Foundation is outraged for a very good reason. In a totalitarian state, any aid given is approved by the regime and benefits it. The regime's top priorities are:
- The tightly knit senior leadership surrounding Kim Jong Il and his non-estranged family;
- The military and secret police; and
- High ranking party members.
By NO means can money or aid going to North Korea that is used by its own government agencies ever be verified as having delivered assistance to those in need. It would be like funding Concentration Camp commanders to assist their captives.
So how is Helen Clark justifying this? Or is it just plus ça change... ?
I'm sure the New Zealand mainstream media are working hard to investigate this one, like they did before entered the role.
UNDP Watch notes:
The regime employees filled such critical jobs as UNDP finance officer; program officer slots that helped to design and oversee UNDP projects in the country; technology officer, who maintained all of UNDP’s internal and external communications and servers; and even the assistant to the head of the UNDP office, who presumably was in a position to see much, if not all, of the boss’ paperwork.
The staff were paid in US$, and the capacity for fraud and diversion of aid for political purposes was enormous. $9.13 million was paid directly from UNDP to North Korean government agencies for projects approved by UNDP.
Who says the UNDP is back? Well the Korean Central News Agency. All other reports rely on that coverage. So who knows how true it is.
The Heritage Foundation is outraged for a very good reason. In a totalitarian state, any aid given is approved by the regime and benefits it. The regime's top priorities are:
- The tightly knit senior leadership surrounding Kim Jong Il and his non-estranged family;
- The military and secret police; and
- High ranking party members.
By NO means can money or aid going to North Korea that is used by its own government agencies ever be verified as having delivered assistance to those in need. It would be like funding Concentration Camp commanders to assist their captives.
So how is Helen Clark justifying this? Or is it just plus ça change... ?
I'm sure the New Zealand mainstream media are working hard to investigate this one, like they did before entered the role.
Police accountability
I'm astonished that I'm going to agree with both David Garrett and Idiot Savant, but maybe there is a bit a belief in individual rights that can be nurtured?
Garrett describes a case as follows "Last month, while attending a call-out in Khandallah, police used force against a teenager they mistook for a gatecrasher at an out-of-control party. During the incident, the teenager suffered broken vertebrae in his neck after being struck with a baton. When he asked for the officer's badge number, he was told to 'eff off' – in direct contradiction of long-standing and established police guidelines"
Garrett describes a case as follows "Last month, while attending a call-out in Khandallah, police used force against a teenager they mistook for a gatecrasher at an out-of-control party. During the incident, the teenager suffered broken vertebrae in his neck after being struck with a baton. When he asked for the officer's badge number, he was told to 'eff off' – in direct contradiction of long-standing and established police guidelines"
Idiot Savant, beyond some cheap nastiness about Garrett caring about "rich kids", agrees. The question I would have is whether both men can ever possibly be consistent on this. Garrett after all has little history about caring about individual rights, Idiot Savant of course thoroughly embraces the thieving leviathan of a socialist state.
The fundamental problem with the Police, as I have described before, is that the separation of powers between the law enforcement, judiciary and legislative arms of the state means that the Police believe themselves to BE the law, and not accountable to those who pay for them, but most of all that their attitude to civilians - you're a suspect until we're satisfied otherwise- just wont do. The Police attitude to criminal justice policy is telling.
The Police exist as an extension of our own rights to self defence, they are paid for that purpose. When they turn on people without warning they are going completely against that.
Both myself and Trevor Loudon have presented options for Police reform. It would be good if some government would consider them.
Nanny Tories to tax alcohol more
Why be surprised? It is in the school prefect, oh "the working classes as so incompetent we must save them" holier than though attitude that the party sadly personifies too often.
You see the problem isn't the drinkers, it is apparently those who sell to the drinkers. Well you shall not do that, of course young bankers who get bladdered on champagne wont be affected, after all drunk upper class people are just funny aren't they?
Nice cheap way to excuse not focusing the criminal justice system on real offenders.
You see the problem isn't the drinkers, it is apparently those who sell to the drinkers. Well you shall not do that, of course young bankers who get bladdered on champagne wont be affected, after all drunk upper class people are just funny aren't they?
Nice cheap way to excuse not focusing the criminal justice system on real offenders.
07 October 2009
Tories announce cuts
Conservative Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, presented his plan to cut spending to eliminate the budget deficit at the Conservatice Party conference. Is it bold? No. Is it acceptable? Just. Is it enough? Not by a long shot.
His ideas are:
- One year pay freeze on all state sector employees earning more than £18k a year, excluding the Armed Forces (this includes teachers, doctors and the police);
- £50k cap on pension payments for state sector employees;
- Reducing "size of the Whitehall bureaucracy" by a third;
- Abolition of "baby bonds" and welfare tax credits for those earning over £50.
- Increase state pension age to 66 from 2016 (for men);
- NOT to abolish the forthcoming 50p tax rate on earnings over £150k;
- Increase inheritance tax allowance to £1m.
