God exists does it?

God either does not exist, is sadistic or hardly worthy of the title “God”
^
I don’t know who once said it, but the point came to me reading about Josie Grove in The Times.
^
She is:
- 16 years old;
- A champion swimmer and apparently talented artist;
- Has leukaemia;
- Has endured two unsuccessful bone marrow transplants and a course of anti-cancer drugs. One transplant from her 8 year old brother.
- Has decided that since the cancer is terminal, she would rather not undergo further treatment that means she spends long periods in hospital feeling sick. She’d rather spend what little time she has with her family.
^
So go on, defend that god followers. PROVE how much love and compassion your God has, how much mercy that God gives to a talented happy young woman that she has to endure invasive surgery and drugs, to have to die. Defend it by saying how much “good” she brought her family and friends, and how much “hope” she offers with her bravery – in other words, defend her sacrifice. Defend it by saying that, despite her suffering, her short life, the short time she spends with people who love her, despite her parents and siblings going through this, it is all fucking worthwhile, because there is “heaven”, though you can’t really say anything about this except it’s “really really good” and I should just “believe” this, even though there is not a shred of evidence for it. There is just a desperate hope that there should be “heaven” because if there isn’t, then surely it proves that God is weak or sadistic for letting this young woman go through hell.
^
It is rather simple you see either:
- God does not exist, meaning this is a tragedy, but all the best of science and technology has been applied to extend this young woman’s life and help her enjoy what time she has; or
- God does exist, but does not have the power to change anything on earth – but somehow created it, life etc. This is entirely contradictory. God by definition is all powerful, after all if God created the universe (except himself which means God created less than the universe), it is illogical for God to be unable to destroy cancer cells in one person, or indeed all people. You can start creating new theories as to why this may not be, but they are not consistent with any religion; or
- God does exist and is all powerful, but chooses not to intervene. This is either because God likes human beings suffering (which is immoral) or is nonchalant towards human beings suffering (which is also immoral), and likes holding out, through some ancient texts and the utterings of large numbers of questionable people, some hope of “heaven” without directly presenting the opportunity to those who are suffering (and those who are not), In short, God has a perverted sense of morality. The same sense of morality of those who get pleasure out of punishment, a God who hates human beings and plays them as toys. If true, then the universe is bleak and those who follow God do so out of fear, not out of an objective belief in the morality of God.
^
So which one is it? Methink non-existence is the most logical.

Gordon Brown's pathetic pre-budget legacy

With Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer and possibly soon to be Prime Minister, I actually wish for Dr Michael Cullen. Besides being a wittier debater, he has, despite massive increases in spending, not put the NZ government into deficit (though he didn’t pull it from deficit, that was Bill Birch in the 1990s). Cullen also has not increased taxes so brazenly as Brown or so regularly. This is not a ringing endorsement of Cullen. Bloody ‘ell I’m a libertarian, and he has increased state spending many times over – but it is an appreciation of how much more advanced fiscal policy is in NZ.
^
Gordon Brown’s pre-budget statement highlights were:
^
- A doubling in air passenger duty (to between £10 and £80) ostensibly to respond to climate change. Given he hasn’t cut other taxes, given this will make virtually no difference to air travel (Will £5 put chavs off their trip to Prague or will £80 put Madonna off of her first class flight to LA? Hardly), it’s about revenue. A BA spokesman said that aviation is the only transport sector in the UK that pays for all of its own infrastructure directly. He is right. It’s also worth nothing that the fuel consumption of the latest aircraft, per passenger km is remarkably low. Lufthansa reports that the latest Boeing 747-8 series, which is has just ordered, burns 3.5 litres of fuel per passenger every 100km. 30km a litre isn’t bad fuel economy for travelling at 90% of the speed of sound. NZ air passenger levies are about paying for security/border control, not the UK.

^
- Inflation indexing fuel taxes once more (increasing petrol by 1.25p/l). Given that no fuel tax in the UK is dedicated to roads or indeed, any transport, this is all about revenue as well. It will have virtually no effect on demand. Now yes, Dr Cullen inflation indexes petrol tax as well, but the indexed amount DOES get dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, most of which goes on roads. Given around 60% of petrol tax (100% of LPG tax and road user charges) is dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, and Dr Cullen spends all of the rest on land transport as well, NZers have little to complain about.

^
- A new welfare benefit giving pregnant women £200 in the final weeks of their pregnancy. That’s nice, it is saying “aren’t you clever? You had sex and want the baby. Here’s some money we took off of everyone else to show you how clever you were getting knocked up”. He could have cut taxes, but no – that just means people get more of what they truly earn. It is unlikely to be enough to encourage middle class couples to have children, but £200 to an inert chav is “well good init?” Sadly Gordon Brown doesn’t mix enough with the rest of the world to know how important it really is to adopt a policy of disincentivising chavs breeding, partly to improve Britain’s reputation in the world.

^
- Zero stamp duty for new “carbon-neutral” homes. Well that’s not a bad thing, except there should be zero stamp duty full stop. Of course there are no "carbon neutral" homes in the UK, so it costs nothing. What does a home changing ownership cost the state?

^
- On the bright side, Brown is pushing for an efficiency campaign in the public service. He is pushing for 5% cuts in admin budgets each year between 2008 and 2011. This is expected to save around £26 billion over that time. The British public service has a long history of obfuscating accountability for expenditure, but the unions are unhappy – which surely must mean Brown is doing something right.

^
- Expenditure on a new literacy campaign. This wont ever be enough, because one in six boys at age 16 are functionally illiterate. The money to subsidise pregnancies wont help.

