Farewell Sue Mao Bradford

Naturally I can barely concede my joy at this news. Bradford is a Marxist who unashamedly embraces a big violent interfering state that treats the economy as a self-sufficient xenophobic fortress and which has its eyes and hands freely in the homes and bank accounts of everyone, to take what it needs to give to what it wants, and make sure you're being good. What can I say?

Well I do love Not PC's summary of the Greens:

What’s unique about the Greens, of course, is nothing more than their combination of authoritarianism and ludditery – with a a caucus composed almost entirely of the intellectual remnants of the Socialist Workers’ Party they’re little more than a bunch of authoritarians with a marketing wing.

So what has Sue Bradford done that is positive for freedom and prosperity? Let me look back at the times I've referred to her in my posts:

Sue Bradford hates Chinese Workers as she opposed Air New Zealand (mostly state owned which she would consider to be a good thing) buying foreign made uniforms. So she despises trade, wants foreign workers to lose their jobs and is economically illiterate. She'd have NZ pursue a kind of North Korean autarchic self sufficiency no doubt. Didn't stop her flying Air NZ at taxpayers' expense of course. She pushed to make you pay for a Buy NZ Made promotional campaign, that she wouldn't pay for herself of course.

Sue Bradford embracing Cindy Kiro's neo-Stalinist plans to have Big Mother watching over every child, monitoring them all, in case you've been bad parents, rather than focusing on targeting children of parents known to the Police, known to be negligent. She even acknowledged in her press release that "I realise some parents will be horrified by the idea that their children will have regular checkups at key stages of their lives" but it was justified by protecting the kids. Given Sue spent many years gleefully supporting China under the rule of Mao (and drifting away when it started opening up), you can see what her role models are.

Sue Bradford's express belief that nobody should be "forced" to work for a living as she embraced the dole. In other words, why shouldn't everyone just sit on their arses and do nothing and magically food, clothes, electricity, homes, everything you consume will magically appear. Given she long led the self-styled "Unemployed Workers' Union" (quite the oxymoron), you have to wonder how hard she thought anyone should look for a job?

She also demanded the nationalisation of the voluntary sector, by forcing taxpayers to pay for it - which of course, means it is no longer voluntary is it?

Sue Bradford's opposition to Air NZ's efficiency drive which includes cutting staff, she said it wasn't bailed out to become a "mean anti-worker" company. Of course it wouldn't have needed to be bailed out had the likes of Sue and the Greens not rallied wholeheartedly against Singapore Airlines (or any foreign company) increasing its shareholding in the company.

Sue Bradford makes a little news that the SIS was spying on her which a naive reporter thinks it amazing. Hardly a shocker. Trevor Loudon long ago outed her lifelong communism here here and here.

So freedom? Nothing to see here. Prosperity? Nothing to see here.

The truth is that had Sue Bradford's politics had her way some time ago, then none of you would be reading anything other than state approved literature, you'd be working for the state , assuming the People's Republic of Aotearoa had survived the difficult period after 1989. She was a member of the Workers' Communist League in the 1980s after all. Charming really, not that the mainstream media can cope with people having been communists, since the little darlings don't really understand it.

So the Greens and we are all safer without her in Parliament, and this may be a fit of pique at Metiria Turei being selected over her (though Metiria is almost indistinguishable in her views) which of course hardly means the Greens are free of their corrosive, pro-state violence view.

What have others said:

Phil Goff “I admire her passion for the causes she fought for, even if I didn’t always agree with everything she said,” Well at least he wasn't fawning.

The Youth Union Movement cheered her on for increasing youth unemployment by raising the youth minimum wage to the same as the adult. Cheerleaders for Marxism as they are. Finsec and NDU share similar sentiments.

Barnados and Plunket has nailed its colours to the mast of an every interfering state, so maybe some wont be donating so much in the future. Plunket of course was set up to be a eugenics organisation (which it never admits).

Tariana Turia and the Maori Party loved her, birds of a feather they are.

The Maritime Union, the most hardened Marxists of the union movement, and most featherbedded (the single biggest reason why the NZ shipping industry has shrunk to what it is) also embrace her because she advocated protectionism.

Might it be time for the government to stop funding her training camp for radicals in Northland?

Sex with a teacher

Time to take a risk - add sex, a minor and the law, and you get heated views, and the one I'm going to express will be controversial.

A 26 year old teacher has a sexual relationship with a 15yo student (who will be 16 by the end of this month). Your automatic reaction? Appalled. It shouldn’t happen, the teacher should be punished and the student given the support needed.

However in this case there are some more interesting facts:
- The teacher is a woman, the student is a girl;
- The girl and the teacher were close, in love in fact and both apparently still are;
- The sexual relationship was initiated by the student, indeed she pushed for it over some time period;
- There is no victim statement from the student, who did not testify against the teacher. The victim statement is from the parents.

The teacher concerned was a child prodigy, undoubtedly smart and talented, it isn’t hard to see what the student might see in her. The teacher herself, helped to grow up fast because of her talent, may well emotionally be better able to relate to someone younger. Of course, we’ll never know. Indeed none of us should have known about this.

The only reason this got to court was because a woman got wind of the affair, after rumours spread, a meddler told the parents. The parents have reacted feeling betrayed, no doubt as much by their lying daughter as by the teacher, but it doesn’t look like they have spent much time thinking about the consequences of complaining to the Police about it. The likelihood is that their relationship with their daughter, now thoroughly humiliated and guilty for this, will deteriorate. After all, given she initiated the sexual behaviour, her guilt and blame for the devastation of the life of her teacher will be palpable. The teacher is getting 15 months in prison and being put on a sex offenders' registry (notice there is no violent offenders' registry, so you never know if you're going to hire or live near someone who has stabbed, beaten up or shot someone else) for ten years, and can never work with children again - because, of course, a lesbian adult is going to be a threat to 8 year olds presumably!!?!!

So where is the victim? The girl is distraught by the whole case because of how she and the teacher are being treated. In other words, the criminal justice system is caring not a jot for the so-called “victim”.

Let’s be clear here. A teacher should not engage in sexual relations with a pupil, it is entirely inappropriate. This is something that is appropriate to expressly forbid in employment contracts and in gaining teaching accreditation. Breaching this can quite rightly be grounds for dismissal and deregistration. In the UK it is a crime for a teacher to have sex with a pupil under 18, whereas anyone can have sex with those aged 16 and over.

However, the real question is whether it is a criminal matter when the only credible victim feels a victim BECAUSE of the criminal justice system pursuing the case.

In the current age some will feel “well if it had been a male teacher with the girl nobody would be asking these questions”, perhaps. What really matters here though is what is the role of the state in dealing with this case? If the teacher loses her job and her ability to pursue her job as a result of breaching terms and conditions, then so be it, that is appropriate. Beyond that the state is essentially saying the 15yo girl cannot make decisions for herself around sexuality to such a degree (yet she could these choices months later with men and women from aged 16 to 106) that the person who she pursued deserves a custodial sentence. Who is protected by this? What is gained by it?

If you were the parent you would be distressed your daughter went behind your back, and that the teacher and daughter lied continuously about the relationship. Why did they do that? Well it is obvious why they hid it.

Is it a reason to throw the woman in prison, given she can never teach again and faces having to rebuild her life from scratch because of that?

The judge in this case did make an interesting decision on contact between the two parties which speaks volumes about why this should not be a criminal matter. There is no prohibition on them having contact when the girl turns 16, including while the teacher is in prison. In effect, the judge acknowledged the two of them are in love, but the girl was the wrong side of the age line, marginally.

This is, after all, not about someone who is a child. This is not about the teacher approaching the pupil or just submitting to a flirtation, it is about a teenager and a young adult becoming emotionally close, and crossing a line by initiation of the teenager.