To be fair he laid it into Gordon Brown saying:
“The Iron Chancellor has turned into the plastic Prime Minister. Free social care. Free hospital parking. Free child care places. We would all like those things. But where is the money coming from? He is treating the British people like fools,”
Quite right, but whilst this is a start, I still think far more can be done as I outlined before:
1. Abolish all corporate welfare, stop trying to pick winners;
2. Lead a call to cut the EU budget at Brussels;
3. Sell Channel 4, Royal Mail and the tolled bridges/tunnels of the highway network;
4. Cancel plans for a high speed railway, no new taxpayer spending on rail infrastructure;
5. Scrap the ID card scheme;
6. Scrap a wide range of government IT projects;
7. Scrap subsidising rural broadband;
8. Abolish regional development agencies;
9. Fund Scotland on a per capita basis, forcing it to make budget cuts;
10. Eliminate additional welfare payments for those on welfare who have extra children;
11. Negotiate an end to EU welfare tourism;
12. Freeze NHS spending, introduce charges for "no shows" at appointments and charge for more than 1 GP visit a year for those between 18 and 65;
13. Freeze all public sector pay until there is a budget surplus;
14. Terminate public sector pension scheme membership growth;
15. Abolish all NEW agencies established since Labour was elected.
So far we have only number 13. 1 out of 15 George, must try harder.
and I wasnt even being libertarian.
His ideas are:
- One year pay freeze on all state sector employees earning more than £18k a year, excluding the Armed Forces (this includes teachers, doctors and the police);
- £50k cap on pension payments for state sector employees;
- Reducing "size of the Whitehall bureaucracy" by a third;
- Abolition of "baby bonds" and welfare tax credits for those earning over £50.
- Increase state pension age to 66 from 2016 (for men);
- NOT to abolish the forthcoming 50p tax rate on earnings over £150k;
- Increase inheritance tax allowance to £1m.
To be fair he laid it into Gordon Brown saying:
“The Iron Chancellor has turned into the plastic Prime Minister. Free social care. Free hospital parking. Free child care places. We would all like those things. But where is the money coming from? He is treating the British people like fools,”
Quite right, but whilst this is a start, I still think far more can be done as I outlined before:
1. Abolish all corporate welfare, stop trying to pick winners;
2. Lead a call to cut the EU budget at Brussels;
3. Sell Channel 4, Royal Mail and the tolled bridges/tunnels of the highway network;
4. Cancel plans for a high speed railway, no new taxpayer spending on rail infrastructure;
5. Scrap the ID card scheme;
6. Scrap a wide range of government IT projects;
7. Scrap subsidising rural broadband;
8. Abolish regional development agencies;
9. Fund Scotland on a per capita basis, forcing it to make budget cuts;
10. Eliminate additional welfare payments for those on welfare who have extra children;
11. Negotiate an end to EU welfare tourism;
12. Freeze NHS spending, introduce charges for "no shows" at appointments and charge for more than 1 GP visit a year for those between 18 and 65;
13. Freeze all public sector pay until there is a budget surplus;
14. Terminate public sector pension scheme membership growth;
15. Abolish all NEW agencies established since Labour was elected.
So far we have only number 13. 1 out of 15 George, must try harder.
and I wasnt even being libertarian.
06 October 2009
Is Maori TV rugby bid a breach of WTO obligations?
New Zealand is bound by the General Agreement on Trade in Services to have no limitations on market access in the audio-visual services sector and no limitations on national treatment. This was a commitment signed up in 1994 under the previous National Government. It has effectively stopped local content quotas being introduced on television and radio.
Whilst there remain no limitations on market access, it is the commitment to no limitations on national treatment that is at issue here.
National treatment means that you treat foreign owned suppliers on an equivalent basis to domestically owned suppliers. In practice this means NZ On Air cannot discriminate between broadcasters on the basis of ownership, and it does not. However, it becomes a little more complicated when we talk about Maori broadcasting.
New Zealand limited national treatment for Maori broadcasting as follows:
Whilst there remain no limitations on market access, it is the commitment to no limitations on national treatment that is at issue here.
National treatment means that you treat foreign owned suppliers on an equivalent basis to domestically owned suppliers. In practice this means NZ On Air cannot discriminate between broadcasters on the basis of ownership, and it does not. However, it becomes a little more complicated when we talk about Maori broadcasting.
New Zealand limited national treatment for Maori broadcasting as follows:
"The Broadcasting Commission is 3)directed by the Government, pursuant to the Broadcasting Act 1989, to allocate a minimum of 6 per cent of its budget to Maori programming. From 1995 all public funding for Maori broadcasting will be controlled by Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (Maori Broadcasting Funding Agency)."
However, Te Puni Kokiri is responsible for the money being given to the Maori Television Service to bid for the broadcasting of the Rugby World Cup free to air. Not Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (commonly known as Te Mangai Paho). Indeed you might ask whether bidding for broadcasting a rugby match is "Maori broadcasting" but it is moot.
