So if it isn't about race... then what Metiria?

Metiria Turei claims on her Twitter account that the call for dedicated separate Maori seats on the Uber Alles Auckland Stadrat is NOT about race.

"Not about race. Its about being tangata whenua and manawhenua. The Treaty creates the right to structures for representation." she said at 9:14 AM Apr 15th from txt.

Is this just Orwellian doublespeak? I wanted to get to the bottom of it. After all, the Treaty doesn't say there should be parallel political structures, each one reserved by race. However, there are clearly two very distinct views of what is going on here, and I want to know why some Maori think this is not about race, when to everyone else it so clearly is.

Tangata whenua is literally “people of the land” which is a mystical concept based on the idea that “land is regarded as a mother to the people”. Some people believe this, but it is hardly helpful for an objective definition to be based on whether you believe in something supernatural. That would be ridiculous surely.

So what makes someone a “person of the land”. I was born in New Zealand, which surely makes me a “person of the land”, why wouldn’t I be? Well, apparently I am not. In fact nobody who does not claim "Maori identity" can be "tangata whenua". Am I wrong?

I can never be tangata whenua, neither can my offspring or their offspring. It IS about race. Race DEFINES “tangata whenua”. Metiria Turei IS engaging in Orwellian doublespeak to justify a race based definition of political separatism – it’s just HER race that benefits.

What about manawhenua then?

According to TPK it means “the exercise of traditional authority over an area of land [whenua]”. So what is “traditional authority”? If you own land, or are part of a collective that owns land (which is Iwi or Hapu owned Maori land), then of course you should authority over it. That is about property rights, and is protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, as are the property rights of others. However, you don’t need special representation on a local authority to do this.

Maori should have traditional authority over their land, but then so should we all over our own land. Local authorities should not be a tool for Maori to have special representation to also exercise control over other people’s property. Unless, of course, you believe that YOUR property rights are subject to mana whenua by "Maori".

Is that what you expect from the Green Party or the Maori Party, that you should have consent from Maori politicians for what you do on your land?

Metiria presumably believes that local authorities should have authority over everyone’s property, it is, after all, Green policy to use the RMA to control land use. However, she also believes that ethnic Maori have some special right to be guaranteed to be part of that political control.

How can this NOT be about race? Well, if you believe you can inherit rights over others because of who your parents are then what she says is legitimate - but hold a second, isn't that very concept wrong? Why SHOULD anyone have different civil and political rights because of their parentage?

That IS what this is about. It IS the source of the difference. If I am born in New Zealand, and own land in New Zealand, why is it that my neighbour, who has some ancestors of different racial origin gets different political representation and rights from me? Why is HE special? Why should HE assume that because most councillors look like they are of a similar race to me, that they somehow "represent my interests", when they vote to increase my rates, regulate my land use and have contrary political views to me?

It's because those advocating for separate Maori representation identify race with political power. It is the idea that there is a "Maori world view", you know like there is a "Serb world view" to Serb nationalists. I have a world view, you have yours, we only share one if you give your express consent for it. Race does not give you a "world view". Your brain does. It is an individual choice.

Conclusion

So when Metiria says it is not about race, but about tangata whenua and manawhenua what is she saying?

She is saying it is about “people of the land”, which doesn’t mean people born locally, but people who have a “spiritual connection” to the land – and the only ones she recognises as doing so ares Maori. She is saying it is about “exercising traditional authority over land”, she means Maori being guaranteed representation at council level to have authority over everyone’s land.

So if the only people who can be “people of the land” (a concept not unlike how virtually all racist-nationalist groups see themselves) are one race, and if they have a right to guaranteed political representation so they can exercise control over land that isn’t there’s, then what is it if it isn’t about race?

Nobody I have seen who opposes race based local government representation wants to deny Maori any political rights, none want to deny Maori political candidates being successful if they can convince sufficient voters to select them. They particularly reject being called "racist" because they want all political institutions to be non-racial.

If the Green Party, Maori Party and others want race based representation for Maori, then they should first be honest about it, secondly admit that in granting race based political privilege, it is racist, but then justify it on objective terms. Not having enough Maori in councils is not a reason, because there are probably not enough people of a vast range of backgrounds, in some councils women, in others Pacific Islanders or Chinese. The list can go on and on about types of identity not represented.

Individualists want race to be irrevelant and unimportant in politics, for it to be something personal, private and a matter of voluntary association, rather than have anything to do with the state. Why should it be any other way?

Farewell Sir Clement Freud

Perhaps the most exposure anyone in NZ has had to Sir Clement Freud was with the BBC radio gameshow “Just a Minute” which National Radio frequently carried. Freud has appeared on every episode of the gameshow since 1967, which continues to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4.

Freud was born in Berlin in 1924, and of course as with his grandfather (Sigmund Freud), his family fled the Nazi regime in 1934. He was a Liberal MP from 1973 to 1987. However, it is his intelligent wit and warm sense of humour that I remember him for.

It would be a waste for me to duplicate the obituaries published by the BBC (including video), Daily Telegraph (also including video), and the list of Freud quotes published here.

My favourites are:

"I think our police are excellent, probably because I have not done anything that has occasioned being beaten up by these good men."

"If you resolve to give up smoking, drinking and loving, you don't actually live longer; it just seems longer".

However, my favourite is this Guardian tribute. If you haven't heard Clement before, try that selection.

Farewell to a man who loved life and entertained millions over the years.

He could stand tall in an age when so many know and celebrate those who offer nothing but inane bland mediocrity. Sadly I already know the death of a certain young woman will be more remembered and talked about than the passing of this great man. Tributes published here.

Turia - Associate Minister of teen pregnancy?

An unlikely Hat Tip to Tony Milne at Just Left for pointing out this one.

Tariana Turia is now Associate Minister of Health with the following delegated responsibilities:

Functions and responsibilities relating to:

• Maori health (including Maori provider development);
• Disability Support Services funded and managed by the Ministry of Health for people under 65 years of age;
• breast and cervical screening programmes;
• communicable diseases (infectious and notifiable diseases, but excluding immunisation);
• sexual health;
• diabetes;
• tobacco.

Reassuring stuff, except Turia is on the record believing that the Maori teenage pregnancy is not a problem. Her own view appears to be that Maori should go forth and multiply, for political demographic reasons.

Nice given that one of the biggest problems facing Maori, demographically, is the high numbers of unplanned pregnancies, children growing up in homes that barely wanted them, and the disproportionate amount of child abuse in Maori homes. Turia presumably is happy every time a Maori child is born, regardless of how interested the parents are in looking after him or her, or how much taxpayers are forced to carry the cost, because of her own barely hidden agenda of eugenics.

Mugabe and North Korea

Two articles came to my attention that paint the awful brutal history behind Robert Mugabe's alliance with North Korea.

ROK Drop "Faces in Korea: Robert Mugabe"
National Post (Canada) Pyongyang's man in Harare

The murderous antics of Mugabe in Matabeleland are well known:

"Using North Korean terminology, Mugabe explained that "The people there had their chance and they voted as they did. The situation there has to be changed. The people must be re-oriented."

Some 20,000 people died in the resulting campaign of torture and murder, but it was not just repression pure and simple. What the villagers grew to fear most was the dreadful all-night singing sessions in which they would have to sing ZANU songs with cheerful enthusiasm at the same time that they were savagely beaten; when they would not only have to watch as friends or family members were tortured or shot but would themselves have to assist in the process -- the emphasis always being on achieving their utter humiliation and incrimination so that they could re-emerge at the end as Mugabe loyalists."