^
- £9 billion budget deficit by 2010/11, borrowing an extra £1 billion in current financial year over previous forecasts.
^
Gordon Brown has been credited for running a reasonably positive British economy, but as the Times has commented, it is only positive when you compare it to past long term performance (which has been stagnant) and the “sclerotic” economies in continental Europe. 2.75% growth forecast isn’t bad, but it is hardly stuff of wonders. It should also be noted that, despite massive transfers in the form of subsidies to the north and Scotland, Britain’s growth is concentrated in London and the south-east, and much is driven by the City. If London was not such a successful centre for the service sector, Britain would be a sclerotic economy. It is not a message that Brown, Blair or David Cameron mention enough.

National Socialists

So the Nats support electoral law changes to prohibit third parties from criticising political parties.

^

Seriously, the phrase National Socialists used in jest to criticise the Nats when they have socialist leanings now has another meaning. This is such a fundamental attack on freedom of speech the Nats deserve to be hoisted on their own petard. Labour's craven attempt to spin its way out of its own overspending is one thing, and who turns to Labour for freedom anyway, but when the main party in (is it opposition? I haven't noticed) supports it, you're fucked.
^
This is about stopping the right of any private organisation criticising political parties during elections. How can any individual with a modicum of belief in a free and open democracy support this? This is not about business backed trusts, the Exclusive Brethren or unions, although the debate will be about this because they are particular examples that upset some people. This is about freedom.
^
I know most people are not libertarians and many disagree with many libertarian policies, but this is fundamental. It is the right for you as an individual, or your club, association, political organisation or lobby group to criticise a political party. Greenpeace could not lay into the National Party. Anti-GE groups could not criticise Labour. Rationalists could not criticise Destiny NZ. Think of every single major political issue in recent history, and this would effectively ban any group from lobbying against a party. Environmental groups could not rank the political parties, neither could business groups.
^
David Farrar is obviously concerned and rightly so.
^
If the Nats go through with this then fuck them, Neville Chamberlain hasn’t got a thing on English and Key. I wont say any more because I’m so utterly enraged with how the National Party has got out its constitution and micturated on it en masse, clapping all the way.

^

Bernard Darnton has also written lucidly about this on his free speech blog, including how Bill English has backtracked on what he thought about this before.

^

PLEASE prove me wrong Key and English. Please. If you don't, you deserve to spend the rest of your lives in Opposition, because New Zealand may as well be governed by Labour than by a socialist National Party that will sell out its principles for the baubles of power. I don't expect you to be objectivists, libertarians or even consistently frigging classically liberal - I do expect you to believe in free speech at election time. If you don't, you're a threat to us all.

The further back on the plane - the stupider you are?

Air Tahiti Nui has an interactive inflight game system, enabling you to play games with your fellow passengers. The guy who took this photo was in first class (seat 1A it says) winning "inflight trivia challenge" against someone in 19G who isn't far behind, and some thicko in 40D.

^

Clearly the guy in first class is smartest, following by the guy near the front of economy (possible frequent flyer, so aspiring to be nearer the front) and then the no hoper in the back. Of course the flipside is that if no hoper gets pissed off, he will storm his way to the front (and be annoyed that no only are you winning, but having good food and a nice seat).

Overlander goes 7 days a week, but have the Greens used it?

Remember all of this? Remember when Toll Rail was trying to convince the government to make you pay for this train? The rail union, the Greens, the Mayor of Ruapehu and a National MP all wanted to make you pay as well.

^

Well the government called Toll Rail's bluff, the ensuing publicity saw Toll give the train some respite, and it has even been refurbished with an upgraded interior.

^

Now it is going to operate 7 days a week, instead of just 3. So it shows one thing, if people want it to stay and are prepared to pay to use it, it is the best chance of keeping it.

^

What I want to know is given all of the wailing, have any Green MPs used the Overlander since Toll Rail decided to keep the service? If so, I'll be thrilled and complimentary. If not, well... the word begins with H.

^

So go on all you Green supporters, spend some of your OWN money and book a return trip on the Overlander, even if it is just Wellington to Palmerston North or the like, to show you want the train. It is working so far, it's called the market.

National's new policy free zone

John Key has slammed Labour for not doing enough on climate change. He has criticised the new thermal power generation installed since 1999, he said more trees are being cut down than being planted and that New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions are growing faster than Australia and the US. He says something needs to be done, but damns Labour’s goal of carbon neutrality.

^
What John? If you say you’ll repeal the RMA so that power companies can more easily build hydro plants or wind farms, ok. If you say you'll commercialise the road network like the Nats were going to do, so that roads are tolled and priced efficiently, instead of taxed, then ok. You see these things would be more efficient and have environmental benefits too.

^

However you say nothing. Climate Change Minister David Parker says Key has slogans and no policy. He's right. The shame is that it ought to be no policy for a good reason - there is no reason to do anything about climate change, except reforms that are good regardless, that improve economic efficiency and freedom.

^

Then National's Associate Spokesman for Small Business Chris Tremain is complaining about energy price increases, but not offering a solution. I can think of several, largely related to the state getting out of retail power, allowing lines companies to be generating companies and abolishing the RMA, but no, nothing.

^

Inspiring stuff isn't it? Nothing like an Opposition that just opposes.

Nats give Telecom zero

Maurice Williamson when he was Minister of Communications presided over the liberalisation of the international telecommunications market, refused to establish a telecommunications regulator (because the evidence was that it would see a shift from operators negotiating with each other to operators lobbying the regulator, which is exactly what has happened), supported infrastructure based competition in telecommunications (and the then Telstra Saturn was rolling out networks in Wellington and Christchurch, Vodafone bought BellSouth and expanded its network nationwide). He was a pretty good Minister, not from the point of view of the then Clear and Bellsouth. For the latter he delivered a pretty clear message to its US CEO that he couldn’t approach politicians and get his own way like he did in the US. The message was simple. Telecom was subject to general competition law and yes the Nats threatened to regulate if Telecom did not abide by its commitments at privatisation. However he did not swallow the complaints of competitors wholesale, because officials saw right through them.
^
How things have changed. National now supports legislation to require Telecom to split into three businesses. Maurice Williamson now is quoted by Stuff as saying “he believed the bill's cross-party support afforded Telecom certainty that policies would not change if different parties came to power.”
^
Well if I had been robbed by the government, I’d be so thrilled to know it can’t be reversed by a change in government. No wonder Telecom has stopped funding political parties, almost all of them are full of thieves.