Would it not be preferable that in a case like this, there should be no criminal prosecution if the so-called “victim” objects? The question is at what age can one start to allow that, I would suggest the age of criminal responsibility. If someone is deemed old enough to know what she is doing as being right and wrong, surely that person is old enough to decide whether she is a victim.

It’s worth noting, of course, how hypocritical the UK is generally on this sort of thing. The Sun, for example, has had a voyeuristic field day on the case, of course knowing that not a few of its readers will wish that it could publish as many lurid details as possible. Similarly, in England you can be tried and found guilty of murder and rape if you are 10 or over, in other words, you’re an adult in terms of being a criminal from that age. On the one hand, many in the UK want to crack down on youngsters committing crime, quite rightly so, but equally want to treat them as victims and protect them. The truth is that they are somewhere in between that, and sadly the criminal justice system wont deal with that, and no politician would ever try.

The bigger issue is that teenage sexuality is problematic for so many. The reasons being that people are pulled between wanting to let teenagers be themselves and on the other hand shield them from something that is taught to be both very desirable and incredibly awful. That of course is another story, but in a country where all adults who have contact with children are to be treated as perverts unless they can prove their innocence, it is hardly surprising that sensible discussion is nearly impossible. This sort of nonsense which implies that the case of Madeleine McCann has some parallels, is the order of the day. Compare to this case of a 22yo female teacher and a 17yo male student, which was not a crime at the time.

You’re either in favour of being draconian or you’re a suspect. I would suggest that this article may actually have the more important point to be made here. Is it not time that young girls and boys did not feel that sexuality is about attracting attention, rather than reflecting who you are?

After all, it is only when a more rational and humanistic view of sexuality can be taken, will there be the ability of politicians to reflect wider views. Meanwhile, this is the country that plays the draconian card, and which at the same time has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, stuck between guilt, shame, judgment and a massive undercurrent of hedonistic desire and perversion.

What's wrong with US politics

David Walker, in The Wall Street Journal says:

"Members of Congress ensure they have gerrymandered seats where they pick the voters rather than the voters picking them and then they pass out money to special interests who then make sure they have so much money that no one can easily challenge them,"

"He notes that today the role of the federal government has grown such that last year less than 40% of it related to the key roles the Founders envisioned for it: defense, foreign policy, the courts and other basic functions. "What happened to the Founders' intent that all roles not expressly reserved to the federal government belong to the states, and ultimately the people?" he asks. "I'm pleased the recent town halls show people are waking up and realizing it's time to pay attention to first principles."

Who is he?

"He rose to be a partner and global managing director of Arthur Anderson, before being named assistant secretary of labor for pensions and benefits during the Reagan administration. Under the first President Bush, he served as a trustee for Social Security and Medicare, an experience that convinced him both programs are looming train wrecks that could bankrupt the country. In 1998 he was appointed by President Bill Clinton to head the GAO, where he spent the next decade issuing reports trying to stem waste, fraud and abuse in government. Despite many successes, he was able to make only limited progress in reforming Washington's tangled bookkeeping. When he arrived he was told the Pentagon was nearly a decade away from having a clean audit, or clear evidence that its financial statements were accurate. When he left in 2008, he was told the Pentagon was still a decade away from that goal. "If the federal government was a private corporation, its stock would plummet and shareholders would bring in new management and directors," he said as he retired from the GAO."

Oh and he hasn't noticed any change he can believe in since the election of Barack Obama.

"He says his stimulus bill was sold as something it wasn't: "A number of people had agendas other than stimulus, and they shaped the package."

However, I guess since he's criticising the Obama Administration, he's racist, is that right ex.President Carter?

Work starts in Manukau on destroying wealt

Matthew Dearnaley at the NZ Herald has written a report on how construction is about to start on the first new rail line (not widening) in Auckland for 80 years - a branch from the Main Trunk to a station at Manukau City.

The report tells you the line is costing $90 million:

$50 million from Kiwirail. He doesn't tell you that Kiwirail didn't raise the money through a loan, to be paid off from future access charges from Veolia (the operator of passenger trains in Auckland). No. It comes from tax. Kiwirail will never get a cent of this back to return. $50 million is for the track, alone. Note that the last government paid $81 million for the entire Auckland rail network between Swanson to the west and Papakura to the south, with all branches in between. $50 million for 2 km of track tells you how little it is worth once it is built. You wont be able to sell the line for a tenth of that.

$33 million from Manukau City Council. This is for the new station and associated bus station, and the earthworks associated with the project. At least buildings have alternative uses, but $33 million? $39 million is the cost for the expanded Wellington international airport terminal. The difference is that the users (airlines and passengers) are paying for that. No doubt this could all be reused so will have some value. By the way, the money comes from ratepayers in Manukau City.

$7 million from a combination of Auckland Regional Holdings (the money from the privatisation of the Yellow Bus Company that is sitting around accumulating interest waiting to be wasted on projects like this), and NZTA (for the local road improvements around the site). ARH money is Aucklanders' money, NZTA is from road users.

Not a cent from future users? Matthew didn't ask why.

The line will carry trains how often? Every 20 minutes at peak times (I assume he made a typo). So watch the tumbleweeds go past the rest of the time. Meanwhile, the parallel motorway being built - the Manukau extension to SH20, which will link the Southern Motorway to the recently extended SouthWestern motorway through to Mt Roskill, wont be sitting for 20 minute intervals without a single vehicle.

600000 users a YEAR are predicted. Wow, sounds a lot? Hmmm. That's 2400 a day, if divided up to every weekday, excluding public holidays. To get some perspective on this we are talking about:
- The new motorway will carry 30,000 vehicles a day on average each with at least one person
- Wellington Cable Car (one vehicle every 10 minutes) carries around 3200 a day, 7 days a week.
- Fullers Ferries carry around 1.2 million users a year;
- the Northern Express bus route using the Northern Busway carries over 120,000 users a MONTH;
- Wellington's Johnsonville line carries 1.2 million users a year, it's long been considered marginal at best, and at off peak times has trains carrying less than single bus loads every half hour.

So 600000 a year for $90 million, let's say a 30 year payback period for the line, except the users aren't paying for it. So it is $5 per person per trip over 30 years, excluding interest, plus the cost of the train subsidy ($3.69 per passenger trip in 2002) plus the cost of the train itself.

I also remember seeing an economic benefit cost analysis, which said for every dollar spent on this project, it would generate 40c in savings for users and motorists. So it destroys wealth on every measure.

It would have been nice had Matthew Dearnaley in the NZ Herald had asked some simple questions like that. You know, the sort of thing a journalist does. Questions like:
1. What contribution will users make to the costs of building the line and station? (none)
2. What are the NET economic benefits of this project? (negative)
3. How many cars a day will this project take from roads and what will be the reduction in delays? (not a lot)
4. What would $90 million do elsewhere?...

I can answered the last. $90 million would:
- Cover the planned property purchases for the Waterview connection motorway;
- Is almost the total cost of maintaining all of Auckland City Council's roads ($93 million);
- Almost the total cost of renewal of all State Highways in the Waikato ($92 million);
- Pay 90% of the cost of the East Taupo bypass.

Oh and remember this is advocated by local politicians. Take this:

"Manukau Mayor Len Brown says he expects the new station to rival Newmarket as the second busiest in the region behind Britomart when it opens in early 2011".

Given Auckland's trains carry about 7 million trips a year, and Wellington's still carry around 9.5 million, in a metropolitan area with one quarter the population, you can see how it is easy to be a little cynical about vast amounts of money going into the train set.

Especially when the money almost entirely comes from people who wont benefit one jot from it.

Meanwhile, the supercity takes another step closer. Think it's going to stop repeating this nonsense?

EU votes to increase CO2 emissions

Bastards. Propping up their inefficient and environmentally unfriendly dairy sector.