What remains inexcusable is how so many in the West, like Chris Laidlaw, thought so highly of Mugabe in the 1980s - he has always been a murderous thug - he remains so - and it is a tragic consequence of decades of appeasement that this vile little man remains at large, and embraced by so many who should know better.

Latest Green outrages

Environment Court appeals

It starts with the moans about how the filing fee for Environment Court appeal applications is being increased from NZ$55 to NZ$500, hardly a big deal for anyone with a serious concern about an Environment Court decision, but clearly a deal for the interfering busybodies who want to dictate to others what to do with their land. The Greens are outraged according to the NZ Herald.

The claim is "The fee increase will particularly hurt the small environment groups, residents' associations and voluntary community project groups who work on behalf of the public." says Russel Norman. Sorry Russel, the groups you describe work for themselves NOT on behalf of the public. The "public" does not belong to them, they are lobbyists with special interests. None of such groups ever speak for me - unless I explicitly authorise them to do so.

Hopefully the fund that Labour set up to subsidise environmental group appeals to the Environment Court has also been abolished.

Anti-nuke hysteria

Dr Kennedy Graham, (one of the new intake) says New Zealand should be "anti-nuclear all of the time". He is upset NZ did not support a UN resolution for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons kept the peace in Europe from 1949 to 1989, Dr Graham would prefer to keep his head in the sand about this saying "NATO countries rely on nuclear weapons. New Zealand does not. NATO believes that their retention of nuclear weapons keeps the peace. New Zealand does not. It is time that New Zealand acted consistently with its stated policy of rejecting nuclear deterrence and supported the UN call to ban the use of nuclear weapons".

Actually Dr Graham nuclear weapons DO keep the peace. They have kept Israel from full scale attack since 1974, they have kept North Korea at bay since 1953, they have kept India and Pakistan from fighting over Kashmir since the 1970s. "Banning nuclear weapons" is childishly naive. Russia and China, both authoritarian states with designs on their neighbours, wont abandon nuclear weapons, so why should the US/France and the UK?

Despite the naive wishes of the "anti-nuclear movement", the world has states which are militaristic and threaten their neighbours, some of these are nuclear powers. While there remain such countries with nuclear weapons it would be counterproductive to remove any Western deterrence of them (and Israel would be mad to surrender the nuclear option whilst Iran talks of wiping it off the map).

Foreign investment North Korean style

Green MP Kevin Hague is xenophobic about foreign (ew) investors because "dividends from a locally-owned business are considerably more likely to be reinvested locally" (fine but why restrict foreigners from investing too? or should New Zealanders not be allowed to invest overseas?), Local owners of a business are more likely than foreign owners to have some sense of identity and common purpose with local people and environment (you can say that about truly local owners, like Auckland for Aucklanders, or should it be Parnell for Parnellians?

Then the pièce de résistance "Economic power translates in part to political power. Greater foreign ownership of businesses in New Zealand thus generally weakens national sovereignty." Nonsense. If the role of the state simply was to protect individual rights, you wouldn't care.

An investor from Australia in Auckland is no different from an investor from Auckland in Dunedin, or an investor from Takapuna in Penrose. They are all "foreign", it's just the Greens think national boundaries matter because of a peculiar geographic phobia of auslanders.

Self sufficiency is the basis for the North Korean philosophy of juche which is:

1. The people must have independence in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.
2. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
3. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
4. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

I'm sure the Greens would reject the fourth point, but the rest?

20 years since Hillsborough

20 years ago today 96 people were killed at the Hillsborough football ground in Sheffield.

The story behind it is on Wikipedia. In essence, an influx of fans crushed those already in the ground, the Police opened a gate to try to ease pressure at turnstiles, causing the crush. The Police kept a cordon around the Liverpool fans, preventing some of them escaping to carry the injured, because they wanted to separate groups of fans of rival teams. The Police turned away ambulances that had been called to deal with the injured.

It was a horrible appalling tragedy, one that saw an inquiry undertaken by Lord Taylor of Gosforth, which recommended an end to standing accommodation at football grounds. The Police did not apologise or ever admit any mistakes in their handling of the tragedy, the families of the dead today booed Culture Secretary Andy Burnham at a gathering at Anfield today to commemorate the death.

That weeping sore has not yet been healed.

London Met Police investigated again for brutality

The BBC reports two incidents recorded on video of the London Metropolitan Police lashing out at G20 protestors. In one incident, a woman slapped in the face, then whacked by a baton on her legs. Another shows a policeman using the edge of his shield to hit protestors.

Now I'm no supporter of the protestors at all, I despise their violence and vandalism. However, it is core to the state that the Police behave with restraint. It plays into the hands of protestors to do otherwise, and is frankly criminal.

The job is difficult, intensely so. They have to put up with abuse, and have to protect people and their property, as well as allowing angry people to protest verbally. However, they also have to ensure they do not initiate force - they exist to use force to protect themselves and others, and their property. Having this privileged use of force, police must always be under scrutiny, and those who go beyond the reasonable use of force in protecting the rights of others, should be held accountable and removed.

Be glad NZ avoided the Human Rights Council

Why? Because New Zealand would never have the gravitas or the courage to confront the barely mitigated evil contained within it.

Peter Singer in The Guardian writes about how the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that considers defamation of religion a human rights violation. This resolution was sponsored by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia, governments that completely reject the concept of individual rights, promoted this vile non-binding resolution.

UN Watch describes it as "an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide."

Quite.

Germany bravely spoke against it saying it "rejected the concept of "defamation of religion" as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions."

Which is of course the key point.

Now assuming the US sits on the Human Rights Council, it should use that role to stamp on the morally wanting states who want to treat rights as subservient to the state, or religion. However, don't blame me if I think that a US Administration with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is hardly going to be a strong fervent supporter of individual rights.

Individuals have a freedom of religion, and a freedom to believe in no religion, and no state should interfere with that free choice. Sadly, most of the Muslim world retains laws on apostasy (Muslims changing religion or becoming atheists).

However, it is the UN that puts all governments on a level playing field - treating New Zealand, Iran, the United States, North Korea, Germany and Turkmenistan as each having equally valid points of view.

New Zealand is best standing to one side from the debates between those who have some respect for individual rights, and the murdering, torturing, thieving bullies that sadly govern the majority of the world's population.

Free pools aren't free

John Walker is worried the megacity will see the end of Manukau's own little pork project, which is to take money from ratepayers to provide free access to baths pools in Manukau.

The NZ Herald reports "Since 1974, Manukau City Council has provided free public access to all pools, putting up to $7 million of ratepayers' money towards running the facilities each year."

It isn't providing anything - it is taking money from those who don't swim to subsidise those who do. Children wont lose access if their parents bother paying for it, instead of expecting everyone else to provide something to nothing.

The usual excuse is given that if you don't give kids something to do, they'll be criminals - which isn't a reason to blackmail ratepayers. "it's giving them something to do - take it away and they're on the streets, bored and [with] nothing to do - leading to trouble." says Walker.

I'm sorry, when I was bored as a kid, i didn't go round robbing people, or beating people up or vandalising buildings. Providing free pools because kids are feral is a copout out of ensuring that they have some respect for others, and get over "being bored". If the poor bubbas of Manukau can't cope with being bored now, then wait till have to work (or have to do stuff while on welfare).

Of course John Walker and other supporters could raise funds themselves to help pay for children from low income families to have access to the pools. However, that would require convincing people to pay for others, and why should you do that when you can force them to pay for what you want?