^

Maurice, you’ve disappointed me. You could, at least, have said that National will repeal all legislation requiring Telecom to have a particular structure. You wont - why should Telecom shareholders vote National?

The faces of violent bigotry - debating

Gerry Adams, supporter of the IRA and Ian Paisley, supporter of British rule in Northern Ireland - both men to have supported and sympathised towards the violence each side dealt out to the other are clashing.... in the Stormont Assembly in Belfast.

^

To think how little time it was ago when the IRA was on its bloody murderous rampage in Britain, supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran and a whole wing of the east coast US Democratic Party. No, I'm not picking sides - the stupid inane bigotry of Catholics vs Protestants is stoneage. The nonsense that Northern Ireland should be united with the Irish Republic, or that Northern Ireland should treat Catholics as second class citizens has faded away, thanks in part to the war on terror drying up funds for the IRA, but also the EU. Far too many people either side of the Irish border travel, work and play with those on the other side and elsewhere in Europe for this to continue to make sense.

^

and Belfast is apparently starting to see an increase in tourism...

An answer for Fiji

For starters (setting aside the libertarian arguments against state aid), New Zealand should cease all aid to Fiji which is filtered through the Fijian government. Secondly, New Zealand should refuse to recognise the new government, and make it plain that bilateral official relations with the military led government will not occur. Australia should do the same.
^
Fiji will ultimately emerge from military government and Australia and New Zealand should do a deal with the interim administration which goes like this:
^
- Set up a constitutional liberal democracy that puts limits on the powers of government and separates government into executive, legislative and judicial branches;
- Provide Fiji with a security guarantee against external invasion with both Australian and New Zealand armed forces;
- Abolish the Fijian armed forces, replace them with a strengthened Police and civil defence unit (useful for natural disaster relief).
^
Refusal to abolish the armed forces should be met with a threat to end all aid.
^
Fiji does not need armed forces, it faces no quantifiable threat from outside (internally it needs more effective policing), and it is incapable of contributing towards collective security efforts. It is clear that the Fijian military threatens its own population more than protects it. If it wants a military, let it be self sufficient, it clearly does not need any aid if it can fritter money away on arms.

Bestiality, oopss

Hat tip Not PC on the Aussie woman caught naked with a horse presumably fondling its genitals in some manner. She faces criminal charges, so the question is really, should she?

^

As a libertarian the answer is - "not enough information". would need to know:

1. Whose horse is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner, then there isn't an issue regarding the horse.

2. Whose paddock is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner to be there, with the horse, doing what she was doing, then there isn't an issue regarding the paddock.

^

Oh the sexual act? Well, there is no victim. So setting aside the property rights issues, the horse does not have a right to not to be touched by its owner. It isn't cruelty, after all it is fine to milk animals for their semen for breeding purposes, how different is it to...? After all, you probably think it is ok to kill animals for their meat and hides, so is it worse to fondle a horse's dick?

^

Yes it probably disgusts you, but the law doesn't exist to protect you from being offended. Plenty of people do things that disgust you, but don't interfere with anyone's rights - and do not inflict pain or cruelty. (WARNING NSFW link) Coprophagia is legal, for example - if you don't know what it is, then really don't go looking for it. It is legal to eat rotten food, it is legal to slaughter your own animal and eat it for your own consumption, it is legal to eat flies. Get the picture? The law does not and cannot exist to protect people from doing things that others find repulsive. Remember, homosexuality is repulsive to a lot of people, quite a few find masturbation repulsive too.

^

So yes, a libertarian should argue for the legalisation of bestiality. According to wiki. ..it is legal in Hungary, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Finland, Belgium, Cambodia and Mexico. The fundamental point is that the animal does not have rights. Since it is legal to kill the animal, farm and hold the animal as property, having sex with it is no different. The Dutch prohibit cruelty to animals, in that deliberate sadistic conduct or cruel neglect of an animal you own is illegal - but do not prohibit bestiality, but acts of bestiality that are cruel are prohibited because they are cruel, not because of the sexual dimension.

^

Having said that the law should have no place here, except in terms of private property rights, and (I would argue) laws prohibiting sadistic treatment of animals, this does not mean I am positively endorsing bestiality as a choice.

^

Yes, go on, fondle your horse if you like - but really, it is sad if you can find animals more arousing than people.

Government success releasing ghosts

Stuff reports "A police-led initiative of spraying water on state highways to release the trapped spirits of those killed in motor crashes has been declared a success. "

^

Oh please! So the spirits went did they? What will the government do to encourage the tooth fairy to be fairer, or Santa to give presents to all of the good kids?

^

I don't give a damn whether people believe in mysticism or not, whatever religion, spirit, goblin, ghost, apparation or whatever, it is your personal choice. However, I do not want to pay for government staff to pander to it. Yes, that includes Christianity as well.

^

I find it astounding the Iwi liaison officer is quoted as saying the exercise was non-religious, even though it includes prayers. Sorry? Isn't a prayer a calling to a supernatural being? You may as well say a meal doesn't include meat, even though the first course includes ham. Unfortunately the final quote in this article doesn't paint the Police in a smart light at all:

^

Waikato road policing manager Inspector Leo Tooman had no problems with the initiative.
"Anything that helps is worthwhile, isn't it?"

^

Anything that helps what?? The victims??

^

However, I don't expect the defenders of secular government to stand up against this. Conservatives will say it is wrong because it isn't Christian, but objectivists oppose this because the state should not be involved in anything religious. Those who so vehemently are against Christianity being reflected in the state should also oppose this.