That limitation does not apply as the money has not gone through the right agency. So the exception doesn't work.
Is there a potential breach of New Zealand's WTO commitments?
The state granting funding to a broadcaster that would not be available to a foreign owned broadcaster, for the same purpose, would appear to be so. Subsidies, you see, are meant to have national treatment.
TV3 and Prime should be entitled to national treatment, and be eligible for the same funding for a similar purpose, but are not. Indeed, one could not even begin to argue that there was a process to allow them to apply for such funding.
The foreign owners of both broadcasters could, theoretically, get their national governments to formally complain to the New Zealand government of this breach. Indeed, they could go to a WTO Disputes Panel and thoroughly embarrass the government as a result.
Wouldn't this have been picked up? Well no. You see Te Puni Kokiri is hardly versed in trade agreements. The Ministry of Culture and Heritage, which is responsible, was not actually responsible for broadcasting policy and GATS at the time it was signed. It was the then Ministry of Commerce (now Ministry of Economic Development). The institutional knowledge about this is not located in the Ministry of Culture and Heritage nor TPK.
I also doubt whether anybody thought it was necessary to get Ministry of Foreign Affairs sign off on this funding.
So the Parliamentary Question is:
"Has the Trade Minister received any advice as to whether the Te Puni Kokiri funding of the Maori Television Service to bid for free to air Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights is in compliance with New Zealand's international trade obligations? If not, why not?"
Supplementary:
"How does the Trade Minister reconcile New Zealand's commitments to national treatment in audio-visual services with the granting of a subsidy to a New Zealand owned broadcaster to acquire broadcasting rights that could not and would not ever be available to a foreign owned broadcaster?"
UPDATE: This also applies to CER. New Zealand is bound to offer national treatment to Australian broadcasters. So there could be a breach of CER as well.
Manufacturing rights
One of the trends in recent years from statists of both sides of the political spectrum is the manufacturing of "rights". Not genuine rights, the rights to free speech, rights to control the use of your body, rights to your property, rights to interact peacefully with others. No. Rights to something someone else has produced which is to be supplied to you by force.
It started with the "right to life" not being the right to repel anyone else trying to do violence to you, but the "right" to compel others to provide you with food, clothing, housing and warmth.
Then came a "right" to education. A "right" to health care. A "right" to a job. Nobody asserting these ever wanted to make it clear what rights would be infringed upon to deliver this, or indeed what would happen if everyone demanded a "right" to a living and sat around waiting for it.
You see the difference between a genuine right (sometimes referred to as a negative right) is that your exercise of it does not take away from the right of others to do the same. My right to free speech does not take away from yours. Oh, and to be clear, my right to free speech does not demand anyone else supply a platform for it, but it does demand that others not stop me from producing or negotiating to acquire my own. For example, if blogger stopped allowing me to publish this, it wouldn't be infringing on my right to free speech, it would be asserting its own property rights. Indeed, it has granted me limited property rights here, so I can write as I see fit and can block commenters if I like - blocking your comments doesn't infringe on your right to free speech.
So called "positive rights", require taking from others. You see everyone on earth could have free speech, and it would take away from no one (except perhaps the superstructure upon which many regimes are built). However, to grant everyone a "right" to a home, education, health care, broadband or whatever is the latest trend, would cost. Indeed, assuming rights should be the same for everyone, imagine the cost. Notice how none of the statists arguing for such "rights" assert them across international borders. Your "right" to broadband doesn't apply in Chad, nor does your "right" to heart surgery. You might ask why not, if it is a "right". The truth is that it is no such thing - it is a claim upon others using language to place what is a fundamentally socialist concept on a higher ground than it actually is.
It is worth remembering the main reason "positive" rights came about was because the Soviet Union reacted against TRUE rights being advanced at the UN. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was created in 1966, as a Western attempt to push true freedoms onto the UN agenda. It is far from perfect, but does include rights to freedom from torture, the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of life, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of movement including leaving one's country, freedom of association, freedom of speech etc.
However, this perturbed the USSR, which of course routinely ignored all of the above. So it created the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It included a "right to self determination" (not individual self determination mind you), the rights to work, social security, a minimum standard of living, etc.
None of this really matters, as New Zealand is a signatory to both, but then, so is North Korea. The US did not ratify the latter, but did the former with reservations.
So why raise it now? Because Brendon Burns, Labour's Broadcasting spokesman, has said you have a "right" to watch the Rugby World Cup on free to air television.
Yes, presumably in asserting this "right", he should provide you with a TV as well as the programming. Indeed, why can't I assert this "right" in London? If it is a "right" then why not?
Brendon is of course complaining about the ridiculous taxpayer funded Maori TV bid, but it's not just about that. He wants state TV to carry it. He specifically shuts out Prime TV, because of coverage reasons, and ignores TV3. So in other words, the Labour Party wants to force the NZRFU to give TVNZ the rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup. Nationalisation of programming if ever it was.