Poor little diddums EU dairy farmers are going to get £15,000 each paid for by me and other taxpayers, because they can't cope that demand for their products has dropped and commodity prices have dropped.

CO2 emissions? Yes, well Lincoln University had a study (since removed from its website) claiming that even with the effects of shipping, dairy products from NZ produced half the CO2 emissions per tonne compared to UK farms (which are typically more efficient than many continental farms).

So really, shouldn't the EU have the fingered pointed at it when it starts telling others what to do? On trade, the environment and helping developing countries?

At 8ft 1 - world's tallest man wants a girlfriend

According to the BBC (which has video of him), they are usually scared of him. He's Turkish and 27. He grew so tall due to a pituitary tumour which has since been removed.

He has a specially made 3 metre long bed. Heaven help him flying, he'd never fit in economy class, business class would still mean folding legs, and so first class it is, at a crush.

"He said: "The good thing about being so tall is that I can see people from a long distance. The other thing is at home they use my height to change the light bulbs and hang the curtains, things like that.""

Which of course must drive him nuts, though in the USA I suspect many will think him suitable for basketball.

Of course he's not just tall, he has hands 10.8 inches long and feet 14.3 inches long as well. I suspect many women will be wondering about another dimension as well. Whether that is something that scares them is something else.

Good luck to him, I suspect he will want to be known for a bit more than his height, but sadly the article says nothing about what else he does.

Keith Floyd - he lived

The passing of Keith Floyd at quite a young age is sad in that he showed food, wine and life the way it should be - fun.

One can say he lived, with businesses that succeeded, and some that failed. He saw bankruptcy, and drank a lot of wine, leading to some trouble (a drink driving conviction with a traffic accident). A man who entertained millions.

He went through four marriages, though of his latest partner he said:

Is it possible to be a teenager in love when you are 65? I reckon it is. But why am I so sure that this will work when my other relationships have failed?

For many reasons. We already have a friendship that has lasted for 40 years — we know each other well. We know each other’s irritating foibles — I can be grumpy and Celia talks to herself and is quite clumsy. She cannot cook, but she can sew and she can make the flowers grow . . . and somehow she manages brilliantly.

To sit in the garden, under a Provencal sunset, chatting and laughing and loving each other, is my idea of heaven. I will not mess up this one.

Who can deny that this is the statement of a man who embraced what life is about. Shamelessly being alive. Shamelessly living for a sense of life.

It is sad he died after a great lunch following be informed he was clear of bowel cancer. Petroc Trelawny has links to some great clips of Floyd, but reminds us of the time we are now in when:

"Can you imagine a TV performer now being allowed to admit to a hangover, let alone drink several bottles in the course of a programme ?

On screen Floyd was never anyone but himself."

In an age when lemon faced doom merchants peddle warnings about what to do and what not to do, tell us about the harm of alcohol more than the pleasure of good wine, and warn of the need to moderate, of armageddon, when Islam pushes sacrifice and restraint, and the Vatican sells a similar motto of suffering and denial, and politicians tell of sacrifice.

Floyd reminded us all of what the point is of life.

To live it. To take risks, accept the consequences and responsibility, but to enjoy yourself doing it.

Perchance there ever be a politician who could even begin to understand this?

So you voted National for this?

What's a Maori home? Who knows? How will this be proven? Are the homes already identified by the Maori Party?

Which political party, besides the obvious, will stand up and call it racist?

and you thought that with Maori race based seats for the Auckland mega council dismissed, you wouldn't get more race based government with this lot.

So ask yourself, did Labour ever sell out its principles for the Alliance/Progressives, Greens, United Future or NZ First so quickly and so blatantly?

So if your poor and of European, Asian or Pacific Island ethnicity, why don't you get the same treatment? Or can non-Maori taxpayers get a bit of a refund?

Oh and I can't wait to hear ACT's response, Labour wont know what to say, although I'm sure the Greens will think it is a welcome initiative.

Racist critics?

A bomb has been dropped, with former President Jimmy Carter calling Obama's critics racist. He considers that some in the US don't think a black man should be President, no doubt he is right that some do, but to brand most of the criticism as being racist is a very cheap shot. A shot that will backfire, anger the opponents of Obama further, and do little to protect Obama from criticism. It will sadly give the Democrats a simple weapon to bash over the head of opponents - "you're criticising Obama? Oh it's racism."

A better insight would see that opponents of Obama fall into a range of camps, some of which have obvious philosophical and political opposition to his principles and policies, others who are part of a lunatic fringe. It is important to separate out those who use ridiculous hyperbole from those who have genuine concerns. So who does criticise Obama?

Liberal Republicans/libertarians: Obama has had a long political career of advancing more government intervention and spending, support protectionist and spending proposals in Congress and being a generally acknowledged left-wing Democrat. Anyone who believes in less government spending, less barriers to trade, lower taxes and more free market/individualist solutions is likely to oppose Obama. Racist? Anything but. Their rhetoric is likely to fear higher taxes, interference in individual health care plans and the like. However, they have had few friends standing for the White House in a while. I would be in this group obviously, as I believe Obama has some Marxist leanings, a some scepticism about capitalism and individual freedom. A nazi or a communist? No. This SHOULD form the base for opposition to Obama, but is only one part of it.

Mainstream Conservatives: Obama's fairly liberal position on social issues rankles with conservatives, and his belief in a new government health insurer raises some of the same concerns of liberal republicans/libertarians. However, they are also more likely to regard a leftwing Democrat as not being one of them, with different values. They form the Republican base, essentially more willing to believe critics than believe Obama, as they don't trust the Democratic Party. This base, occupied by many religious conservatives, are those who would typically vote Republican.

Hardline fringe conservatives: These are the one who are willing to believe the "birther" rhetoric, fear he is really a Muslim, and believe that he is a communist. This is truly the lunatic fringe wingnuts who are convinced he is willing to hand the USA over to Iran or some other Muslim state, and surrender. They are willing to accept conspiracy theories, and see the great fear as being Obama as a foreign Muslim spy who is "un American" because he is seen to be foreign born. Underlying racism probably contributes to a willingness to believe this. White supremacists, though tiny in number, will encourage this rhetoric.

So it is, naturally, more complicated than Carter says. I've been strongly opposed to Obama, not because of race - indeed his election was a positive sign about the state of racism in the US - but because of his policies. Discussion about his policies and philosophy have long been shrouded by the over enthusiasm for his ability to speak. The content of what he says has been secondary. He campaigned on change, but rarely mentioned what that was, with his own Senate record being one of following almost every leftwing Democrat to vote. None of that showed independent thinking or a willingness to be open minded, rather a basic level of partisanship.

The Obama hype has produced a backlash, from some it is a genuine opposition to a President who believes more government is good, for others it may shroud wider xenophobic and racial suspicions, but I suspect a good part of the opposition represents the dividing line in US politics between the liberal coasts and the conservative centre and south. A dividing line that those who benefit from it seek to emphasise, which exacerbates it. Attacks on George W. Bush and Sarah Palin have long been venal, sometimes I have agreed, but for those who peddle such attacks to claim attacks on Obama are racist is somewhat disingenuous. It is also unwise.

The Republican Party is going through a degree of philosophical discovery at the moment, as it is clear than the evangelical conservative wing is declining in popularity and influence. As that happens, it is the wingnut conservatives that are shouting the loudest, when they are the ones who will permanently deny the Republicans the White House. Republican need to win small government liberals on the coasts to rebuild a wider base. That is the biggest threat to the Democrats. However, branding both the wingnuts and the small government liberals as racist may well be the best thing Democrats can do to bolster Republicans. Many have good reason to be unhappy about Obama. Dismissing them out of hand and insulting them wins no friends.

A true hero for the world passes away

I had heard of Norman Borlaug only a couple of times before, not enough of course, and so his passing should come with the sort of news coverage that now gets given to vapid celebrities and simpleton politicians.