^

I have no problem with the local iwi spraying water that it collects and "releasing spirits" by whatever legal means it wishes. It is irrelevant to me how people practice their religions, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others - but the state should not be involved, at all.

Rod Eddington on British transport

As my profession includes transport, it is worth noting a major report just released about British transport written by Sir Rod Eddington, former CE of British Airways.

^

All the details are here, and Eddington has done a pretty good job in my view. His conclusions are sensible, he doesn't pander to the motoring lobby nor the ecologists, although he does talk about green taxes which make no sense (why should the government benefit from you doing something "bad"). Here are some of his key conclusions:

^

- Without action, congestion will add £10 billion a year in costs to the economy, and another £12 billion is lost time to households;

- The main business trends in transport will be more home working, more working while travelling, more e-commerce (deliveries rather than shopping), increased logistics and more international travel;

- If half of commuters worked at home one day a week it would be more effective in reducing congestion than a 5% mode shift from cars to public transport;

- The benefits from road pricing are tremendous, particularly in reducing congestion and enabling better targeting of road spending - but road pricing should also be used to fund new roads. Such pricing could also have enormous environmental benefits because of reduced congestion;

- There are more benefits from certain road investments (mainly targeted junction/capacity improvements) than rail investments. Road improvements can deliver major benefits in urban areas, although this is often neglected by councils;

- Better pricing should also apply to public transport especially rail, after it has been introduced for roads;

- Buses can deliver most of what light rail does at a fraction of the price;

- Decisions on funding road and rail projects should not be made politically, but made by independent agencies required to meet certain objectives;

- Competition law should no longer limit bus companies colluding and co-ordinating in ways that will enhance their ability to provide services;

- Barriers to private sector investment in new capacity should be removed;

^

No this isn't a libertarian vision, but it is a step forward. He rejects big increases in subsidies for transport, he supports economically efficient pricing and more private sector involvement, and for changes in how roads are managed. The key thing for me is that he supports providing more capacity where users are willing to pay, but that the biggest change is to get rid of bureaucratically based pricing - moving towards pricing based on getting best use out of infrastructure - market oriented pricing as is applied everywhere else.

^

It's not rocket science - roads are the most pervasive form of economic socialism today - no wonder they are managed so poorly.

Castro's hopefully dead...

With Fidel Castro unable to attend his 80th birthday celebrations, it is apparent that his death is near, and like other dictators, I wont be shedding a tear for him.
^
Castro is still a favourite for those on the left. They are seduced by a country which, unlike the bleak grey Orwellian states of eastern Europe, is full of Latin culture, a quaintness of the 1950s frozen (how many people “marvel” at old American cars still plodding along patched together repeatedly) and official socio-economic statistics that put Cuba among the best of those in Latin America.
^
With Castro ever defiant against the US, this automatically appealed to those who are anti-capitalist, anti-American and looking for a hero. The very same people of course were supporting a man who was allowing the USSR to locate nuclear weapons on Cuban soil to target the USA. Yes, very peace loving.
^
Those who admire Castro tend to ignore that his promised elections never eventuated. They also ignore how difficult it is for Cubans to leave, always a good test of a government.
^
The Castro regime has executed thousands of political prisoners. The numbers range from 3,000 to 18,000, but why quarrel over numbers – the simple fact is the Castro regime murders its opponents, as has done so with impunity. Those it doesn’t murder, it imprisons, including classifying them as insane and sending them to psychiatric institutions. You see Marxist-Leninists often thought people were insane if they didn’t feel lucky to be under a people’s government or questioned it.
^
After all Article 53 of the Cuban constitution prohibits any independent media of any kind:
^
“the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulated the exercise of those freedoms”
^
In other words, no freedom of speech at all.
^
On top of that in Cuba you need permission to move home because, you see, you hold no property rights over your home, including the rights one has with a lease.
^
Of course none of this matters to the likes of Matt Robson, who sticks his political tongue up the arse of Castro – who turns his back on political prisoners and who ignores the complete denial of free speech in Cuba. The moral equivalency he grants Cuba compared to the US is despicable, he ignores how Americans can be anti-Bush without any consequences, but that uttering words against Castro can be very dangerous. That’s ok, he got to leave, he gets to criticise whoever he wants – prick!
^
The left will bemoan Pinochet’s eventual death as he is unlikely to be punished for the authoritarian brutality he inflicted upon Chile – yet Pinochet voluntarily surrendered power peacefully to a liberal democratic government. Castro has maintained a 48 year long authoritarian dictatorship, but the left fawns over him and ignores human rights abuses by blaming the US.
^
Some on the left will say the Batista regime that preceded Castro was worse. That justifies continuing to be brutal and suppressing dissent does it?
^
Had Castro had his way, I wouldn’t be blogging, in fact there would be no alternative point of view allowed anywhere in the world. He’d have cheered had the USSR launched nuclear missiles into the USA, and cheered when the last bastion of freedom had been snuffed out for socialism.
^
I hope the bastard is dead by the time you read this, I hope his brother doesn’t last and the Cuban government announces reforms to free political prisoners, allow freedom of speech, independent media and genuine open elections. Most of all I hope it allows Cubans to own their lives, to own their property and to live in dignity, not live in a slave state. It is time Cubans did have freedom, the right to not only elect their government, but to vote out their government, to criticise it, to hold it to account, but most of all to live their lives without it interfering in every aspect of it.
^
It is for this reason that I will be popping open the champagne when Castro dies – it will be a great day for freedom, and a great opportunity for the scum who have licked their way up the slippery pole of Cuban politics to redeem themselves.