Of course it is genuinely pathetic. Nobody has any "right" to watch anything. The Rugby World Cup is no more special than watching M.A.S.H, Ed Edd and Eddy, Bro-Town or championship fencing. Just because a lot more people want to watch it, doesn't mean there is some magical "right" imposed on the suppliers of the Rugby World Cup to hand over the rights.
It started with the "right to life" not being the right to repel anyone else trying to do violence to you, but the "right" to compel others to provide you with food, clothing, housing and warmth.
Then came a "right" to education. A "right" to health care. A "right" to a job. Nobody asserting these ever wanted to make it clear what rights would be infringed upon to deliver this, or indeed what would happen if everyone demanded a "right" to a living and sat around waiting for it.
You see the difference between a genuine right (sometimes referred to as a negative right) is that your exercise of it does not take away from the right of others to do the same. My right to free speech does not take away from yours. Oh, and to be clear, my right to free speech does not demand anyone else supply a platform for it, but it does demand that others not stop me from producing or negotiating to acquire my own. For example, if blogger stopped allowing me to publish this, it wouldn't be infringing on my right to free speech, it would be asserting its own property rights. Indeed, it has granted me limited property rights here, so I can write as I see fit and can block commenters if I like - blocking your comments doesn't infringe on your right to free speech.
So called "positive rights", require taking from others. You see everyone on earth could have free speech, and it would take away from no one (except perhaps the superstructure upon which many regimes are built). However, to grant everyone a "right" to a home, education, health care, broadband or whatever is the latest trend, would cost. Indeed, assuming rights should be the same for everyone, imagine the cost. Notice how none of the statists arguing for such "rights" assert them across international borders. Your "right" to broadband doesn't apply in Chad, nor does your "right" to heart surgery. You might ask why not, if it is a "right". The truth is that it is no such thing - it is a claim upon others using language to place what is a fundamentally socialist concept on a higher ground than it actually is.
It is worth remembering the main reason "positive" rights came about was because the Soviet Union reacted against TRUE rights being advanced at the UN. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was created in 1966, as a Western attempt to push true freedoms onto the UN agenda. It is far from perfect, but does include rights to freedom from torture, the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of life, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of movement including leaving one's country, freedom of association, freedom of speech etc.
However, this perturbed the USSR, which of course routinely ignored all of the above. So it created the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It included a "right to self determination" (not individual self determination mind you), the rights to work, social security, a minimum standard of living, etc.
None of this really matters, as New Zealand is a signatory to both, but then, so is North Korea. The US did not ratify the latter, but did the former with reservations.
So why raise it now? Because Brendon Burns, Labour's Broadcasting spokesman, has said you have a "right" to watch the Rugby World Cup on free to air television.
Yes, presumably in asserting this "right", he should provide you with a TV as well as the programming. Indeed, why can't I assert this "right" in London? If it is a "right" then why not?
Brendon is of course complaining about the ridiculous taxpayer funded Maori TV bid, but it's not just about that. He wants state TV to carry it. He specifically shuts out Prime TV, because of coverage reasons, and ignores TV3. So in other words, the Labour Party wants to force the NZRFU to give TVNZ the rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup. Nationalisation of programming if ever it was.
Of course it is genuinely pathetic. Nobody has any "right" to watch anything. The Rugby World Cup is no more special than watching M.A.S.H, Ed Edd and Eddy, Bro-Town or championship fencing. Just because a lot more people want to watch it, doesn't mean there is some magical "right" imposed on the suppliers of the Rugby World Cup to hand over the rights.
Tory conference
Given that the current Labour government in Britain is morally bankrupt as it:
- Calls for MORE big government to try to get elected;
- Lies about the need for spending cuts, then admits they are needed after no one believes it.
and is third in the polls, you might hope the Conservative Party would be worth looking forward to.
Well the party conference is a chance to present itself as a government in waiting, so what have we seen so far?
- Boris Johnson demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even if every other country ratifies it. I'll believe it when I see it, as William Hague has said the CURRENT policy is a referendum. Frankly, all that matters to me is that the UK relationship to Brussels is renegotiated;
- Promises that every town will have a school for tradespeople. Oh dear.
- Boris Johnson noting that he has freezed the Greater London Assembly portion of Council tax for another year, and will again next year, and wants the forthcoming 50p tax rate abolished;
- National Insurance (a tax) to be abolished for new companies for the first two years;
- Waffle about cutting "NHS red tape" to save money;
- People on incapacity benefits to face tough tests to check if they are capable of working.
Yawn.
Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph made a great point when she demanded the Tories put forward the moral case for spending cuts.
"The Conservatives must stake their claim to be the party that has a positive account, a morally attractive case, for saying that public spending – which is to say, the power of the state – can and should be reduced permanently. Sounds like heresy? Only if you buy into the lexicon of the Labour-Guardian-"equality" lobby – which is, of course, precisely what Mr Brown wants you to do."
"David Cameron's Tories can present themselves as sole custodians of the future in which a smaller state will mean a stronger society."