I am guessing if you still don't know who he is, you could boil it down to this:

He used his mind, and his passion for solving problems, to save lives on a grand scale. He did it through science

More than politicians, more than bureaucrats, more than the environmentalists or the so called peace activists, he saved hundreds of millions of lives, mostly in developing countries. More than he did, or he did, or this organisation or that organisation.

As the Daily Telegraph obituary today says:

"Perhaps more than anyone else, he was responsible for the fact that throughout the postwar era, except in sub-Saharan Africa, global food production has expanded faster than the human population, averting the mass starvations that were once widely predicted.

But Borlaug’s “Green Revolution” was not “green” in the modern sense. High yields demanded artificial fertiliser, chemical pesticides and new soil technology. As a result of this he was vilified by many in the environmental movement in the securely affluent West, some of whom argued that higher food production sustains more people and thus poses a threat to the natural environment."

You see he is a hero in India, where he banished mass famine to history, by developing "dwarf wheat" which was hardy and high yield:

"By 1968 Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production; India followed a few years later. Since the 1960s, food production in both countries has outpaced the rate of population growth and, in the mid 1980s, India even became a net exporter. In 1968, the administrator for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) wrote in his annual report that the phenomenal improvement in food production in the subcontinent looked like "a Green Revolution" – which was how it came to be known. "

He did the same in China, but in Africa he faced opposition. Why?

" Notwithstanding the fact that Borlaug's initial efforts in a few African nations yielded the same rapid increases in food production as did his efforts on the Indian subcontinent, environmental lobbyists persuaded Borlaug's backers in the Ford Foundation and the World Bank to back off from most African agriculture projects."

Yes, you see those people, those very groups who claim to give so much of a damn about the air, the water, the environment, don't give damn all about people. The new religion of our times - environmentalism would be put up against the science, the productivity and how Borlaug could save lives - and the earth worshippers would win.

That is why the Greens or Greenpeace, or other supercilious anti-reason worshippers of the planet over humanity wont cheer him on. No. A man of science, not a man of superstition treated appallingly because he didn't fit into the trend. He damned subsidies for agriculture in developed countries whilst obesity was the growing problem.

However, he did get much recognition. The American Medal of Freedom in 1977 and umpteen honorary doctorates, he was known in his field, and well known in some countries, if not the fickle ephemeral image worshipping developed world. Many more people are alive today because of him. Perhaps, that is why the environmental movement are cold towards him?

Not PC has done a superb post about Borlaug whose death I heard of from the BBC World Service - which gave an extended report on his achievements. Something I gather the NZ media, so dismissive of the blogosphere, couldn't. However, I am sure if virtually all NZ reporters and journalists were asked who he was, they wouldn't know.

So it's worth saying now how I share PC's disgust, that TVNZ does not have anything about him on its "news" website, neither does the NZ Herald or Stuff. TV3 did of course, to its credit.

So just think next time the mainstream media (bar TV3) criticise the blogosphere for not being "real journalism", ask yourself how many of these onanistic "copy a government press release" monkeys can hold down a sustainable debate on anything of substance that doesn't involve celebrity gossip, political scuttlebutt or sport?

UPDATE: WSJ has one of the best statements yet on Borlaug

"Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters.

In later life, Borlaug was criticized by self-described "greens" whose hostility to technology put them athwart the revolution he had set in motion. Borlaug fired back, warning in these pages that fear-mongering by environmental extremists against synthetic pesticides, inorganic fertilizers and genetically modified foods would again put millions at risk of starvation while damaging the very biodiversity those extremists claimed to protect. In saving so many, Borlaug showed that a genuine green movement doesn't pit man against the Earth, but rather applies human intelligence to exploit the Earth's resources to improve life for everyone."

Ask yourself whether those that call themselves Green are of the former or latter category in that sentence.

Shrinking the state popular in the UK

The Sunday Times reports a poll that says 60% of voters want government spending cut to shrink the size of the state to plug the £175 billion budget deficit.

That should give the Conservatives the testicular fortitude to be tough if they win, to abolish regional development agencies, cut countless programmes, scrap grand projects like high speed railways and stop funding expansion of housing in a dud market.

Only 21% of voters would prefer tax increases over spending cuts. So much for more socialism.

Yet Gordon Brown continues with the lie that Labour will "protect core spending" against "Tory cuts", when he knows that he wont be PM after the election, knows he wont need to cut spending, so can pretend that when the Tories actually DO have to cut heavily, he "told you so". It's vile, and fortunately against exactly what the majority want.

Government is too big in Britain, and the public want that to end. However, whether it means finally taking the knife to the national religion - the NHS - is another thing.

The editorial makes the point that doing this involves confronting the unions:

"The unions are all but irrelevant in the private sector, however, with only 16% of workers signed up as members. The public sector is the last bastion of union power, where nearly three in five state employees are members. That is why most industrial disruption is in the public sector, including a damaging series of Royal Mail strikes.

More disruption of this kind may be the price we have to pay for cutting the public sector down to size."

"Just as voters knew instinctively in 1979 that the unions had grown too powerful and elected Margaret Thatcher to cut them down to size, so they know now that the size of the state, spending the equivalent of 50% of gross domestic product, has to be tackled."

So it should - it's time for half of the British economy to stop bludging off the other half.

Phil Goff is sorry?

He's sorry for a focus on "politically correct issues" like smacking, light bulbs and shower heads. Then he's sorry that the electricity SOEs make profits and pay dividends to the government (he wants to end this, but forgot there are a few privately owned electricity generators too). He could fix the dividends to the government by privatising it, like how he helped privatise Telecom.

It's more than that Phil - it is an attitude of "we know best", one that saw an enormous expansion of the welfare state with Working for Families instead of just giving people back their own money. An attitude that threw a fortune away on buying back the railways, well over the market price, just for control. A belief that private property rights didn't really matter, and most disturbingly an attempt to censor electioneering, because it would disadvantage Labour.

Frankly, I'd be sorry for the cheerless bunch of mediocre control freaks that comprises most of the Labour caucus since 1999. So good were they that Clark ran it like a tight ship, trusting only a tiny handful like Cullen and Hodgson, whilst regarding most Labour MPs as making up the numbers.

Most of all, be sorry that you gave the National party so many policies it wont reverse, so much spending it will continue with, and the philosophical basis for how it governs - political pragmatism.

What's he proud of?

Kiwisaver - a policy that encourages the myth that you are better off if the state invests your money for retirement than if you did (oh and if you die before national superannuation eligibility, tough luck your estate gets nothing).

Working for Families - the idea that low to middle income working families are entitled to welfare payments, shrouded as tax credits higher than the tax they paid in the first place. A massive extension of the welfare state from the needy to core floating voters... ahh I get it now.

Lowering unemployment - Expanding the state sector is a sneaky way of doing that, but beyond that you're not responsible for private sector job creation. Unless, of course, you remember you did participate in the reforms of the 1990s.

Oh dear Phil. You do have something to be proud of, you introduced serious university fees for students, making them think about whether they study or not. However, you don't want to say it too loud - the Labour party has made a jump to the left since then.

Immigration policy rewards lazy kiwis

That is what THIS case is about.

The woman has a job, her employer says it has been unable to find anyone else suitable and Sunita Khan "has proven to be a very competent and caring person who delivers care to the elderly with expertise and commitment.

"Sunita's empathy and enthusiasm ... exceeds that of those we currently see in the market."

In other words, because locals are too lazy and not competent enough by comparison, she is invaluable to the employer, and by implication the employer's customers (who are elderly). She works 6 days a week, as does her husband (quick tell the unions, there are people who work harder than they do and are pleased to do so).

However, immigration bureaucrats think otherwise. None of them with productive jobs themselves, they want to deport a woman and her husband who are.

So if the bureaucrats (and by implication the politicians who made the law) have their way, out they go, just so the employer can hire someone second rate who is a keewee.