USA and North Korea celebrate 15 April

For Americans some are protesting it as Boston Tea Party day, a day to protest taxes, as it is the day for the final lodging of tax returns for the Federal government. A tax code that is mind numbingly complex, give the likes of lawyers and H & R Block completely unproductive jobs helping people avoid the heavy hand of the US Federal Government pursuing its number one goal - taking money off of US citizens to pay for its activities. NOTHING the US Federal Government does is pursued with such relentless threats and assuming guilt (with you having to prove innocence) like it pursues tax.

CNN reported "CNBC personality Rick Santelli went off on Obama's policies live on air. "The government is promoting bad behavior," he said, his voice loud. He asked why Obama would make Americans who pay their bills subsidize the mortgages of "losers." Santelli said he wanted a tea party to happen in Chicago, to stand up and angrily demand "No more.""

The Ayn Rand Institute explains more clearly what the problem is:

"Today, thousands of Americans are joining modern day tea parties, named after the Boston Tea Party of 1773. They are protesting a government that, in the wake of today's financial crisis, is rapidly strangling their freedom, with endless bailouts, mounting regulations, reckless spending, and the promise of a crippling tax burden. Correctly sensing that the American system is being discarded, they seek to battle this trend by taking to the streets to register their outrage.

But today's statist onslaught is the result of a deeply entrenched set of ideas about the proper purpose of government. Virtually everyone today believes that unrestricted capitalism is immoral and dangerous, and that the government's role is to actively intervene in the economy in order to achieve the "public good." So long as these ideas remain unchallenged, and no positive alternative is offered, no protest will be able to change the country's course."

That is why a moral defence of capitalism is essential.

Don't expect the man who has engaged in the biggest exercise of fiscal child abuse in world history to do much substantively about it, he is part of the problem. President Obama is promising a simpler tax code according to the Wall Street Journal:

"It will take time to undo the damage of years of carve-outs and loopholes," Obama said. "But I want every American to know that we will rewrite the tax code so that it puts your interests over any special interest."

However, his record in combatting the special interests of his party is so far nil.

SO what about North Korea? Well 15 April is the birthday of President Kim Il Sung. Yes he has been dead since 1994, making North Korea the world's first necrocracy according to Christopher Hitchens. It's a public holiday in North Korea.

Just thought it was a curious parallel.

What Maori can do about representation

Read Blair Mulholland's latest post. It's pretty much on the ball.

Unlike the racist victim promoters in the Green Party and the Maori Party he says:

"No need to worry about rednecks like Harawira and Hawke, you have a right to vote and stand and be elected for the new Council just like everybody else. All you need to do is put it into action and stand!

Good luck in 2010. I hope to see some of you on the hustings, and some of you at the table when it is all over."

A hikoi or protest will deliver nothing in comparison.

Labour complaining about its own policy!

What else can explain the inane press release from former Beehive spin doctor Brendon Burns (now MP for Christchurch Central) moaning that Sky Television won the rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup?

He says it "is another example of the National/Act Government’s ‘hands-off’ policies failing New Zealanders".

Brendon, it is the same frigging policy that existed under Labour.

There are no so-called "anti-siphoning" laws in New Zealand, there never were under Labour (although Jim Anderton supported them, they would be contrary to New Zealand's WTO commitments in audio-visual services for starters).

So moaning that less than half of households have Sky, really is unimportant, as most people know someone with Sky, and most pubs in the country have Sky.

Or would Brendon rather that taxpayers subsidised TVNZ to pay an unprofitable price for the broadcasting rights?

It hardly matters - National didn't change the law - Brendon just doesn't like a policy that has been in place for the entire period of the last Labour led government.

Talk about scratching around desperately for issues!

MORE good news from The Standard

This time how the government is not forcing you (those who own homes outright and those who have yet to buy a home) to pay for people who took out mortgages they can no longer afford.

I guess The Standard supports subsidies for people who borrow to buy real estate. If that isn't a transfer from lower income taxpayers (those too poor to own, or the elderly who are income poor, but many own their own homes) to middle income ones, I don't know what is.

Socialists are funny aren't they, thinking that when the government doesn't take your money to spend it on propping up people who took risks, that you will be unhappy about it.

A rates cap is not enough

A comment by Nick on one of my posts about the Auckland supercity said:

"Rodney Hide has said the LGA will be amended and this will include a cap on Rates to inflation + population growth. That cap will get rid of these quangos overnight even if the power of general competence remains."

Blair Mulholland thinks that:

"The point of the reforms was not to reduce the size of local government, although it may yet do that. The point was not to reduce rates, although it may yet do that. The point was always to destroy the vice-like grip of socialists and busybodies over our fair region."

Blair essentially thinks that the political demographic of the supercity will lean towards the centre-right, which is nonsense. He says "The Left will lose out in such a contest, not because they have less money (as they will inevitably whine) but because they are simply less organised in Auckland."

Blair is naive. The ARC has been centre-left dominated since its inception, it resisted selling the Yellow Bus Company when National last reformed local government, so had to be forced to do so by legislation because it could not fairly be a subsidiser of public transport through competitive tendering, and compete with the private sector in those tenders. The proposals create a grand ARC. It will NOT stop the vice like grip of busybodies over Auckland - not by a long shot.

Nick's more interesting point that a cap on rates (well after inflation and population growth) will be an effective constraint also misses certain key points. Such a cap does NOT restrict the regulatory powers of local authorities, it does NOT restrict the powers of local authorities to borrow and start up public sector businesses. Given the growth of local government in recent years, it does nothing more than slow down future growth.

Like I said before, a supercity for Auckland does nothing to address the core question - what should be the role of local government?

New Zealand is NOT a federal constitutional democracy. Local government has powers purely because central government lets it. Local government currently has unlimited powers because the Labour/Alliance coalition, with Green party support, granted it such powers.

A rates cap should be introduced quickly as an interim step, but a fundamental review of the powers and purpose of local government is needed - now - before super unitary authorities are to be created.

I'd hedge a bet that as long as people are confident their footpaths and roads would be maintained, rubbish collected, water/sewage systems function, and private property rights are protected from encroachment or torts (e.g. nuisance), most would want nothing more from local government.

Moreover, I struggle to find a single useful activity local government undertakes that can't simply be user pays in one capacity or another, or isn't just a matter of delineation of what ought to be property rights.

Maori Mugabe?

If you scuttle over to Scoop you'll find something called the Maori Declaration of Independence made by a self styled "Co-founder and Maori Governor of the Maori Government Of Aotearoa". Chanel Morton-Matene - who is more insane than Catherine Delahunty.

In essence, she is calling for Maori tribes to sign a "declaration of independence" from the New Zealand government. For a split second it sounds curiously libertarian, for a moment, rejecting taxation as it does. However, it is far more sinister - it basically seeks to nationalise all land under the banner of this self styled government. Under the neo-fascist nationalism of this philosophy, you would only be allowed to be a "land holder" and could never sell your land, just have it passed in succession.

"for those of you who have more homes on land than you know what to do with - I will be looking to downsize your property holder portfolios in the interests of moral and restorative justice - and the same goes for Maori people. Just because you are Maori, does not mean that you will escape my long arm of restorative justice that will reach the furthermost parts of our globe".

Nasty stuff.

Apparently any Maori who disagrees is a "sellout", so it's deliberately totalitarian.

Then the real weirdness is that motor vehicle registration will end, but warrants of fitness remain, and manufacturers need to use biodegradeable materials. Yep, priorities right there!