I'm not holding my breath. This is, after all, the party that still believes in stopping a private company expanding its airport.
- Calls for MORE big government to try to get elected;
- Lies about the need for spending cuts, then admits they are needed after no one believes it.
and is third in the polls, you might hope the Conservative Party would be worth looking forward to.
Well the party conference is a chance to present itself as a government in waiting, so what have we seen so far?
- Boris Johnson demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even if every other country ratifies it. I'll believe it when I see it, as William Hague has said the CURRENT policy is a referendum. Frankly, all that matters to me is that the UK relationship to Brussels is renegotiated;
- Promises that every town will have a school for tradespeople. Oh dear.
- Boris Johnson noting that he has freezed the Greater London Assembly portion of Council tax for another year, and will again next year, and wants the forthcoming 50p tax rate abolished;
- National Insurance (a tax) to be abolished for new companies for the first two years;
- Waffle about cutting "NHS red tape" to save money;
- People on incapacity benefits to face tough tests to check if they are capable of working.
Yawn.
Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph made a great point when she demanded the Tories put forward the moral case for spending cuts.
"The Conservatives must stake their claim to be the party that has a positive account, a morally attractive case, for saying that public spending – which is to say, the power of the state – can and should be reduced permanently. Sounds like heresy? Only if you buy into the lexicon of the Labour-Guardian-"equality" lobby – which is, of course, precisely what Mr Brown wants you to do."
"David Cameron's Tories can present themselves as sole custodians of the future in which a smaller state will mean a stronger society."
I'm not holding my breath. This is, after all, the party that still believes in stopping a private company expanding its airport.
Change you can believe in: Tibet
Barack Obama on Tibet and the Dalai Lama before being President.
Barack Obama on how President Bush should have boycotted the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony in protest for human rights abuses in China, including Tibet
President Barack Obama cancels meeting with Dalai Lama, because US foreign policy interests are more important -which means getting Chinese support for action on Iran and North Korea.
Yep, awfully easily to play the moral high ground when you're not President isn't it?
Barack Obama on how President Bush should have boycotted the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony in protest for human rights abuses in China, including Tibet
President Barack Obama cancels meeting with Dalai Lama, because US foreign policy interests are more important -which means getting Chinese support for action on Iran and North Korea.
Yep, awfully easily to play the moral high ground when you're not President isn't it?
Who really wants to be car free?
The Duke of Wellington famously loathed railways because he said it would "only encourage the common people to move about needlessly". Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes the comment by Prince Charles, himself the owner of six vehicles, on a similar vein. He believed one should be "elevating the pedestrian above the car". I like underpasses too, but he didn't mean that. He certainly didn't mean it for himself.
What is always missing from the anti-car language of the environmentalist movement (and a more peculiar "public transport religion") is the value people attach to having a car. It is so often portrayed as "car addiction" or "car dependent", but the counterfactual put forward, a fanciful notion that everyone was "better off" without cars doesn't bear close examination.
Put it this way. If you live in a modern new world city, consider the locations of jobs you can access with public transport conveniently, and those you can drive to within a reasonable time. The liberating influence of the car is dismissed by the doomsayers, as is the trend of those in China and India seeking to buy cars - as if it is some whim of the ephemeral.
"Living car-free may be fine for many people during some phases of their lives, and it may be fine for some people for all of their lives, but it’s no way for most of us to live — regardless of what Prince Charles and his fellow aristocrats may think" says Sam, and he's right.
Put it this way. If you live in a modern new world city, consider the locations of jobs you can access with public transport conveniently, and those you can drive to within a reasonable time. The liberating influence of the car is dismissed by the doomsayers, as is the trend of those in China and India seeking to buy cars - as if it is some whim of the ephemeral.
"Living car-free may be fine for many people during some phases of their lives, and it may be fine for some people for all of their lives, but it’s no way for most of us to live — regardless of what Prince Charles and his fellow aristocrats may think" says Sam, and he's right.
Intensification for Auckland
One of the core philosophies of the Auckland Regional Council's planning approach for the region is intensification. It believes it is good to encourage people to live in higher density housing, close to "nodes", which happen to be railway stations. Indeed it is one of the key reasons why the ARC has embraced rail transport instead of bus transport. You see at one point, the then ARA advocated converting most of the rail lines into busways, busways would mean buses could travel around the central city hop on a busway, then exit to reach your home in the suburbs. However that wouldn't meet the intensification objective, as it would mean you'd STILL live on your quarter-acre section in the suburbs, when you SHOULD live in an apartment or semi-detached townhouse close to others. That is one key reason why taxpayers are being forced to pay for rail instead of bus.
So the theory is simple, people live closer together near a railway station, means they walk to the train to go to work, less people drive, all sounds good right?
No.
For starters it assumes that putting more people together means less driving, but it appears not to be the case. For if the development works, and there is retail and more reasons to go to the "transit oriented development" location, people drive there from further afield. It attracts people who go by car as well.