Backlash over Stalinist adult vetting proposal

The Sunday Telegraph reports how the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has come out against the Orwellian powers of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, saying:

"The warning signs are now out there that this scheme will stop people doing things that are perfectly safe and normal, things that they shouldn't be prevented from doing"

furthermore

"Prof. Alan Craft, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the state had already gone too far in creating a culture which restricted freedom for young families. He said: "We have created a climate where adults feel they can't put an arm around a child who is upset, and there is a real danger that this move takes us yet further down that road.""

"David Lyscom, chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, said: "It is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue of child protection which will be full of unintended consequences. This is another example of the Government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, in Berkshire, said: "The scheme is as crazy a Government response as I have ever come across. It will not catch evil people who do these unspeakable things and it will divert resources away from other areas of child protection."

Indeed, no doubt Labour will find a way to spin this away, but the Tories have already shown themselves as soft cock and limpwristed as can be by saying they would "curb the ISA's powers", rather than abolish it and let schools and groups take their own steps - such as seeking criminal checks on those they have concerns about.

The truth is, at some point, a child will be murdered or raped in a high profile, brutal case. It will happen because there will always be someone who takes the chance to do such a thing, it will always frighten parents for whom their kids always come first, and will always provoke questions of "why". The answer which is too hard for many to swallow is this:

"You can never fully know the dangers and risks of the behaviour of others in a free society, the only way you can maximise protection against such risks is to sacrifice a free society".

Oh course, I'd never expect the British Labour Party or the average bureaucrat to really understand that.

Islam vs who?

The recent clashes between Muslims of south Asian extraction and what looks like a group of angry young white British men have been portrayed as fascism vs Islam. My own view is that it isn't really clear what is going on here.

There are certainly elements of "go home" neo-fascist thuggery going on, but the organisers of the protest against the Harrow mosque appear to be a more mixed lot. I don't have a problem with there being mosques. Just going along to harass Muslims is wrong, but the key problem is what goes on inside. This is former Islamist Ed Husain's point in the Sunday Telegraph talking about his organisation Quilliam:

"When Quilliam's researchers revealed that Abu Qatada, "al-Qaeda's ambassador to Europe", was smuggling propaganda letters from inside a British prison, the then justice minister turned up on the BBC to dismiss our findings and say such work was "unhelpful". Boris Johnson recently called for greater understanding and tolerance of Islam at the East London Mosque – the same place where I and many others were introduced to radical Islamist ideology, and whose Saudi-trained imam is a signatory to a document that many say calls for attacks on the Royal Navy."

Indeed. If it were clear that mosques were places where Muslims were NOT being fed propaganda to undermine the British liberal secular democracy, there would be no fear. However, we know that the truth is different. Islam in Britain is different from the US and France as Husain says:

"When I visit America, I see Muslims who are free, vibrant, dynamic, and fully American. In France, too, there are greater rates of inter-religious marriages: Muslims marrying people of other faiths, and negotiating how we coexist. In Britain, rates of Muslims marrying outside their faith community are woefully low, and the numbers returning to the villages of Pakistan and Bangladesh for a spouse worryingly high."

So while tolerance of the right of Muslims to peacefully live their lives as they see fit matters, so does demanding tolerance by Muslim migrants (and indeed all migrants) for the British political system, and rejecting calls to use violence to change society. It also means respecting the rule of law, the equality of women before the law and respecting the right of free speech of others.

It means confronting the tendency of some young Muslim men to blame Western society for when they drink, are promiscuous and then feel guilty and want to turn to something "bigger than themselves".

This is why I am sceptical about news reports that simply portray street clashes as ones between fascists and Muslims, there is fascism on both sides, and fear of Islamism is a legitimate concern.

EU gives murderer succuour

Robert Mugabe, one of Africa's most vile, brutal and murderous thugs was greeted today by a delegation of nobodies from the European Union.

The nasty little thug greeted them with open arms, blaming sanctions for the destruction of Zimbabwe's economy, when it was all due to the mad thieving corrupt socialism he has implemented in the past decade or so.

However sanctions are not going to go soon, but isn't it nice to meet a man who deserves nothing less than a bullet in the head. Remember, the surest way you can get away with grand theft and murder, is to lead a country. Then you'll find you'll be treated with the greatest of respect.

Two views on how people should move

Joshua Arbury is a planner, his profile is here. He appears to be a reasonably intelligent young man who has a very different view of the world, and particularly the transport sector, than myself. You see he loves the development of the Auckland rail network, he appears to embrace the so-called "Smart Growth" land use intensification philosophy promoted by Auckland local government planners, and believes the future for Auckland's transport system is about railways and public transport. He is so keen on it he set up a separate blog about it. In it he posts about transport policy, taking a view that is pretty much in alignment with the Green Party. I have debated extensively on the blog, and to his credit he has engaged quite well on the issues, and has linked to me.

A little of what he writes is interesting urban design matters, like this and this.

So what is his perspective?

In short he believes (and no doubt will correct me if he sees fit).
- More use of public transport is a good thing;
- More use of the private car is a bad thing;
- The way to resolve traffic congestion is to improve public transport;
- Electric railways are good, the more the better;
- It doesn't matter if users don't pay for new public transport, it is a "good thing" and the way the rest of the world does it;
- Road building is something to be suspicious about because it encourages people to drive more;
- More road transport is bad for the environment, more public transport is good for the environment;
- Land use restrictions, urban boundaries and intensification polices are all good;
- Peak oil will happen and the way to reduce its impacts is.... more public transport;
- Climate changing is happening, road transport is partly to blame and the way to reduce its impacts is.... more public transport;
- Cities with more public transport, especially rail, have better transport and economic outcomes than those with less.

In short, he wants to subsidise public transport users, and wants everyone else to pay for it. He considers more car use as bad.

I take a different view. I don't really care how you get yourself around (or your business's goods around). What primarily matters is that you pay for it.

That means, as far as public transport is concerned, the private sector investing in infrastructure and vehicles based on future projected fare revenue collected from users. As far as roads are concerned, the same basically.

Now the big problem at the moment is that roads are all priced on a common basis, vehicles pay different amounts based on the type of vehicle (trucks pay more, which tends to fairly reflect the wear and tear they impose), but the road and time of day does not change what you pay. The money all goes into a pot which is spent through bureaucratic processes, year by year, on road improvements officials think most benefit road users, and some on public transport.

What that means is that the busiest (most profitable) roads cost the same as the emptiest, when they should cost more when they get congested, so more money can be made from them, and decisions made as to whether to invest in more capacity. In other words popular roads should cost more because space is scarce. At other times, they may cost little to encourage people to use them. Big new roads should be funded on the basis of the numbers prepared to pay to use them, as should railways.

Of course under this scenario precious few railways would be built, because it is clear rail passengers don't value travel by train as much as politicians and planners value them travelling by train. For example in Auckland rail fares would have to treble for services to start to make a financial surplus, by contrast the roads already generate one. Some bus services do too, but others would have to rise by as much as double to make them profitable.

So it is about philosophy. I don't think transport is special. I think it should be treated like the rest of the economy. Indeed, most freight operates with little to no government involvement or subsidy. Aviation and intercity bus (and rail) services operate without subsidy either. Why can people travel between cities without a subsidy, but not within?

You see I don't it is bad for people to travel by car, as long as nobody is forced to subsidise them, likewise by public transport, cycling or walking or staying at home. I make no value judgment at all on it. It's called freedom.

Joshua doesn't share that. He wants to plan the city so you catch the modes he prefers, and he thinks we're all better off being forced to pay for this. I don't believe he is irredeemably irrational yet, he has good intentions. However, I encourage you to debate some of his points.

I believe the fundamental difference is between those who want to tell others what to do, and those who want to get the government out of the way of sending the right price signals. The fact he doesn't think price is the biggest issue says much.