"The New Zealand People As A Collective, Though Not Entirely, Are Using Oppressive Techniques Such As Negative Expressions, Indifferent Body Language, Verbal Jargon"

It gets funnier:

"I can actually see future events before they happen. And yes, I saw 9/11 when I was five years old, and was able to read out the names of the people who hijacked the planes. But who in the NZ government would have believed a five year old little Maori girl right? And yes. I can read tomorows paper today, and see lotto numbers before they are drawn. I can taste food I've never tasted before, and tell you things about yourself that you have never shared with the world. I can see bombs before they drop, and disasters before they happen. I can see business investments go up or down before they actually do. And I can even see horses that win at the races before the races have even begun. I believe that with this gift, I can help create world peace, anull poverty and avert wars which is exactly my intention. And once I prove to the world that I have this gift by winning lotto seven times in a row, all you prejudiced individuals will wish I were on your side."

Go on - win lotto you freak - what's stopping you?

Anyone not Maori is a foreigner or descendent of a foreigner. Not true Aryan Maori, but auslanders. The parallels with Hitler, Milosevic, apartheid era South Africa, or indeed the legions of ethno-nationalist mental pygmies who classify people by who their parents are, not what they do, are clear.

The websites related to it certainly are mindless racist ramblings.

However, more importantly shouldn't the Maori Party unanimously damn this bigoted nonsense, promoting violent theft of land, fascism and well lunatic racism?

Especially given this statement from the self styled "governor" "Therefore, in recognition of your most notable and worthy contributions to Maori causes, especially you Hone, and you Tariana for your letter of support recently, I cordially invite you and all interested parties, to the first signing ceremony of the Maori Declaration Of Independence 2008, at my home here at 546 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa, Aotearoa, on September 30th 2009 - Maori Day Of Redemption - exactly one year following the establishment of MDOI 2008."

So Hone and Tariana. Do you agree with the sentiments of this insane Maori version of Robert Mugabe or not?

Catherine Delahunty is clearly quite mad

On Catherine Delahunty's Twitter account her views are simply too bizarre. Is it the appalling use of English, or the evasion of reality, or is someone doing a remarkably good job of poking fun at her?

Yet it seems serious!

Take her Twitter posts:

"greencatherine: Despite the pretty words and new clothes am hoping new puppy at white house will stop killing afghanis and funding Israel wars on Palestine"

The Obama puppy has been killing afghanis and funding Israel? What a wonderdog!

"Awesome Tairawhiti sunshine a good to start our own banks instead of trusting the white boy club"

Yep it's sunny so set up your own bank Catherine. Good luck with that. Banking with sea shells as currency are you?

"Ten thousand families per day lose their home in USA capitallists can fix this?"

No of course not Catherine, socialists can. Go on, make something out of nothing. Support people who borrowed beyond their means to speculate on property prices going up forever.

"If it wasnt for almonds and dark chocolate I would go crazy here."

Clearly not enough almonds and dark chocolate around.

"Iin a beige hotel after some good meetings trying not eat the chocolate as people lose their jobs"

Yep, those magic chocolates that fire people from each one you eat. Must have been made by magic witch doctor indigenous people who can cast spells on the chocolates to punish capitalists!

"Am experiencing a weird desire not to make a speech about nothing in the House, but met some amazing rangatahi yesterday at Challenge 2000"

Wanting to not make a speech about nothing, but doesn't matter I met some kids?

Come on, it must be someone making this stuff up. Surely.

Keep it up Catherine, you're the Green Party's greatest new electoral liability - Jeanette embraced reason by comparison.

More interesting facts from the Standard

Tane at the Standard presents a useful update on how the Labour government increased the largely unproductive sector (state sector - given you have to be forced to pay for it) from 1999 to 2008, whereas the previous National governments and the reformist Labour government cut it back tremendously (and of course unemployment also dropped from the mid 1990s).

Presumably the Standard intends to scare you into thinking that somehow you got a 50% added value from the 50% additional bureaucrats Labour hired over National.

Do you think you got your money's worth? Tane of course doesn't really consider it has been YOUR money that paid for it.

It's a pretty useful guide as to the bare minimum cuts the government should be implementing surely.

A car race not an arms race

The Guardian notes (hat top North Korea Economy Watch) that the ambassadors of North and South Korea in London both have equally flash limousines. Though I'd add that while the number plate of the South Korean ambassador's car (ROK1) makes sense, the number plate of the North Korean ambassador's car (PRK1D) is far too close to Prick 1 for he to have been given useful advice of English colloquialisms.

Remembering Nicky Hager

Given Idiot Savant has linked to far leftwing activist and "investigative journalist" Nicky Hager, I thought it was worthwhile to link to Trevor Loudon's useful bio on Mr Hager.

It is, after all, in the interests of transparency and fairness that people know Mr Hager is anything but an independently minded truth seeker, but has a long standing serious leftwing agenda that puts him to the left of the Green Party.

Rudman smarter than McClay

Yes, I'm astonished! I agree with Brian Rudman. In the NZ Herald he says "the simple solution does seem to be to remove all restrictions and be done with it."

Quite! It is symbolic of the disgusting interfering nature of New Zealand political culture that the ban on opening retail outlets on specific days, because some people hold them to have significance because of ghosts they worship, continues to exist and gets enforced by the most joyless set of government goons.

I blogged about this quite satisfactorily a year ago, saying Easter Sunday is for individuals not politicians, responding to Sue Bradford's own mindless press release.

It is simply fascist to tell business owners when they can and cannot trade - it is such a clear example of a victimless crime that it is beyond a joke that it remains. However, as Rudman says that "both major parties too chicken to stand up to the high priests of Christianity and organised labour on this". Indeed it is true.

Christians who wont mind their own business (because they want to mind everyone else's) and unions who want workers to all follow in unison (!) like a lumpen proletariat.

National's latest gutless MP - Todd McClay (yes you know his dad), has a bill that would NOT do away with this vile law, which should be seen as contrary to the philosophy of the National Party. No. McClay, who has no media releases on his page on the National Party website, is going to let councils decide.

Instead of embracing the freedom of businesses to decide for themselves, he has embraced a new power for local authorities to decide for them. He has done nothing more than proposing the devolution of an authoritarian law from the Labour Department to local authorities. He talks the collectivist claptrap of letting "communities decide", as if it is right that the majority decide whether a business opens or not.

Well Mr McClay, you've proven that you, and the National Party, remain gutless failures in defending the fundamental right of any business to decide when it should trade.

It's time for ACT to propose that the Bill simply remove all restrictions on shop trading hours. It is what Libertarianz would do.

UPDATE: Andrei at NZ Conservative suggests that the Labour Department be prosecuted for having its "workers" "working" on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Lucyna at the same blog disagrees, just to show that Christian conservatives are not all of one opinion on this.

Isn't the Standard funny?

with this. (and I don't support the cycleway at all)

So how about this?

Kiwirail

Time: 9.5 months
Jobs created: 0
Additional freight and passengers carried: 0
Cost thus far: $1.07 billion (purchase plus capital injection)
Wealth created from purchase: -$242 million (Treasury rightdown in November, to be conservative.)
Money saved on road maintenance minus road user charges revenue lost: 0
Enrichment of foreign investors from the New Zealand taxpayers' pockets: $206 million (difference in what Toll paid and what Dr Cullen paid using your money to buy the same thing).

What do you want local government to do?