Secondly it assumes that because the railway is there, your job is on another station on the line. Wrong. Most jobs are not located within walking distance of the line people live on, and even if it was originally, as jobs change you may be less likely to find another job located also on that line.
Don't believe me? The LA Times did an investigative report into some such developments there, and the conclusions were rather clear. They did nothing.
This is one conclusion of the LA Times:
"In Los Angeles alone, billions of public and private dollars have been lavished on transit-oriented projects such as Hollywood & Vine, with more than 20,000 residential units approved within a quarter mile of transit stations between 2001 and 2005.
But there is little research to back up the rosy predictions. Among the few academic studies of the subject, one that looked at buildings in the Los Angeles area showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars. It also found that, over time, no more people in the buildings studied were taking transit 10 years after a project opened than when it was first built."
Now it went on to claim Portland is working, but is it? Cascade Policy Institute, based in Oregon, says there is precious little evidence of this. It gave evidence to Portland City Council using official stats to demonstrate:
1. Despite high spending on public transport, the share of public transport for commutes into downtown Portland declined between 2001 and 2008 from 46 to 43%. It was static across Portland at 15% between 1998 and 2008. The goal of 60% share for downtown commutes by 2010 looks unattainable.
2. Portland's light rail system achieves ever growing ridership, although this isn't attracted from car users. However the proportion of operating costs paid for by users is less than 3%.
3. Dense housing advocated by Portland costs around 100% more than lower density housing, per person.
The question to advocates of the great Auckland experiment is this.
Where is the evidence that intensification and rail electrification will be any different for Auckland? Who should pay if it fails?
So the theory is simple, people live closer together near a railway station, means they walk to the train to go to work, less people drive, all sounds good right?
No.
For starters it assumes that putting more people together means less driving, but it appears not to be the case. For if the development works, and there is retail and more reasons to go to the "transit oriented development" location, people drive there from further afield. It attracts people who go by car as well.
Secondly it assumes that because the railway is there, your job is on another station on the line. Wrong. Most jobs are not located within walking distance of the line people live on, and even if it was originally, as jobs change you may be less likely to find another job located also on that line.
Don't believe me? The LA Times did an investigative report into some such developments there, and the conclusions were rather clear. They did nothing.
This is one conclusion of the LA Times:
"In Los Angeles alone, billions of public and private dollars have been lavished on transit-oriented projects such as Hollywood & Vine, with more than 20,000 residential units approved within a quarter mile of transit stations between 2001 and 2005.
But there is little research to back up the rosy predictions. Among the few academic studies of the subject, one that looked at buildings in the Los Angeles area showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars. It also found that, over time, no more people in the buildings studied were taking transit 10 years after a project opened than when it was first built."
Now it went on to claim Portland is working, but is it? Cascade Policy Institute, based in Oregon, says there is precious little evidence of this. It gave evidence to Portland City Council using official stats to demonstrate:
1. Despite high spending on public transport, the share of public transport for commutes into downtown Portland declined between 2001 and 2008 from 46 to 43%. It was static across Portland at 15% between 1998 and 2008. The goal of 60% share for downtown commutes by 2010 looks unattainable.
2. Portland's light rail system achieves ever growing ridership, although this isn't attracted from car users. However the proportion of operating costs paid for by users is less than 3%.
3. Dense housing advocated by Portland costs around 100% more than lower density housing, per person.
The question to advocates of the great Auckland experiment is this.
Where is the evidence that intensification and rail electrification will be any different for Auckland? Who should pay if it fails?
04 October 2009
London's free Evening Standard
When I first arrived in London, the Evening Standard was the only evening paper. It started in 1827, It was owned by Associated Newspapers, owners of the Daily Mail, and I noticed it mainly because it loathed Mayor Ken Livingstone (not without some just cause, and the feeling was mutual). Of course, it didn't stop Ken getting re-elected. The Times notes it sold 450,000 copies a day on average five years ago. However, it soon faced intense competition.
From September 2006, TheLondonPaper was launched by NewsCorp, the difference was it was free. Associated Newspapers launched London Lite, to pre-empt it, another free evening paper, which was primarily focused on entertainment news and lifestyle items. London Lite was aimed at young female readers (unlikely to buy a newspaper).
The London Paper distributed over 470,000 copies, London Lite around 401,000 copies, but the Evening Standard had plummeted to 236,000, according to a June 2009 survey reported by the Guardian. In short, free papers had cannibalised the evening market.
The Evening Standard has been losing money for some years, so much so that Associated Newspapers sold 75.1% of it to Russian businessman, Alexander Lebedev for £1 in January 2009.
A couple of weeks ago, NewsCorp announced the end of TheLondonPaper, largely because of the collapse of advertising due to the recession. So now, the Evening Standard is to be relaunched at the end of next week. Free. With 650,000 copies to be circulated. Presumably, London Lite will disappear at the same time.