Let businesses discriminate against customers

What do you think the drinking age means? Does it mean that bars can sell alcohol to anyone down to that age, or is it COMPULSORY to sell alcohol to people down to that age?
^
Well the Human Wrongs Commissariat has said that it is illegal for a Wellington bar to ban 18 and 19yos. Apparently this is true, which is a nonsense.
^
Whose bar is it? If the bar wants to ban 18yos or 80yos it should have the right to do so. Indeed, it should have the right to ban whoever it wants. If 18 and 19yos don’t like it, then they can protest, call for others to boycott it, but they have no right to use the state to force themselves onto premises within which they are not welcome.
^
It’s called freedom – some premises don’t want teenagers drinking there – so let the owners ban anyone they wish.
^
You see this is the fundamental failure of political debate from left and right. Some think it is should be the “right” of an 18yo to go into a bar, regardless of what the owner thinks. Other thinks it should be illegal. In fact, the law says it is compulsory for the bar owners to let an 18yo drink there. It should be none of the above.

^

UPDATE: Idiot Savant doesn't think businesses should have the right to turn away whoever they please. Presumably he thinks its ok for barowners to ban ugly people, fat people, thin people, stupid people, blondes, redheads, short people and tall people (because the Human Wrongs Act doesn't mention those) from bars.

National's new line up and it's slide back to Labour's philosophical heartland

Political correctness portfolio is gone, I’m not too upset about that, Wayne Mapp didn’t know what to do with it – and the concept of political correctness is essentially not talking about things that are “forbidden” by the political zeitgeist. In other words, wanting to abolish all laws that are race specific or funding that is racially driven. I somehow think National doesn't know how to handle this.
^
Of the rest? I've ignored those who are ok - business as usual, nothing to get concerned about...

^

Bill English in Finance – well I look foreward to his genius giving us cutting edge economic policies, or John Key writing it all. Go on Bill, impress me - if you can take on Cullen and win, I'll changed my view of you.

^

Nick Smith remains of course, looking after climate change no less. So wait for the new tax and intervention policies from him. He is also spokesman on building and construction. Why? Authoritarian tosser.

^

Judith Collins is spokeswoman for family affairs (besides welfare and veterans' affairs without the apostrophe). Again why? What is she going to do for families? PLEASE abolish the Families Commission and Commissioner for Children's roles. That would be delightful, then wind up the portfolio. So I wait.

^

Murray McCully for Foreign Affairs? So he wants to travel, or you want him out of the way. However, sport and recreation? Leave well alone -that portfolio is unnecessary.

^

Lockwood Smith for Immigration and Revenue. The man who wouldn't confront the teachers' unions when he had the chance - sleepwalking his way to retirement. Courage isn't his forte for several reasons.

^

Wayne Mapp for Defence and Auckland issues? No, you are better than Judith Tizard (but then so is my niece). Auckland doesn't have special issues that require intervention.

^

Chris Finlayson on arts culture and heritage. Should be a brief portfolio, but will it be? (oh Shadow Attorney General, Treaty negotiations - now these matters).

^

Tim Groser for trade. Excellent choice and frankly the only one.

^

Lindsay Tisch. Tourism, small business and racing? Tourism should really just be wound up, it is simply the services sector. Small business? Why small business? Shouldn't it be part of commerce? Racing is just a joke - I'd resign from that Lindsay - nobody needs it.

^

Pansy Wong for ACC and ethnic affairs. ACC is fine, but what is an ethnic affair? I know it is why it exists, but I'm damned if my Scottish parents are going to get much from this.

^

Splitting Maori Affairs between Georgina and Tau is interesting, but then why not? Having two people dedicated to this area can't be bad.

^

Paul Hutchinson has Tertiary Education, Research, Science & Technology/CRIs, but also disability issues? hmmm.. Children? Why is there policy on children? THAT is insidious, but then Hutchinson is a bit of a prick.

^

Richard Worth for economic development. Well given that the Alliance created that portfolio, it ought to go too - what could he possibly do?

^

Kate Wilkinson for consumer affairs and labour/industrial relations. Clearly not a high priority to do anything about labour laws with someone so lowly ranked, but apparently quite smart.

^

Eric Roy for outdoor recreation? Give me a break. Unless it is about legalising outdoor shagging on private property, this has little value. It's about private property rights.

^

Sandra Goudie has internal affairs and senior citizens (!). Senior citizens is another waste of damned time. Stop balkanising people into minority groups - treat us all as individuals! Sandra did oust Jeanette Fitzsimons from Coromandel though, which is something worth celebrating.

^

Nicky Wagner has youth affairs, another seriously dud portfolio

^

However, the Women’s Affairs portfolio is back, with Jackie Blue. Presumably the Nats wont be getting rid of that utterly useless Ministry. It is a Ministry of collectivist feminism, to lobby for funding for women’s health (fuck testicular and prostate cancer, and the lower life expectancy for men), women’s education (girls are doing better than boys though hmm), women’s justice system (men are many times more likely to be in prison than women – it can’t be because it’s their fault because the same doesn’t apply to Maori men does it?), etc etc.
^
The state should not be sexist, it certainly should not have a Ministry that is, by definition, sexist. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs will not help National advance policies consistent with its principles – it hires people who overwhelmingly are pro-Labour. It should go. Other departments do not consult it unless they are similarly ideologically inclined (in which case why bother?), or are told to. MWA, you see, would typically take the view that anything that affected people without much money would hit women harder, and that somehow a policy should do something about it.
^
Indeed it should – it should abolish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, donate the funding in one whole year to Women’s Refuge then give the rest back (as part of a widespread cut in government) in tax cuts. Jackie Blue said "Without any doubt, National will be putting together policies that benefit all New Zealanders, but we will want to make sure that women are not disadvantaged in the process." I guess it is ok if men are then is it? Given she is against hospital vending machines with unhealthy foods and drinks, I am not optimistic that she'll be anything other than a tweedledum to Pete Hodgson. Another school prefect.