Well under the Local Government Act 2002, which National and ACT are willing to continue with, for the Auckland megacity, a council can do the following:

Open restaurants
Establish independent and integrated schools.
Open hospitals
Establish welfare benefits
Set up its own bus company
Run its own taxi company
Start its own plumbing business
Open a chain of hairdressing salons
Establish massage therapy centres
Establish bookshops
Open a supermarket
Set up a telecommunications company
Set up a courier and postal operation
Open a florist
Establish an architecture firm
Promote tourism
Open its own hotel
Start a tour service
Start an airline
Open shoe shops
Establish a radio station
Establish a tv channel
Establish a newspaper
Open a bar
Publish local literature
Set up a comedy troupe
Fund any Auckland sports teams
Sell Christmas Trees
Run a harbour cruise company
Establish a bakery
Establish crèches
Set rules on what colours your property must be
Open a clock factory
Subsidise software sales
Buy out a magazine
Buy SkyCity
Establish a museum of erotica
Establish a museum of racism and homophobia
Establish a museum of religion
Establish a museum of socialism
Establish its own trucking company
Establish a water bottling company
Open a chain of stationery stores
Develop its own Wikipedia
Provide gardening advice to home owners
Organise raffles
Establish language schools
Set up a national political party
Start a fish farm
Start a dairy farm
Start a sheep farm
Buy out a deer farm
Buy out a vineyard
Subsidise motor mechanics
Subsidise braille classes
Subsidise home water collection systems
Celebrate Hannukah with a parade
Celebrate Buy Nothing Day with a parade
Celebrate Margaret Thatcher's birthday with a parade
Celebrate the Queen's Birthday with fireworks
Publish recipe books of Auckland recipes
etc etc etc.

Do you want this? or do you want your council to be able to do the bare minimum of planning under whatever happens to the RMA, look after footpaths and parks, let rubbish collection, water and sewerage become utilities, and manage the stormwater network under roads as long as it looks after local streets?

You see, it seems that the power of general competence that Labour, the Alliance (with Jim Anderton then) and the Greens passed, now has the tacit approval of Peter Dunne, the Maori Party, National and ACT - despite the latter two parties voting against it.

Is this what you voted for? Shouldn't you be letting John Key and Rodney Hide know loud and clear if you disagree?

Auckland megacity - what does it mean for transport?

According to the "Great" Auckland website, it means a council controlled organisation responsible for "all local and regional transport". However, it says little more. So let's explore that a bit further.

The key responsibilities in transport today are:
- The territorial authorities are responsible for their own local road network. They all raise rates to pay for between 40 and 60% of the cost of maintaining and improving the network, while bidding to the NZTA for the rest (which comes from fuel tax, road user charges etc). This is by far the most important function;
- ARTA, an ARC subsidiary, is responsible for contracting any subsidised public transport services, and registering commercially provided ones (which it has been discouraging through various contracting arrangements). It leads the rail project.

Note that all state highways in Auckland are the responsibility of the NZ Transport Agency, Transit's successor. Whether these will be handed over to the mega city is unclear. Hopefully not.

The megacity will no doubt take a view that the biggest problem with Auckland transport is not that it doesn't manage local roads well, doesn't build capacity when it is urgently needed and doesn't price the network to reflect costs, but rather there are too many cars.

It will want to use your money to subsidise those who don't drive, and penalise those who do. It wont be content with running the roads as a business, whereby anyone wanting property access pays an access fee, and motorists pay for what they use. It may neglect roads significantly, rather like Transport for London which has an appalling record in badly maintaining signs, and making next to no investment in improving capacity.

You see the megacity will own trains, and want those trains to grow. It wont own the private bus fleets so wont care so much about them It wont own trucks or cars, so they wont even be on the radar screen.

Most importantly, it wont own the motorways or be likely to build major new roads.

So the megacity wont do much, other than encourage more cross subsidisation of roads, and public transport dominating transport thinking across the region, even though it carries a tiny minority of trips.

A better solution would be to spin off the roads completely into arms length companies, responsible for providing access to properties and road space for motorists, and charging appropriately for both.

However, politicians wouldn't have control, and it wouldn't be democratic - which of course, is how everything should be - up to a vote.

Greens promote racist representation

Metiria Turei is upset that the government isn't going to introduce guaranteed race based Maori seats for the Auckland planners' wet dream megacouncil.

What evasion of the truth is it to say "The biggest Maori urban population shut out from their own city"? How are Maori residents shut out?

Have they lesser voting rights? No.
Have they lesser rights to make submissions on consultations? No.
Have they lesser rights to stand for office? No.
Have they lesser rights to apply for and be considered for employment? No.
Are Maori residents treated in any way differently from those of the many dozens of ethnic backgrounds in Auckland? No.

So why make it up? Why lie? Maori will NOT be shut out. Nor would they let themselves be shut out. Metiria is confusing South African apartheid with New Zealand local government. Why?

Because it suits her post-modernist identity politics based worldview of Maori as perpetual victims that can never be equal under systems that are not ethnically defined.

She links the lack of Maori city councillors to meaning Maori are not represented. This is presumably because the brain and views and experiences of a Maori individual can only be adequately represented by another Maori individual - NOTWITHSTANDING, any difference in philosophy, ideology or experience. In other words, your views are not something consciously chosen, but you inherit them from your ethnicity and identity.

This is why the left eschews the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Ruth Richardson, because as women they SHOULD have certain political views - but they don't.

It classifies all Maori as shut out, because even though thousands vote for non-Maori council candidates (and Maori candidates), it can't mean anything. They must feel "disenfranchised".

This is like saying that if my local councillor happened to be a Chinese lesbian, I wouldn't feel represented. It is reality evasion, and by evading the truth (Maori vote for non-Maori candidates, and less Maori are interested in becoming control freaks on councils than non-Maori), you create a proposal that evades reality too.

Separate Maori seats are racist - they discriminate and distinguish on the basis of race. However, Metiria would say they are the opposite - evading reality.

So a non-race based system is racist, and a race based system is not - as long as the selected race is identified as "victim" not "oppressor". A glimpse into the mindset of the radical left.

UPDATE: Some are "angry" at not getting special political privileges based on who their ancestors are. Easier to moan and demand apartheid than to actually encourage Maori voter turnout and put up candidates isn't it?

Say no to big local government!

So according to the NZ Herald the government is going to support a modified mega city. A proposal born of the Labour inspired Royal Commission, has support from the National/ACT/Maori/Dunne government.

I already have blogged about what I think should be done with the proposal - it would make a good doorstop. How local government needs to be constrained. How a super mayor will end up being some less than competent personality with more control over your life. Owen McShane described it as fascist.

Without a cap on rates, Auckland property owners will be forced to pay more and more as the megacity grows its functions like a cancer on the life of Aucklanders.

So are Aucklanders going to put up with this? The "strengthening of democracy" only counts heads, not what's in them.

If ACT goes through with it, without a rates cap, without severely constraining the power of local government, it will prove ACT can't even drive policy when its leader is a Minister.

It is time to give the government a strong message if you're fed up with rates increases well above inflation year after year, fed up with central planning local government, fed up with petty fascist politicians and bureaucrats who think they know how to spend your money and regulate what you do with your property.

Say NO to big local government, it's time to put it on a diet, and repeal the power of general competence.

UPDATE: Not PC is eloquently making the same point in a different way.

In my entire life if I do something, I do it properly

so said Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Comrade Duch, administrator of the Tuol Sleng torture and murder prison in Phnom Penh when the Khmer Rouge was in power.

The Daily Telegraph reporting on his trial said: "His nom de guerre came from a textbook story about "Duch" a model pupil who always had his hand raised.

"I liked the name Duch because I wanted to be the well disciplined boy who respected teachers, who wanted to do good deeds,"

I remember reading that Khieu Samphan, the number two in the Khmer Rouge was a well disciplined boy too, who never had a girlfriend, and who was constantly teased.