So to conclude, have a think about this:

- If anything else you buy were priced the same year and day round, would you also expect to queue for a long time to get any goods or services at times of peak demand?
- If roads were such an inefficient way of moving goods and people then how come politicians in most countries can tax them well in excess of what is needed to pay to maintain the road network? In New Zealand the surplus is now spent on improving roads and public transport, in the UK most of it goes on general government spending. What railways do you know in state ownership that can be taxed and have their surplus spent on other things?
- If public transport is so efficient, go around railyards and bus depots outside the morning and evening peak times. Notice plenty of carriages or buses sitting around idle. They do that from around 9-9.30am till 3.30-4pm every weekday. Ask yourself why you should be forced to pay for all of this when most of the time it sits around as idle capacity. Before the public transport advocates point out this is what happens with cars most of the time, they should ask who paid for the car in the first place?

Oh and you'll find truck operators and intercity bus companies don't tend to do that, and airlines tend only to have planes sitting around due to noise restrictions at airports at night.

By the way, if you really want to find busybodies who think they know best, and treat economics as something they don't need to swallow, try the Campaign for Better Transport (better from their perspective, not from what the user wants to pay for, or others are willing to pay for). Don't hold your breath for comments on aviation.

National's big motorway through private property

The NZ Transport Agency is going ahead with the scaled down tunnel option for the Waterview connection motorway - the last stage of the Western Ring Route in Auckland. It is important to note that funding has NOT been approved for construction yet. What has been done is that the route has been decided, and so the road will proceed, once funding is approved, whether or not the property owners agree.

Now I agreed with Steven Joyce pulling the plug on the Helen Clark Commemorative Goldway, which was sheer pork barrel politics of the worst kind - putting one section of a motorway underground because it went through the then Prime Minister's electorate, when all of the rest of the route is at surface.

I also fisked a lot of nonsense from some other blogs about the project. It never had funding agreed before under the last government, and the land was NOT designated for the route.

So what's left?

In principle I agree a motorway ought to be built, one day, to connect the southwestern motorway (SH20) to the northwestern motorway (SH16). However, under two conditions:

1. It should be built respecting private property rights. Yes it was foolish for Auckland councils to abolish designations for building a motorway between Mt Roskill and SH16 nearly 40 years ago, but local property owners shouldn't bear the burden of this. If properties can be bought to build it then so be it, but those who don't wish to sell should not be forced to. Frankly given the enormous construction costs of the motorway, it may simply be a matter of being more flexible about the exact route, or offering more. $88.2 million has been approved to undertake property purchases. Hopefully that will all be achieved voluntarily. It is wrong otherwise.

2. It should be built when it is worth doing. How do you measure that? Well, without a commercially run network it is difficult. As a single tolled project it wont stack up, because the Auckland City Council has untolled roads in parallel that it uses ratepayers money to partially pay for. So a private builder faces unfair public sector competition. So I'd argue that either enough money is generated from the future fuel tax and road user charges consumed using the road, to pay for it, or it generates enough savings in time, vehicle operating costs for the users (and those on roads they once used) to make it an economically efficient project (using standard NZTA benefit/cost analysis). At the moment, it isn't worth doing.

The Mt. Roskill extension has just recently opened, and there are no reports that there are big queues between it and SH16. The Manukau extension remains under construction, as does the duplicate Mangere Bridge. Similarly the Hobsonville deviation of SH18 (last section of the Upper Harbour Motorway) is under construction. Until they are all complete, it is difficult to determine if such a hugely expensive motorway is worth building yet, with the bureaucratically based road funding system that exists. Certainly the "supercity" will not help.

$3.4 million in final investigation funding has been approved and is effectively what officials are spending now to get the route designated and go through the RMA. However, full construction funding approval is still a little off. The National Land Transport Programme shows that $22.7 million will "probably" be approved to spend on detailed design in the next two years, with $42.4 million "probably" approved for pre-construction site work for 2010/11 before the full project can proceed. The full construction cost is put at $976.3 million, to start in 2011/2012, just in time for a general election.

Assuming, of course, the property owners let it be, the RMA doesn't hold it up and the costs don't blow out of control. One thing we can sure of, the Greens will oppose it, because they think we wont need new roads when oil "runs out".

Get rid of the colon in this headline

I don't think providing a training ground for future candidates and Labour MPs is a benefit everyone else should be forced to pay for. Do you?

Give Maryan Street a laugh with this line though "The problem with voluntary membership was that those benefits were not apparent to students attending university for the first time and they may not believe they provided value."

But we'll take their money, make them join and tell the world that we represent the views of students anyway. All for one and one for all right?

If the Nats fail to take this to where it should go, it will show how utterly bereft of any principle the National Party is, that it will keep privileging organisations that support National's opponents. For that is what student unions are - training grounds for the left. Training grounds for those who want to keep National out of power. If you can't put them on the basis that students wont be forced to join them or pay for them, then what can you possibly call yourself?

Recession isn't over in Britain yet

One sign of a recovery, is an increase in business travel. One sign such a recovery hasnt't happened is heavy discounting of air fares on business routes. One of the world's busiest is London-New York, between the two financial capitals of the world. A 7-7.5 hour flight typically. So....

On Sale. British Airways

London Heathrow
New York First Class now £2387 rtn

Given it is typically £8212 return in First Class, it shows there are a lot less bankers etc doing this trip up the very front.

Oh and if you're right down the back it is £299 return, which given that almost all of that is tax, is essentially paying the marginal cost for the cheap meal, the air and the fuel to carry you. It's always been fairly cheap there, but even if the back is completely full, flights from London to New York lose money unless there are enough people in the first and business class cabins. Given this pricing (which is less than when I went business class 9 months ago, which was itself a discount fare), business travel remains VERY subdued.

Business class sale is £1389 return, when it can be up to £5322, Premium Economy is £536 return, when it can be up to £1800.

In effect if you plan wisely you can fly a class higher than you may normally for the same price, with plenty to spare.

Gordon Brown does something right

Apologies for how Alan Turing was treated by the state.

About time. It is in an article in the Daily Telegraph by Brown himself:

"Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of the Second World War could have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely.

In 1952, he was convicted of "gross indecency" – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later"

Indeed.

Though, unfortunately, Brown's article makes one glaring error "For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind's darkest hour". Sorry Gordon, half of Europe was under totalitarian dictatorship, and it took another 45 years to liberate most of the other half. Even now, some remains under authoritarianism (Belarus and Russia most notably).

Authoritarian Britain to make kids safe?

New Zealand had a close call with the resignation of Dr Cindy Kiro and Labour losing the last election, to avoid a neo-Stalinist level of state intervention in families. Big mother was going to be watching you.

She wanted children monitored from birth, by the state, this was warmly embraced by former Maoist Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei had a high regard for her, as did some Labour MPs. She blamed everyone for child abuse, tarred everyone with the brush that they tolerated violence and made all children the issue. She preferred a nuclear bomb rather than a sniper.

So how could things have been in NZ?

Well let's look at the UK. The Daily Telegraph reports that parents who formally arrange to transport other people's children to and from sports events or the like will need to be criminally vetted:

"Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.

It means anyone who fails to register and have their backgrounds checked faces a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

Parents who help children read in class or those who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and undergo criminal record checks.

School governors, dentists, pharmacists, prison officers and even dinner ladies are among the huge list of people who will now fall under the scheme, which starts to be rolled out next month and will eventually cover 11.3 million people."

So everyone is guilty till the state proves they are innocent, anyone who refuses to do so, is guilty of the crime of - not letting the state prove you are innocent.

Old Holborn says "This batty Quango seeking a role for itself at the public cost, is seeking to 'restrict access' to children. The little buggers are around us all the time, they are part of our lives not some protected species that is in danger of extinction."