Brash's resignation

I am saddened but not surprised that Don Brash has resigned from Parliament. It will be all the better for him personally. He wont join ACT sadly, or Libertarianz even ;-)
^
His legacy is viewed in mixed ways across the political spectrum. To those on the left he was an anathema, and many there have been spitting out the venom they accuse him of starting – when much of what he did was to challenge their comfortable little world. A world view that means that challenges are responded to by name calling, insults and their own bigotry – the bigotry against people who are personally successful, wealthy or foreign. The left talks about the rich the same way as southern segregationists use the word "nigger", it plays the envy card on demand. Most of all, the left were horrified that Brash's views on not giving Maori privilege through government measures, are held by a lot of New Zealanders, and National nearly won as a result. Labour's provincial heartland voted National in droves - Labour was only saved by the big cities and a concerted campaign to scaremonger voters in low income parts of Auckland.
^
To the conservative right Brash was a godsend, though one they initially were wary of. However, he was groomed to say the right things at the right time to shore up that vote. A vote that, while probably topping little more than 8-9% all up (take the 5% max that the Christian Coalition could have cobbled together, and those who are too conservative to vote anything BUT National) was motivated to turn out and vote. Unfortunately, they were his undoing.
^
To the libertarian right he was a godsend too, but in a different way. You see, Brash is, pretty much, one of us on many issues. On economics he believed in minimal intervention, in private property rights and in government getting out of the way. On social policy he was more concerned about delivering quality and choice in health and education, but unlike Libertarianz he believed in retaining a welfare state as a last resort. He was keen to promote a culture which was the antithesis of the New Zealand tall poppy syndrome, one which celebrated success. I heard Don Brash speak at a SOLO conference in Auckland and had some wine with him afterwards. At the conference he engaged in a formal debate about whether or not a government central bank was necessary, he believed it was and that there was competition in currencies between countries, so little need for it within countries. He responded to countervailing arguments intelligently and with good humour.
^
He was was more libertarian than many in ACT. He was socially liberal, with little interest in censorship or the state interfering in people’s private lives. He didn’t believe in legalising drugs, but could understand the arguments in favour of reform. However, most of all, Don Brash could understand philosophy and the application of philosophy to public policy. He could debate intellectually about both. He is a gentleman, and at that time was simply a relatively newly elected MP. The group of us talking to him joked about him becoming leader, which of course he fudged – little were we to know.
^
I have written before about Brash’s achievements. The positives are substantial. He broke the mould of the unspoken politically correct view on Maori. The view that essentially, they ARE oppressed, they need special government help and the law should treat them differently. He questioned that, something that when others mentioned it, they were shot down in flames by those proclaiming “racist”, in their Maoist like intolerance for reasoned debate. Whatever Key and English do to provide succour to the Maori Party, this issue is now out in the open.
^
Brash put tax cuts clearly on the political agenda, he justified them credibly. Credibly because not only the surpluses that Dr Cullen spends, but also because of bureaucratic waste. People believe both that the government is wasteful and that it doesn’t need to tax so much to pay for publicly funded services that most people want (health and education). Tax cuts are no longer just the “give money to the rich”, they are “give me back my money”. It wasn’t the government’s money to spend in the first place.
^
Also important are Brash’s confrontation of the RMA, one of the most anti-private property fascistic pieces of legislation in recent history. The legislation that allows all and sundry to delay what others do with their property, when it has little effect on them. He also confronted the welfare state, the notion that it was acceptable to have intergenerational welfare dependency, and to persist with the notion that it is caring to just keep giving people welfare.
^
Those messages, along with Brash being himself. Being socially liberal, voting consistently for civil unions and prostitution law reform, COULD have won the election. Brash is liberal on social issues, he is not the conservative that some National strategists had him play up to, or that many on the left believed he was. Unfortunately the National Party could not stomach an intelligent economic and socially liberal leader. This is where things went wrong.
^
Brash’s success in boosting support for National with his principled approaches to Maori issues (despite pointless statement on pure blooded Maori that meant nothing), taxation and welfare were seen by both ACT supporters, and the conservative Christian right as providing a platform, not entirely dissimilar from what worked for Bush in 2004. The idea that Brash could rally the largely ignored conservative right to vote National. Those voters had largely been burnt from politics firstly in 1996 when the Christian Coalition failed (thank God!) to get 5% of the vote, secondly by United Future giving Labour confidence and supply, and thirdly by Graham Capill’s revolting hypocrisy.
^
Brash’s made three big mistakes:
^
The first was to deny the Exclusive Brethren. The left has made much of this non-issue, a weird religious sect campaigning against a Labour-Green coalition and supportive of a National led government. That is no big deal, but Labour milked religious bigotry in a manner it would not even THINK of if it were Muslims or Maori spiritualists, to make it look suspicious. Brash should have said, as PC has once said, is the same as Reagan once said “"When people join my campaign, they are supporting me; I am not necessarily supporting them."
^
This would have neutralised it. Unfortunately Brash, a political novice, was pressured by National’s spin doctors and strategists to lie – a typical political response, deny and lie and hope it goes away. It works for Labour, usually, but not the Nats.
^
The second was to talk about “mainstream” New Zealanders and about families, and stumble when talking about race. He did this in order to get publicity and also motivate the conservative base to vote for a man who otherwise, is a liberal atheist. On families, he should have said little more than families are important and a family is any group of people who live together with mutual interdependence and love, and if pushed resist defining it further. He should have steered miles away from talking about the mainstream, alienating gay/lesbian/bisexual people, and Maori. He could have talked about government existing for all New Zealanders, giving no preferences but also no discrimination towards any minority, with the individual being the smallest and most ignored minority. Idiot Savant ripped into him on this, and made some very good points, whoever advised him to talk of this was a fool, and Brash was mistaken for doing this. It hurt National in the main cities.
^
Finally, he simply did not act as himself. He was being protected, no doubt seduced by the promise that those who play the filthy game of politics knew better than he how to attract votes. In fact, it was his honesty, his gentle respectful manner, his combination of intellectual rigour and liberalism that attracted much support when it showed. When he was trying to be a politician, he got hounded for it - he's not convincing when he doesn't really believe in what he is saying.
^
The left attacked him for being racist, until it realised that a large number of New Zealanders were also concerned with the prevailing bureaucratic view that you daren’t criticise any special government programmes/laws for Maori. The left attacked him as being only for the rich, until the National policy did not remove the top tax rate introduced by Labour, and large numbers of New Zealanders saw they would benefit from modest tax cuts (and knew that Labour’s surpluses were hardly sign of a government unable to fund the core services they wanted the state to provide). It was epitomised by Helen Clark calling Brash cancerous and corrosive, while Labour bemoaned the depths to which NZ politics had dropped – ignoring that Labour was supplying at least half of the ballast, and in enormous denial about forcing the NZ public to fund its pledge card.
^
Of course Winston Peters, who actively played the race card in several elections regarding immigrants, is now Minister of Foreign Affairs. I’ll let the leftwing blogosphere reflect how principled and moral Helen Clark and the Labour Party really is given it chose Winston and NZ First, when it could have chosen the Greens or the Maori Party. It will simply blank that out though as being irrelevant - which it wouldn't be if National was in power - the hypocrisy of tribal politics.