Therein is the mind of the psychopathic mass murderers who obey the state they helped create, and spill blood as if it were water. Typically not that different from the occasional teenager who takes a gun and shoots out his fellow students.

South Africa looking more like Zimbabwe

Two events in recent days show clearly what's wrong with the corrupt ANC dominated democracy that South Africa has become.

First, the South African government refused to grant a visa for the Dalai Lama. Presumably because the ANC had a long relationship with the Communist Party of China over many years. Nelson Mandela's grandson, Mandla Mandela is damning the move according to the Daily Telegraph he said "It's a sad day for South Africa, it's a sad day for Africa. We are a nation which is striving to be a leader the in African continent. I don't think as a sovereign independent country we need to succumb to international pressure". China appreciated it, Xinhua reported how the South African court said there was "no need" for the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa. No need for most things really is there?

Now the BBC reports South Africa prosecutors have dropped corruption charges against ANC Leader Jacob Zuma. It stinks of the judicial system no longer being independent from the government or the ANC.

The new Republic of Southern Zimbabwe?

No More Rates hits the nail on the head

No More Rates suggests that megacity could be disastrous for Auckland. Why?

"The Royal Commission report could well almost certainly lead not only to higher council rates all round, but also a massive redistribution of wealth right across the region"

Now No More Rates isn't a ginger group for user pays or for cutting councils, but its concern is valid.

Local government reform must be driven by the curtailment of the grand centralised planning ideas of politicians and bureaucrats. Those who want local government to do more don't want to pay for it themselves, they want others to be forced to pay.

It is time to fight the socialist's wet dream - the megacity with a power of general competence.

It is time for a review on the role and extent of local government - governed by basic principles of protecting property rights, individual freedoms and promoting economic efficiency.

It is time to end local government being the boot camp for future leftwing MPs.

Obama invents a new language

Drew M on Ace of Spades HQ reports that Obama said whilst in Austria “There’s a lot of -- I don’t know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics"

Yep, you'll be hearing how unwordly and ignorant the US President is now, just like when he said the car was invented in the USA, just like all the finger pointing at George. W. Bush for his gaffes.

Oh no - somehow it isn't cool to point out Obama's mistakes is it? However, many of his supporters didn't know better either.

(Hat Tip - Tim Blair)

Good news from the left

The Greens report that the axe is to fall on some in the Ministry for the Environment. Excellent news, as there is some dead wood in MfE that has long needed weeding out, particularly those who don't understand basic applied economics. Of course it's nowhere near enough, but a good start. All i'd keep MfE for is a transitional role while property rights are assigned to waterways and the air to protect the environment. That would be useful work for a couple of clever people for a couple of years.

Idiot Savant bemoans that the crazy national cycleway idea is not to be funded, as do the Greens. Funny how encouraging more (largely European) tourists to fly to New Zealand on large jets and then bike is good for the environment given the obsession with CO2 emissions.

Finally, Idiot Savant also is upset that Rodney Hide is looking to cap rates. He thinks that the cost of what councils do presumably must always rise faster than inflation. He ignores that on average half of local road costs come from road users through the NZ Transport Agency, so the parallels with California are not close. He also ignores that water and sewage ought to be separately charged for because not all ratepayers are connected, and they use different amounts of water. More importantly, he is under the delusion that councils already do just bare minimum activities, when there is plenty of evidence they go well beyond that. However, he has long supported more taxation, and believes that its ok for democratically elected governments to pillage the money of their subjects as long as it is for the "greater good".

If only Rodney were going much further!

North Korea's fictional satellite

CNN is reporting that the North Korean "satellite" launch was a flop with part of it landing in the Korean East Sea/Sea of Japan, and the rest over shooting Japan and landing in the Pacific.

The Korean Central News Agency is proclaiming a great success "

"The satellite is going round on its routine orbit. It is sending to the earth the melodies of the immortal revolutionary paeans "Song of General Kim Il Sung" and "Song of General Kim Jong Il" and measured information at 470 MHz.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to put the songs on Itunes for nothing? Why "launch" a non geostationery broadcast satellite? Never mind.

Kim Jong Il was thrilled too. Imagine what sleight of hand terrified North Korean scientists are undertaking to cover up this failure. Or maybe Kim Jong Il really knew it wasn't about broadcasting songs, so he doesn't care about the failure - given it is well known he has much access to foreign broadcasts (unlike most North Koreans).

Greens support racist local government

Why be surprised? Green MP Catherine Delahunty, who treats Maori almost as if they are closer to some god than non-Maori, thinks the model for separatist Maori representation in an Auckland megacity is a possible "good model for others".

Her specious claim is "The elephant in the room is the way tangata whenua are marginalised in decision making structures."

How is this? All have a vote, all can stand for council, all can make submissions to Council. Most non-Maori New Zealanders don't do any of those. Aren't they marginalised? Aren't most ratepayers marginalised by consultation processes they can't participate in because they are too busy working to pay rates and taxes?

No - Delahunty's structuralist post-modernist mental retardation prevents her from seeing how local government marginalises everyone. Or if it doesn't, maybe the tangata whenua don't care that much about roads, libraries, rubbish collection or the like (contrary to Catherine's idealistic vision of the noble native).

Furthemore, she treats existing non-racial based government as inherently racist - a kind of Orwellian doublespeak. Take this "A couple of seats at the Päkehä table ain’t the enactment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi but it might increase the number of voices dedicated to that vision."

"Päkehä table"? Who said it was? Why is it? I am sure Ray Ahipene-Mercer (Wellington councillor who ran for Mayor in 2007) doesn't think so.

Why does Catherine Delahunty insist of pigeonholing everyone into cultural/ethnic categories like some banal Balkan nationalist politician? Do Maori need her patronising hand holding to participate how they wish in local government?

Obama's nuclear plan naive and premature

I can foresee a world without nuclear weapons. It will be a world with no terrorist organisations, and one where all countries operate as closely as those in Western Europe, when war is inconceivable. Considering recent history, it is worth remembering that Germany today is a very close ally of France, the UK and the USA - for those past a certain age, this is a difficult concept to grasp (it was for Margaret Thatcher for example).

However, Barack Obama's declaration that he will convene an international summit to look at the elimination of nuclear weapons is hopefully just posturing, because the global environment to abolish nuclear weapons is far from benign.

Start with Russia, which has a government that is anything but transparent, and which could not be trusted to verifiably eliminate nuclear weapons any better than the old Soviet Union. As long as Russia remains an aggressive mini-power that seeks to exercise power outside its borders rather like the USSR did, then it would be wholly wrong to remove the nuclear deterrence. It would be a brave politician who predicts an economically beleagured Russia could not threaten its neighbours again.

Then there is China. You think it would abolish nuclear weapons? Not with Russia having them of course, nor India. China also is far from having a government that could be trusted to verify abolishing its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea's existing nuclear capability, and Iran's planned capability both do not bode well. It would also be madness to remove the nuclear deterrent from the Korean peninsula, nor to remove the ability to deter Iran. Finally, will India or Pakistan blink first? While Pakistan remains an unstable state, that risks falling to Islamism, you must wonder why India would remove its arsenal?

I need not state why Israel would never abolish its nuclear option either, given the existential threat it faces from Iran and others.

John Key and Phil Goff have parroted support for it. Sadly neither noted that nuclear weapons kept the peace in the Cold War between those countries that held them. New Zealand included of course.