So is this just about those convicted of abusing children? No. After all, not everyone caught abusing kids was caught before, so what will happen? The Times reports:

"Controversially, complaints or concerns from colleagues or members of the public that fall short of prosecutions may be held on an individual’s file, which will be available for viewing by any employer or voluntary group with which the person might work".

So got a grudge against someone, or a bit fearful of the eccentric chap down the street? Make a complaint, and you'll keep them from interacting with children. It IS akin to East Germany, where people were encouraged to report on their neighbours and files were kept about suspicious activities.

The Tories should promise to abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority. All that should be able to happen is for people to choose to check if someone has a criminal conviction. Anything less is accusing the innocent of being guilty, ignores the truth that much child abuse happens within families (so will never be caught by this).

Most importantly, there needs to be a recognition that the state cannot hope to protect all children from the risk of an adult abusing them.

Remember, you can always justify an increase in state interference in the lives of innocent people on the grounds of protecting children. Take it to its logical end and everyone will need a licence to have children, there will be cameras in every home, children will walk around in burqas (so perverts don't look at them and fantasise), and everyone they interact with, and everything they see or do is officially approved.

By the way, with the exception of the cameras (but there are people watching in every housing block) and burqas (though state approved clothing is fairly plain) North Korea has a lot of this already. That's a place that knows how to treat children, especially children of people who object to any of this.

However, will British people stand up? No, they'll be inert like they have been for years over this sort of authoritarianism. I don't expect the Tories to have the slightest testicular fortitude to do anything about it either.

UPDATE: 10 Drowning Street says the logical extension is to vet all parents, and for the state to remove the children if they are deemed unsuitable.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority website is here. "The Independent Safeguarding Authority’s (ISA) role is to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults." Sadly they don't define themselves as being unsuitable people for working at all. What sort of control freak would "work" for this body?

Half a man on 9/11

It's that anniversary again.

I can only link to what I wrote before as it is still apt, whilst there remain those keen to engage in mass murder for the sake of their ghost.

So to help darken the day further, the Daily Telegraph reports that the highest paid actor in the USA - Charlie Sheen - has come out supporting most of the lunatic conspiracy theories about 9/11. Bush ordered it and Bin Laden worked for the CIA.

The sitcom he acts in, Two and Half Men, is meant to be about a financially bereft divorced man and his young son living with his wealthier brother (played by Charlie Sheen). The half is meant to refer to the son (who has been 10-15yo as the series has run).

Now it's pretty clear which one is half a man. Although apparently this is old news, he is insane, stupid or evil, or some combination of the above.

Subsidising entertainment and business

That's what Steven Joyce is advocating with new "targets for rural broadband".

Apparently if you locate your business and home where the square metre of land is cheap, where there is no traffic congestion, where you don't pay for parking, where it is quiet and the air is clean, and you have ample space to do, well most things, you don't have enough advantages over major cities. No. You should get communication networks akin to them, without paying the full cost.

Given rural local road networks are already effectively subsidised by urban ratepayers and state highway users, it's not surprising of course. Fair? No.

"Over 80% of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5Mbps, with the remainder to achieve speeds of at least 1Mbps"

You might ask why this is special? If it is for business purposes, I'd expect it to be a cost of business, and so treated as such. After all, businesses in cities have costs that rural businesses don't have (far more expensive land, parking for example), but do not expect those to be cross subsidised by rural businesses.

If it is for private use then why again? High speed internet is fun for looking at pictures, watching Youtube, listening to internet radio, downloading music, multiplayer games or whatever. So why should rural folk, again with far bigger opportunities for a wide range of outdoor activities, get these subsidised?

"Mr Joyce says he expects the rural policy to cost around $300 million". That's just over $210 per household in tax across the country. This is to reach 25% of the population, so if that is pro-rata that means the subsidised households get $857 each from this scheme. Take away the $210 per household and it is $647 each.

You'd think if it was THAT special, they might all pay that.

It's not though. You see, I bet they'd rather spend that on something else. I bet you'd rather pay that for something else too.

She believed it was ok

NZ Herald reports:

"A woman accused of inflicting head injuries which nearly caused the death of her four-year-old son has been found guilty of wounding with intent to injure.

Itupa Julie Mikaio, 40, of Blockhouse Bay, Auckland, was also found guilty of neglecting to provide the necessaries of life to the boy."

"She had admitted a charge of injuring with intent, causing injuries to his body by striking him with a shoe,...said her actions after Benjamin became injured were appropriate for what she understood."

As we know, this is now a legitimate mitigating defence in New Zealand. Your violent actions and subsequent gross negligence towards your victim is "ok" as long as you thought it was the right thing to do.

The case is quite nasty, as a 9yo witnessing the events gave evidence "She said Miakaio "chucked his head down and smacked it. She pushes it to the floor". She said Benjamin's head went on to the lounge floor "hard" and he fainted afterwards. When asked why she did this, the witness said it was because he wet his pants and his bed. She also described seeing Mikaio hit Benjamin with a shoe and part of a vacuum cleaner.

Quite the liar she is too. No doubt have frightened her daughter into lying to protect them.

Of course the law against smacking means this is now STILL illegal, but lets wait and see the sentence one can get, for permanently disabling a small child under your care. Surely it must be less than drowning and torturing a woman to death to remove a demon you believe possessing her?

I presume Sue Bradford's solution for this sort of case is to give the mother more of your money, then she might be preoccupied with spending it rather than being vile towards her children. It certainly is John Minto's answer.

Good news for UK libertarians

A Liberal Democrat councillor in Stoke on Trent has defected to the Libertarian Party UK according to Old Holborn.

Yes, a very small step, but positive nonetheless.

Although it is important to bear in mind that the LPUK is very mild, in fact I've seen more radical policies from ACT. Just goes to show how damnably statist UK politics is.

Perhaps time for some likeminded proper libertarians to try to inject some ideas there?

If the Greens just handed out condoms

it would apparently be far more effective per dollar spent to reduce CO2 emissions than the current panoply of subsidise what we like (solar energy, wind power, railways) and ban or tax what we hate (aviation, road transport, coal fired power stations) policies that the Greens and their friends embrace with such enthusiasm, so says the London School of Economics according to the Daily Telegraph.

"Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says"...."If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total"

In other words, address contraception and it will address the CO2 concerns that many have.

By contrast, of course, the Greens embrace subsidising breeding through the welfare state. So while they continue their adolescent approach to policy (car bad, train good, gas powered electricity bad, solar energy good), wouldn't everyone be a lot happier if the Greens, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (not people) etc raised money to pay for targeted contraception campaigns globally? Meanwhile, if they stopped supporting welfare programmes that reward breeding, it might help a little too? Consistent with freedom and reducing CO2 emissions.

Yes it would upset the Catholic Church, but you wouldn't be forced to use contraception, like you shouldn't be forced to breed.

However, I'm talking about people who believe in a certain catastrophe convincing people to act to reduce the risk - not about initiating force. I think that confuses far too many in the environmental movement (which is, perhaps, why my comments on Frogblog get moderated now?).

Whose tree?

Well it is still not yours, this doesn't make your property YOUR property.

However, at least we know where Labour stands on this. Thieving pricks. The Nats may be gutless wonders for only rolling the law back a notch, but Lynne Pillay and Silent T have shown themselves to be pilfering petty little busybodies. They'll be wanting half your income and to tell you how your kids should be educated next, what to eat and... um

If you like the tree on someone else's property, it's simple. Attempt to persuade the owner to do what YOU want with it OR buy it.

No need to resort to violence.

More importantly, no right to resort to violence.

However, for most politicians using violence is part of what they embrace isn't it?

Do nothing is an option, but

Some years ago when I worked in the public sector, I was reminded by a sagacious manager that "do nothing" was always an option that should be put forward to Ministers, with the relevant consequences. "Do nothing" was valid and often the best option he said.