^
Aucklander at Large rightfully points out the personal toll politics imposes on people. It is high, and it is a game for the merciless, I hope Don Brash enjoys a break from it - and takes the opportunity to comment on the sidelines when and where he believes he can make a contribution.

Helen Clark speaks on ANZUS and nuclear ships

My mistake, I didn't notice who said it, it was hard to tell.
^

Stuff reports “National Party leader John Key says there will be no nuclear powered ships entering New Zealand's harbours as long as he leads the party and he accepts the ANZUS treaty is dead.”
^
Well of course Bolger started this, when he didn’t need to. Now John Key is clearly trying to cozy up to the Greens.
^
Come on John, give me one evidence based reason why nuclear powered ships should not enter New Zealand harbours? I can’t wait. You’d rather surrender to the scaremongering cabal of unscientific leftwing nuclearphobes, the same ones who will go to France, Japan and other countries and consume nuclear power without a second thought. The same ones that hardly uttered a criticism of non-Western nuclear powers, while constantly blaming the USA, UK and France for nuclear weapons – because, you see, they were morally equivalent to the USSR and communist China.
^
ANZUS? Well yes it is dead, he says he is just acknowledging it. Well that isn't necessary John, unless you clearly don’t want to align yourself with the war on terror. No, far easier to take the cowards’ approach. Be “independent”, don’t look like you are aligned to the US, because so many in the media, universities and the like are anti-USA, anti-capitalist, whilst saying nothing about the likes of Matt Robson going to Cuba to felch lyrically about how great that one-party authoritarian state is. When you catch the tube several times a week John, you understand what the war on terror means - it means every day I am a potential target, along with a million others, including thousands of New Zealanders. However, far easier to surrender the argument and pander to the "it's the American's fault Islamists murder innocent civilians" view.
^
So there we have it – John Key, surrenders to unscientific nuclearphobes and
ambivalent on the war on terror. He want to be more bi-partisan on foreign policy. Why stop there? Why not economic policy, education policy, Maori policy? Indeed enough of confrontation and division - "let's think about not what divides us, but unites us" (as David Lange once said). By the way John, how many votes do you think this issue cost National? Seriously?
^
I’ll wait to see whether David Cameron or John Key is worse… the jury is still out, Cameron is well ahead, but Key is having a sprint. Think I'm wrong? Well don't take it from me, no other than Jordan Carter sees the replacement of Brash with Key as a victory for the left philosophically and politically. He calls it "a strategic victory for Labour and for social democratic politics".

^

Sadly, I believe he is right. However, when National moves into Labour's ground it traditionally wins - witness 1949, 1960 and 1975. 1990 it won partly due to disenchantment with Labour, but it also attracted back most of the pro-market vote Labour won from the New Zealand Party in 1987. However, whatever party implements centre-left policies shouldn't matter to Jordan. His philosophy is where National is heading, and he shouldn't care if his tribe wins or not, as long as the status quo - that Labour supports - is largely unchanged.

David Benson Pope and kinky BDSM

1. Everytime someone mentions it, I feel ill. I find him a repulsive little man, but...

2. it is absolutely irrelevant whether he or any other MP is:

a) an ascetic;

b) wanks furiously to memorable earlier life experiences;

c) gay, bisexual, lesbian, heterosexual;

d) likes being spanked or spanking or whipping or bondage or retifism or klismaphilia or urolagnia or coprophilia (if you don't know don't ask and certainly don't look it up on your work PC);

e) buys used underwear or socks off the internet from university students;

f) has occasional conventional sex with a life partner;

g) gets buggered by a strap on worn by a prostitute.

^

I don't give a damn. Wishart's muckraking is not about policy, not about the law, but about being a judgmental little prick about what consenting adults do in their own time. Ian Wishart's motives I believe are twofold:

^

1. Sex sells. There is a prurient interest in "phwoar what did the pervy MP do". However Investigate isn't the Sun.

2. Catering for the finger pointing Christian conservatives. The type that would be outraged to know the MPs who are gay but in the closet, or who would punish their kids if they caught them masturbating.

^

In short, the people who have their own perversions, of voyeurism and in being fascinated in what other adults do (and either wanting to secretly join in, or to burn them at the stake).

^

These people are far more disconcerting than most of the pervs who have found this post through googling some of the words listed above.

^

There are reasons to attack Benson-Pope - my simple one is that he is a prick, based on personal experience.

Telecom - the left has won

Telecom has always been a favourite target for the left. It is the privatisation they loathed, even though Michael Cullen and Helen Clark voted for it in Parliament and in Cabinet. The privatisation used to try to buy the 1990 election with some short term social spending, instead of using it to cut debt. The privatisation that saw Telecom's market value soar - many forgetting this would hardly have happened had it remained fully state owned.