What remains, of course, are paid for national papers in the morning, but when London can't sustain an evening paid-for newspaper then it says a lot about trends in that industry.
The Evening Standard expects that by commanding the evening advertising market, it can be profitable, and it may well be. I found value in having a good paper on local issues, but admittedly I bought it less than once a week on average. I never pick up London Lite, but did use to read TheLondonPaper from time to time. In the mornings I read City AM, a financial news freesheet, as there is no newsagent between home and central London on my commute route.
Oh, and if you want to get some order of magnitude of the Evening Standard, if the Evening Standard is a giveaway of 650,000 copies, the NZ Herald SELLS around 171,000 and the Dominion Post around 90,000. Bear in mind also that greater London has a population of around 8 million.
From September 2006, TheLondonPaper was launched by NewsCorp, the difference was it was free. Associated Newspapers launched London Lite, to pre-empt it, another free evening paper, which was primarily focused on entertainment news and lifestyle items. London Lite was aimed at young female readers (unlikely to buy a newspaper).
The London Paper distributed over 470,000 copies, London Lite around 401,000 copies, but the Evening Standard had plummeted to 236,000, according to a June 2009 survey reported by the Guardian. In short, free papers had cannibalised the evening market.
The Evening Standard has been losing money for some years, so much so that Associated Newspapers sold 75.1% of it to Russian businessman, Alexander Lebedev for £1 in January 2009.
A couple of weeks ago, NewsCorp announced the end of TheLondonPaper, largely because of the collapse of advertising due to the recession. So now, the Evening Standard is to be relaunched at the end of next week. Free. With 650,000 copies to be circulated. Presumably, London Lite will disappear at the same time.
What remains, of course, are paid for national papers in the morning, but when London can't sustain an evening paid-for newspaper then it says a lot about trends in that industry.
The Evening Standard expects that by commanding the evening advertising market, it can be profitable, and it may well be. I found value in having a good paper on local issues, but admittedly I bought it less than once a week on average. I never pick up London Lite, but did use to read TheLondonPaper from time to time. In the mornings I read City AM, a financial news freesheet, as there is no newsagent between home and central London on my commute route.
Oh, and if you want to get some order of magnitude of the Evening Standard, if the Evening Standard is a giveaway of 650,000 copies, the NZ Herald SELLS around 171,000 and the Dominion Post around 90,000. Bear in mind also that greater London has a population of around 8 million.
Ireland votes yes and no
According to The Times, it looks like Ireland's second referendum on the same subject in two years is a "yes" to ratify the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union. Now given it was "no" last year, isn't it now one all?
Not to the European Union though. What was once a welcome lowering of borders and barriers between countries has become an arrogant statist project to impose a vision of regulation and uniformity across Europe. It is dominated by the economically and environmentally destructive Common Agricultural Policy, a massive transfer from British, Dutch and German taxpayers to French farmers (whilst farmers in eastern Europe get a third of the equivalent subsidy).
So when a country votes no, it is dismissed and it is time to have another vote. It is a disgraceful piece of hypocrisy that a customs union that purports to be in favour of democracy, ignores it when it doesn't go the "right" way.
As far as Ireland then? Well with an economy that was particularly badly hurt by bubbles in banking and property, many Irish were convinced that they needed to EU to be saved (given Ireland uses the Euro).
Of course, there needs to be another referendum next year doesn't there?
Not to the European Union though. What was once a welcome lowering of borders and barriers between countries has become an arrogant statist project to impose a vision of regulation and uniformity across Europe. It is dominated by the economically and environmentally destructive Common Agricultural Policy, a massive transfer from British, Dutch and German taxpayers to French farmers (whilst farmers in eastern Europe get a third of the equivalent subsidy).
So when a country votes no, it is dismissed and it is time to have another vote. It is a disgraceful piece of hypocrisy that a customs union that purports to be in favour of democracy, ignores it when it doesn't go the "right" way.
As far as Ireland then? Well with an economy that was particularly badly hurt by bubbles in banking and property, many Irish were convinced that they needed to EU to be saved (given Ireland uses the Euro).
Of course, there needs to be another referendum next year doesn't there?
Just sell them
Labour is moaning about big dividends from electricity SOEs. Labour of course took big dividends when it was in power. However, the idea of cutting dividends and having this flow on to power prices is completely absurd. It would be unfair, because private power companies have less capacity to refuse dividends, and it would mean the taxpayer getting ripped off by the capital investment in the SOEs being undervalued. Of course, non-customers of the SOEs would get nothing, and given around 30% of the market isn't with the state, that's quite a bit.
So the best solution is simple: Privatise.
Partly by sale, when market conditions improve. Partly by giving away shares to taxpayers. Then the dividends wont just be money for the state to spend, but for people to choose how they wish to spend it.
That's true public ownership. However, those on the left don't like it, because they think they know better. You see you might spend a dividend on food, clothes, a holiday or your mortgage repayments, they'd spend it on state health, education and picking winners (or losers) in business or the voluntary sector.