As long as there remain state enemies of open transparent liberal capitalist societies, nuclear weapons should be held by the Western allies. The alternative are those who execute political opponents, censor opposition and wish to command control over the West having a monopoly on nuclear weapons. That is utterly unthinkable.

Helen Clark felt right

The NZ Herald reports on how Peter Davis on TVNZ said Helen Clark felt "rejected" by the New Zealand public in the last election.

"I think she felt rejected, because she felt she had done a good job - which I also believe - and had put her best foot forward and had been an almost incomparable Prime Minister and yet somehow the public had not seen that the same way" he said

Yes Peter, she was rejected. Almost incomparable? Well perhaps, by wasting away the fruits of a recovery on growing the bureaucracy and the state, flushing hundreds of millions of dollars away of (now this is what they don't understand) OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in buying back a railway and an airline.

Fortunately New Zealand is a liberal democracy, and enough got tired of "the state is sovereign" Helen. She won 1999 following a growing send of tiredness of National's cobbled together and increasingly repulsive flotsam and jetsam minority government. 2002 she won because Bill English hadn't met a principle he could embrace and stand for anything at all, and the recovery was keeping enough people happy. 2005 she barely won helped ever so slightly by breaking the law by using parliamentary funds to do electoral campaigning.

Of course, the truth is she only got into power thanks to Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters bringing their parties into coalition and confidence/supply agreements. All of their parties have paid a high price for such arrangements.

Let's constrain democratic local government!

The Standard warns ominously that the government might take steps to hinder the growth of local government's role saying:
- A bill is to be introduced "to ‘cap rates at the rate of inflation’ will cripple councils ability to fund essential new projects" ;
-The Auckland report INITIATED BY THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT will provoke "another round of amalgamation to create ’super-cities’". Which will, of course, "sell assets such as airports whenever they can" (yep those privately owned airports never work);
- As part of RMA reform the government will "axe Regional Councils"; and
- Water metering will be introduced.

Now apart from the second point (as I completely oppose supercities for reasons explained here), bring it on!

The Standard shows once again enthusiasm for pilfering from people's salaries, but also notably continue economic ignorance.

What are these "essential new projects" that councils can't convince people to pay for voluntarily? It doesn't matter, as long as people vote for a council, the Standard thinks it can rate the public as much as it likes, until the next election. A cap on rates being at inflation only is a bare minimum to stop councils growing in their thieving from ratepayers.

It shows continued bigotry against privatisation, because the predominantly privately owned Auckland and Wellington airports are so badly run, compared to council owned Christchurch. Seriously, get a grip.

The axing of regional councils is feasible despite the bogus claim that "most Regional Councils manage important public functions and are fat targets for selling off major parks, water and transport assets worth many tens of billions of dollars". Most regional councils are actually glorified water catchment boards, with boundaries that reflect that. Only Auckland and Wellington ones have substantially additional functions. Most have no parks or transport assets of any consequence. Creating water catchment companies with property rights would address the relevant issues, and public transport assets in Auckland and Wellington could be held by territorial authority owned companies.

Then the real ignorance is in opposing water metering. You'd think the Standard ought to support those who use the most water paying for it, paying a bigger share of the infrastructure and water purification costs (and sewage disposal), but no. You'd think ensuring that demand reflects shares of costs would help ensure that expansion of water supplies was done when it is efficient, not when politicians get their act together (or build think big options). No. Of course, it all ignores the decades of mismanagement of water infrastructure by councils that did not replace or repair the network (something Thames Water is addressing in London). The Standard presumably thinks everyone should pay the same for water - yep, good old Marxist "economics".

Of course I don't for a moment believe the government will do ANYTHING The Standard suggests - sadly, as it would mean Rodney Hide will have done some good.

Oh and democratic local government? Give me a break. Turnout for council elections is abysmal, and democracy is never accountability when councils just vote to increase charges on the public year in year out. It is the majority (non ratepayers) voting for the minority to be pillaged for their pet projects. It's time local government was shackled.

So what about supporting the child?

I am unsurprised that Maia is supporting the woman who gave birth on a plane, who clearly was so distressed she isn't fit to be a mother (you can't look after a child if you can't look after yourself), but more curious that she is supporting her in prison (as is her right)- but doing nothing about the completely helpless baby she gave birth to.

I don't doubt Karolaine Maika is a seriously disturbed woman - but mothers, unless they adopt, have responsibilities for their children. If they fail to take even basic steps to ensure that someone else can look after them, then they are beyond the pale.

For regardless of how disturbed she is, the baby is completely and utterly helpless.

Although Maia has previously said that when people are so poor, you can understand them torturing a three year old. "it's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old".

Need I say more?

NZ's best political satire is on Twitter

It sadly lacks, I'm unsure whether a small country lacks comic genius, or whether there is some cringe among those in broadcasting to give it a fair go (and to be fair I don't watch NZ TV for a fairly obvious reason), but the best political satire I am finding now is on Twitter.

If you're not following

Trevor Mallard
Parekura Horomia
David Cunliffe (no this one doesn't deserve the silent "T") and
Clayton Cosgrove

you are missing out. It's the main reason I log onto Twitter, and now I found

Shane Jones
Maryan Street

and there are more.

UPDATE: Oops Darren Hughes is real, it's not that funny. Any more MP satirical Twitters?

Wanaka's National Front school?

Seriously, is Mt. Aspiring College the least worldly most naive high school in the country? Or a secret hot bed of neo-Nazi knuckle draggers?

Wanaka is such a beautiful location, does it just mean people there don't read, watch TV or read history?

Does it mean the school curriculum is so utterly devoid of history that so many of the staff and students are just plain ignorant?

Someone better find out - I bet the semi-evolved grunts in the National Front will be getting their tiny penises (they are 90% "men") all excited about how they need to have their conference in Wanaka as a result of this story.

Life in Wanaka is clearly far too mundane because the Southland Times reports

"many students have already got their costumes organised after depleting all the stocks of white coveralls from Wanaka's Mitre 10 hardware store. Manager Mark Watson said he had no idea the $7.98 clothing item had been so popular when contacted last night, but after a quick check of his database confirmed he had only large sizes of the boilersuit-type clothing left."

Only the slim to average sized stupid and racist students are going. Although one report does suggest a bit of mischief making:

"Last year they went on sale two weeks earlier and this year it was only a few days before. They were hiding them until the last minute. "Those kids are not as dumb as the principal is making out."" says "angry mother".

Bloody hell! Parents of Wanaka. Airfares to Australia are NOT expensive, probably cheaper than to Auckland if you scoot to Queenstown. Take your kids at least to Aussie (well Sydney and/or Melbourne anyway) at least twice before they are 13.

Buy them books.

Show them where the news channels on Sky are.

and most of all, show them images of white supremacists in their natural environment (above).

(Credit to Stuff for the image)

The G20's declaration against you

The full text of the declaration is here.

Despite some nice words about markets and recovery, there isn't a lot to cheer about, unless you think it could have been worse.

A lot more money for the IMF to lend to governments which overreached themselves. Rewarding the profligate wasters and overspenders.

A commitment to sustaining the fiscal child abuse that pours a fortune of borrowed money into unproductive activity under the guise of stimulus.

Creating a Financial Stability Board to punish countries that grow "recklessly".

Punishing countries that offer taxpayers protection from the thieving claws of the likes of the US IRS and the legalised thieves of other national tax mafias. Public finances are important, your finances are not important.

A limp wristed pledge to not increase trade protectionism for the next 20 months. Given Barack Obama already had a hand in increasingly US farm subsidies, it's hardly surprising. A statement on progressing the Doha round, a bare minimum really.