^

I’ve blogged before about local loop unbundling, it is part of the tale of eviscerating Telecom’s private property rights. It is a process that began when this government started regulating telecommunications far more directly than in the past.
^
Without going into much detail, at Telecom’s privatisation it agreed that it would provide interconnection to its competitors and abide by the Commerce Act. In that sense, unlike most private companies, the property rights of Telecom were limited by voluntary agreement. The government sold Telecom on that understanding, and it was a reasonable one. It meant that all new telecommunications network providers could interconnect with Telecom, so that Telecom’s customers could call the customers of competitors and vice versa, and it acknowledged that, for the time being, almost all local line customers would be using Telecom’s network. Ultimately Telecom had a court battle with the then Clear Communications about this to test this – and they came to a mutually agreeable position, and for some years Telecom negotiated interconnection agreements with competitors at prices and terms which – if the competitor was dissatisfied – could be challenged at the Commerce Commission.

^
Because Telecom’s new owners agreed to this at privatisation, I have no problem with this. During this regime many new entrants emerged in the national and international tolls market. BellSouth and later Vodafone built a duplicate cellphone network, Saturn later TelstraSaturn then TelstraClear built duplicate local networks in Wellington and Christchurch. There was competition from new infrastructure and competition from reselling leased lines from Telecom.
^
However, since then Labour has moved to introduce a telecommunications regulator, to regulate more directly the prices Telecom must offer its competitors and to require Telecom to resell certain wholesale products at regulated prices to its competitors. This has been the beginning of the erosion. After mandatory resale was talk of local loop unbundling, so instead of simply being able to onsell Telecom’s services, competitors would be allowed to attach equipment and onsell directly the use of the infrastructure rather than just the wholesale service. Now the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee is proposing the dismemberment of Telecom’s business into three arms. With the exception of ACT, this has unanimous support in Parliament.
^
Glad you voted National now?
^
David Farrar (who is out of his mind), is an enthusiastic supporter of this erosion of Telecom’s property rights quotes the select committee report saying:
^
“The majority also noted that when Telecom shares were initially offered for sale the Government reserved the right introduce further regulation if effective competition did not emerge."
^
I’ve not noticed the government ever surrendering its right to pass laws on anything it wants. The state is sovereign, as Helen Clark once declared proudly. Regulation is a long step away from requiring Telecom to split in three. Of course effective competition has emerged. You might ask why Telecom is not dominant in the mobile phone market, it is because a competitor built its own network and competed fair and square. The competitors moaning about Telecom are second-handers. They don’t want to make money selling something they produced, own and created through their own effort, they want to make money selling something Telecom owns, at a price that is dictated by the state.
^
Telecom’s response has been to essentially say it wont get in the way of this. One way of looking at it is that Telecom has been told to take its medicine, and if it doesn’t it will be forced – so Telecom bends over drops its pants and hands the government the lube to make it less painful, instead of either running away or fighting.

^

All along I have made two points. Those who want better access to Telecom’s property should either:

1. Take Telecom to the Commerce Commission and then the High Court under the Commerce Act. Telecom’s original private owners agreed to be regulated by this, the law has been substantially tightened. Make an objective case about anti-competitive behaviour under this law. I don’t agree with this law, but instead of convincing politicians, how about convincing a judicial body? It will see through the bullshit which almost no politicians could see through. Takes too long? Well, when you want the state to order about a private company then you should make your case. Other industries take cases under the Commerce Act, you're not special!

^
2. Buy out Telecom. If it is soo damned important to “New Zealand” then get together with all those who care to buy out a majority shareholding in Telecom, and change it. Put your money where your mouth is and acquire Telecom’s property rights, then devalue them for your own company if you wish (you’ll probably need to buy out the whole lot otherwise you’d be breaking the law doing that, so aim for 90% of the firm to allow for compulsory acquisition of the remainder). If it is in the national interest and you are lobbying so comprehensively for it, then buy up all the shares that are of value to you. Then either change Telecom or enjoy the monopoly profits that you’d be a fool to ignore.
^
No it wont happen, you see it is far too easy to lobby politicians (of whom all but two in Parliament do not believe in private property rights). Next time someone will lobby them to take something you created - then who will you cry to?

^

By the way, the claim that "there are many precedents for this kind of regulatory action" is remarkable. The only one I know of is electricity, which was a Max Bradford special, against official advice and which largely enabled the SOEs to buy up the electricity retailers, while electricity lines companies were left alone. That's another story.

^

On a side note, Gman noted by Not PC has proposed Kiwiblog be unbundled. Its dominant position is clearly an issue, though Public Address may need to be dealt to as well. There may be no legal barriers to entry, but hell imagine trying to get their market share given their incumbency advantages :-)

So you think you pay for government?

Stuff reports that Peter Dunne has said that 12% of taxpayers now pay the 39% income tax rate that cuts in at $60,000 per annum. The 1999 pledge card (don’t ask if you paid for that one) said that income tax would increase for 5% of taxpayers. So Labour thinks the top 12% are rich. According to Dunne the threshold should be over $90,000 to retain relativity with the position it was in 2000.
^
However that isn’t the scandal. That 12% now pay the majority of income tax (51%). How democratic is it then for 82% to be able to dictate what the majority of income tax should be spent on? Why is it fair to talk about all taxpayers as being equal, when 12% carry the majority of the burden of government (I doubt they pay a small proportion of GST, resident’s withholding tax or rates too!).
^
You might also ask yourself what would happen if half of that 12% decided to leave, and what would be left of the surplus, and the health, education and welfare systems that show how much “love” there is in society? I wonder how Labour would account for that?
^
Democracy, as usual, simply means that the majority vote for the minority to pay for what they want. This apparently is a scandal when there are ethnic minorities, they need special representative – but who looks after the interests of the minority who pay the majority of tax in a democracy?