However, you know the state will hold onto these for now, because the National Party thinks that the majority of you lot think privatisation is a dirty word.
So the best solution is simple: Privatise.
Partly by sale, when market conditions improve. Partly by giving away shares to taxpayers. Then the dividends wont just be money for the state to spend, but for people to choose how they wish to spend it.
That's true public ownership. However, those on the left don't like it, because they think they know better. You see you might spend a dividend on food, clothes, a holiday or your mortgage repayments, they'd spend it on state health, education and picking winners (or losers) in business or the voluntary sector.
However, you know the state will hold onto these for now, because the National Party thinks that the majority of you lot think privatisation is a dirty word.
Police create market opportunity
Closing down one supplier, puts up the price, and a new opportunity emerges.
Someone will be celebrating this, it wont be the customers, who will pay more, but the competition.
So what good has been done?
So, if you're in Queenstown, have you found the Police very responsive to thefts, burglaries, car conversions and vandalism?
Someone will be celebrating this, it wont be the customers, who will pay more, but the competition.
So what good has been done?
So, if you're in Queenstown, have you found the Police very responsive to thefts, burglaries, car conversions and vandalism?
03 October 2009
Drinkers' licences - a joke?
Here's an idea:
"One possible solution could be an entitlement card that people would carry and swipe when every time they buy Alcohol or Tobacco and record their usage. Is that too radical? I don't think so. For a long time the Government have controlled motorists with a system of licences where people enjoy the right and freedom to drive - as long as they conform to certain rules.
With the card, people who got into trouble for, say, minor crimes or drunk and disorderly conduct in public would receive a fixed penalty notice and 3 points on their entitlement card with points disappearing over time for in the same way works on driving licences.
More serious offences would result in endorsements on the entitlement card and the cardholder would not be able to purchase alcohol, tobacco or other drugs available for sale through the entitlement card scheme."
This comes from a Labour Party Parliamentary candidate, John Cowan on a British Labour Party blog.
I kid you not.
This lot rightfully call the BNP fascists, but methinks the proverbial pot is calling the kettle.
I'd like to think this nonsense will just be dismissed, but experience tells us it gets embraced by statists, who think it's a great idea.
Pop at "Beware Mad Socialists" says it is justified by the "cost to the NHS" and says "The 'cost to the NHS' is used by totalitarian socialists to justify many of their evil plans. If the NHS doesn't want to treat people, they should simply give people their money back and let them sort out their own medical care - private health companies would be delighted to sell people the care they really want."
Ration cards for what you consume.
Of course, then it could help with obesity couldn't it? You wouldn't get more points to buy chocolate if you didn't get points from going to the gym. You wouldn't get more points to buy petrol if you didn't get points from catching the train. You could all be good boys and girls and do what we say, rather than do what you want - as if YOU know what's good for you.
You think I'm kidding don't you? It is like Not PC's recent post on NZ in Print, one jokes about calorie taxes, and then someone thinks it is a great idea. In fact, Google "calorie tax" or "drinkers' licences" and discover how many are jokes and how many think it is worth considering.
Hat Tip: Old Holborn
"One possible solution could be an entitlement card that people would carry and swipe when every time they buy Alcohol or Tobacco and record their usage. Is that too radical? I don't think so. For a long time the Government have controlled motorists with a system of licences where people enjoy the right and freedom to drive - as long as they conform to certain rules.
With the card, people who got into trouble for, say, minor crimes or drunk and disorderly conduct in public would receive a fixed penalty notice and 3 points on their entitlement card with points disappearing over time for in the same way works on driving licences.
More serious offences would result in endorsements on the entitlement card and the cardholder would not be able to purchase alcohol, tobacco or other drugs available for sale through the entitlement card scheme."
This comes from a Labour Party Parliamentary candidate, John Cowan on a British Labour Party blog.
I kid you not.
This lot rightfully call the BNP fascists, but methinks the proverbial pot is calling the kettle.
I'd like to think this nonsense will just be dismissed, but experience tells us it gets embraced by statists, who think it's a great idea.
Pop at "Beware Mad Socialists" says it is justified by the "cost to the NHS" and says "The 'cost to the NHS' is used by totalitarian socialists to justify many of their evil plans. If the NHS doesn't want to treat people, they should simply give people their money back and let them sort out their own medical care - private health companies would be delighted to sell people the care they really want."
Ration cards for what you consume.
Of course, then it could help with obesity couldn't it? You wouldn't get more points to buy chocolate if you didn't get points from going to the gym. You wouldn't get more points to buy petrol if you didn't get points from catching the train. You could all be good boys and girls and do what we say, rather than do what you want - as if YOU know what's good for you.
You think I'm kidding don't you? It is like Not PC's recent post on NZ in Print, one jokes about calorie taxes, and then someone thinks it is a great idea. In fact, Google "calorie tax" or "drinkers' licences" and discover how many are jokes and how many think it is worth considering.
Hat Tip: Old Holborn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)