Sadly, those days appear to have faded somewhat. "Do something" is what people expect and Ministers all want to "do something".

Lindsay Mitchell has written wisely about "what would happen if the government did nothing more about child abuse".

The state houses and pays for some child abusers, it supports those who don't want kids to keep them. So on the one hand it provide succour to those who abuse, on the other hand it also has its core and proper role, which is the identification and prosecution of cases of criminal abuse and neglect. In other words, when the state steps in for the rights of children not to be raped, punched and ignored.

There will always be parents, guardians and strangers who will abuse children in the foreseeable future. Quite simply because there will always be flawed human beings, who thrive in the torture and abuse of others, or those who are simply recklessly destructive, not caring who they ignore in the process. This sort of abuse always happened, children who would be beaten to within inches of being sent to A & E, who were too scared to tell anyone. Parents who knew they could physically abuse or sexually abuse, with others not able to find out. Indeed, in the not too distant past children weren't believed when they told of such things (fortunately the era seems ti have moved on from being convinced kids were being abused even when they adamantly denied it and there was no evidence of abuse).

So what can be done? You cannot hope to have the state monitor and interfere at every point in a child's life and detect abuse. No. Health professionals can keep their eyes open for signs of harm, as can teachers, but this will be by chance. The best hope is for the abused to be able to speak out, which beyond a certain age is possible.

That means both feeling confident to speak out to teachers, relatives, friends, neighbours and strangers, but also for those people to feel they can listen.

For one of the most malignant trends in the last 20 years has been scaremongering about the contact adults have with children, particularly men, particularly alone. Children are taught to fear adults, and adults are taught to not be seen alone with children who aren't their own.

Yes the odds are that every child will encounter at least one adult with such intent, but for every abuser, there are easily 100 adults who will do all they can to be helpful to children. Why? Because frankly if most human beings didn't act that way around children, the species would have died out a long time ago, or barely advanced from the caves.

So how about children being encouraged to talk to adults who they trust, how about children being taught self defence, and how about adults not being scared of children, and finally, how about NOT judging adults with children, unless it is obvious something is wrong?

Oh and while we're at it, is there any reason why those convicted of serious violence and sex ual offenders should be allowed to live with children? Isn't that one way to stop intergenerational abuse?

When will adults be given full time parents?

This sort of scheme is absurd. "A smart card that subsidises healthy foods has been recommended by obesity researchers. The system was proposed in research commissioned by the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Herald reported."

We have the nonsense that people who are overweight, are actually poor. The opposite of the developing world. The latest excuse is that "it's cheaper to eat badly". This, of course, is nonsense.

Here are some ideas:
- Pasta (without cheese);
- Soup, with bread;
- Canned vegetables;
- Water, the universal drink - or even tea and coffee.

The attitude that people are overweight because of money is the attitude that there are adults incapable of looking after themselves, that they should be wards of the state, that nanny looks after them, feeds them, spends their money and ensures they are healthy. It is at best patronising, at worst a damnation of decades of welfarism that has produced people who are no better than children, because the state houses them, gives them money to spend and expects little in return. Of course once obese, people have the delight of the state picking up the tab for health care, because it sends no price signals over the years about how much extra it will cost.

I love this at the end though "Pensioners should be excluded because they had not been found to experience food insecurity, he said."

Oh hold on, so pensioners don't have this problem because presumably they aren't so stupid as to buy unhealthy food, or they aren't so lazy to not think a little bit about their shopping?

It's time to give up on this nanny approach, start thinking about health care as a personal responsibility and move towards people paying towards their health costs. I don't support removing GST on food, as GST should simply be abolished altogether. Removing GST on food makes food relatively cheaper than other "entertainment". However, it wont make any difference to obesity.

One thing might though. Getting rid of subsidies for bus services would encourage more people to walk and cycle.

Feedback on Telecom proposal

The NZ Herald reports "The Government wants feedback on Telecom's request for a variation on its planned operational separation.

Telecom announced a three-way split of its operations as part of the previous Labour Government's 2006 decision to reregulate aspects of the industry.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce said Telecom recently requested the government consider a variation to the proposed plan"

Here's my feedback:

1. Let Telecom do as it wishes. The Government does not own Telecom, Telecom's shareholders do.

2. Advise Telecom it does not need government permission for any changes to its own corporate structure, and that the Telecommunications Act 2001 will be amended to remove any powers of the government to direct the Telecom as to its property rights.

The NZX50 should take a rather significant leap at that point. The mooching participants in the telecommunications industry might have to think again before expanding their "businesses" using other people's property under duress.

"Nanny state" is about defending freedom

Dr George Thomson from the University of Otago, Wellington has told delegates to a Public Health Association conference that 'public health initiatives to protect populations from the risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries have increasingly been labelled as nanny state'.

He of course portrays the "initiatives" as being benign measures by people who know what's best for us (doctors of course, who could dare question the good intentions of members of the medical profession, in whose hands we always want to submit our lives), and that the measures are protecting us from the "risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries", presumably because we are all naive children.

No Dr Thomson.

Virtually everyone knows smoking is bad for you. All children are taught it can cause lung cancer, emphysema and contribute to heart disease and many other cancers. It's no secret.

Virtually everyone knows alcohol is bad for you. Being drunk makes you less risk averse, excessive drinking kills your brain cells, causes cirrhosis and exacerbates some circulatory complaints and cancers.

Virtually everyone knows eating sweets, chocolate, snack food, deep fried takeaways and the like can make you fat, give you heart disease, diabetes, contribute to bowel and stomach cancers and other conditions.

Yet people do it. Why? Some because they like it, some because they are going through enormous stresses and strains, and getting drunk or gorging on ice cream can help you feel better.

The idea that people are naively being conned into eating, drinking and smoking is patronising and wrong - unless Dr Thomson can point out places where people don't know any better.

He thinks that the term nanny state comes from the industries selling these products:

“The increased use of these terms appears to be driven by industries that are afraid of increased control over the marketing of unhealthy products"

No it's not Dr Thomson, it is as much by individuals afraid of you controlling our choices in our lives. You don't get this, it is called freedom. Many people, fully aware of the risks, don't want to be told how to live their lives by do gooders.

He continues "There’s a need to reframe public health activity as stewardship that protects people. Governments are expected to balance the public good against the interests of big business, and to care for the vulnerable in society. We need to create the language to reflect this, which looks behind slogans and the stereotyping of opposition to unhealthy products"

The vulnerable? He means everyone. You can't target one without controlling all adults. More simply. I don't mind getting information about food, drink and other products for consumption, about the health effects, as long as I am not forced to pay for it.

However, I don't WANT your protection Dr Thomson. I'm an intelligent grownup who can make my own decisions.

He continues down a more disturbingly anti-business refrain "there’s a need to reframe and analyse businesses that inflict health damage to people, as leeches on society".

Ah so the pleasures people get from these products are worth nothing to you. They are not leeches, they are supplying products people want, that they choose to buy and enjoy. However, you're paid for by the taxpayer, forcibly, in other words people pay for you whether they want to or not. Who is the leech then?

He finally shows he true Orwellian hatred for freedom, by demanding the most intrusive nanny state possible by implication from this statement "Governments that allow damage to the general public are creating the ninny state, and are following corporate welfare policies, rather than the public good".

The government should protect us all from ourselves! We mere children, the state knows best, fortunately there are intelligent grownups to tell us what to do, for the "public good".

Dr Thomson, please kindly fuck off, feel free to spend your own money on promoting health living as much as you like, but when you force people to comply you're crossing a line. THAT is what Nanny State is about.

It's about freedom. Freedom to eat, drink, smoke whatever I want, as long as I am responsible for my actions. You see that is what differs us from the joyless drones who live in the likes of North Korea - where your message undoubtedly would be warmly embraced.