So for all the cheshire cat grins of Gordon "Britain always is in deficit under me" Brown and Barack "no more pork, except my pork laden budget" Obama, this summit was a wet blanket. It has done next to nothing, done little to avoid future harm, and has shown an inadequate regard for how the global economy is dependent upon producers not governments.

Well at least protestors should remain disappointed.

Standard distorts G20 protests

It reports tens of thousands protested, yet the BBC reports there were only 5,000. (The post on the Standard links to BBC News but clearly doesn't read it).

It ignores the direct attacks on Police which I saw live on TV, refusing to take sides of course. It ignores the rampant vandalism of the RBS branch in the city for being the reason why the Police contained the protestors.

See I watched the coverage on BBC News and Sky News channels for most of the day yesterday. The Standard is getting its news secondhand. Funny how it writes about inaccuracy when it writes such shoddy nonsense as this.

What I fear about One Auckland

At Not PC Owen McShane characterises the proposal for a single megacity for Auckland as fascist.

Now, while this risks derision by the mere use of the word fascist, it is worth noting only the differences between TRUE fascism and what is being described for Auckland.

Yes, you will be able to leave Auckland, you will be able to criticise the megacity with the same free speech rights as now, you wont face more censorship, you wont be conscripted into an army to invade Ethiopia.

However, you will face more co-ordinated attacks on your private property rights, you might face the megacity regulating your business, or even competing with you. The megacity will have a substantial budget for propaganda publicity, and with one grand plan you'll know what is expected of you, your land use decisions and your property in the future. You are likely to face ever growing demands for money from your pocket, through rates. A megacity after all can increase rates by a small amount and get so much from it. Besides, few of you objected with relatively large ARC rates increases, so that can continue right?

A megacity will dilute your influence. By this I don't mean that there should be more democracy. That will simply mean those with the greatest lobbying strength (either by numbers or money) will use a megacity to regulate, tax and subsidise as they see fit. The left fears this ends up being business, the right fears it ends up being leftwing activist groups - both are right - Auckland does not need governance by lobbyist.

However, what will happen is just that. Loud lobbyists will work full time to lobby a megacity, and a megacity will have an army of planners out to ensure land use, transport use, energy use and indeed almost all aspects of day to day life are monitored and regulated if they can be legally empowered to do so.

In fact, I expect one of the first things a megacity will ask for is a review of local authority regulatory powers and tax raising powers, which were not substantially changed in the 2002 Local Government Act. The megacity will complain it isn't sufficiently empowered (to have power over you), or can't make you pay enough for it to do what it want otherwise known as raise revenue.

Auckland is over governed as it is.

The Royal Commission on Auckland report should be treated as follows by the government:

- Thank you, very interesting;
- Raises some important issues about current problems with local government in Auckland;
- Royal Commission operated under a mandate determined by the previous government so did not address some fundamental issues about the role of local government that this government has;
- We believe there are more fundamental issues to the performance of Auckland based on local authorities going far beyond certain core principles that should limit want councils do;
- As such we will be undertaking a more fundamental review of local government across the country, and will take into account Auckland as part of that review;
- (Thanks for the doorstop, the Royal Commission on Social Policy documents were getting a bit yellow).

Time to consider what the hell local government ought to be doing.

Time for those who say "not very much" to make their voices heard loud and clear, before the Nat/Act/Maori/Dunne government takes what Labour has done on local government (give it an almost unlimited mandate), and make it much much worse.

Otherwise, Rodney Hide's position as Minister of Local Government will have been for nothing.

George Galloway refused entry into Canada

I am slightly late on this, but it is curious that George Galloway, who supported the ban of Dutch MP Geert Wilders (because free speech is not an absolute) is complaining about the Canadian government refusing him entry because of his views on Afghanistan and his support for Hamas and Hizbollah. The decision has been upheld by a court appeal.

Galloway, you see, has said explicitly that he provided financial support to Hamas - an organisation that trains and arms suicide bombers, that produces television calling for children to be martyrs against Israel. Here is a video of him supporting suicide bombing and Hamas, Hizbollah and

He also has denied the genocide in Darfur, defended the Islamist dictator of Sudan Omar al-Bashir who is subject to an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Of course who can forget him saluting Saddam Hussein for his "courage and indefatigability", his friendship with dictator Fidel Castro. He also has spoken of how lucky Syria is to have Bashar al-Assad as President - who holds onto power much like Saddam did - running a one party state.

Galloway is a vile creature, who tells one story to the mainstream British media, whilst essentially befriending the enemies of Western civilisation and liberal democracy. He is a willing whore to murdering dictators and terrorists. It is no wonder Canada excludes him, as he happily supports enemies of Canada.

If I were a resident of Bethnal Green & Bow for the 2010 General Election I'd vote Labour to remove this vermin of the political system.

Hat tip: "Tony Blair" blog (well not really him)

Are we losing Afghanistan?

No, it's not April Fool, it's not even the Taliban winning, it's the government we are supporting. The Daily Telegraph reports that Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has signed a new law legalising marital rape. The Telegraph continues that the unpublished law...

"is believed to state women can only seek work, education or doctor's appointments with their husband's permission.

Only fathers and grandfathers are granted custody of children under the law, according to the United Nations Development Fund for Women."

The Guardian reports:

"Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said."

It is believed the law is part of a strategy to win votes in the upcoming election. The US government has raised it directly with Hamid Karzai.

The point should be clear. Aid is dependent entirely on Afghanistan moving towards more individual rights and freedom, and should be pulled if the opposite happens.

Idiot Savant thinks it calls into question New Zealand's military commitment to Afghanistan, (Which he opposes, preferring Afghanistan be left to the Taliban presumably). What it SHOULD do is question all aid, and New Zealand should support a united front of all countries with military presence supporting the fragile democracy in Afghanistan to demand that this means protecting individual rights.

It is important to fight the Taliban, it provides succour for Al Qaeda, part of the Iraqi insurgency and is pushing into Pakistan. It is the dead enemy of Western civilisation. Afghanistan's government should not look like a Taliban-lite.

Afghanistan should be a constitutional liberal democracy that guarantees basic individual rights and freedoms. If foreign troops are not there defending, nurturing and protecting that, they are doing less than half their job.

A hole in Lenin's arse

A hole has been blasted in Lenin's arse by vandals in St Petersburg according to the Daily Telegraph.

Quite right, the bastard was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands, and famine of millions in the 1920s. He was a deliberate mass murderer, and his name deserves to live in infamy, and he started a revolution that would bring Stalin to power bringing tens of millions to their deaths, and his satellites in eastern Europe, North Korea and Africa (be fair to say China's revolution was separate).

Something to remind the next spotty idiot wearing a Lenin tshirt.

Why cheer Clark?

David Garrett is a dickhead, as many of his comments have shown he is closer to the "mob justice" view of the world, and has a mixed view of individual rights at best. However, in refusing to participate in the nauseating standing ovation for Helen Clark he deserves credit for having some principle.

Seriously. He may not have a clue on some things, but he is a man who believes in certain things - he didn't enter politics to be cheering Helen Clark.

If you belong to ACT or National you belong to political movements that essentially are opposed to the socialist Nanny State view of the world exemplified by the Clark led Labour Party. Clark is an intelligent, cold power hungry politician, who has spent her whole life working to have the power she centralised around herself, Heather Simpson and strictly controlling government communications led by now MP Brendan Burns. She increased government regulation and theft of people's incomes and property, with only a handful of exceptions, she declared "the state is sovereign" showing her utter contempt for there being any fundamental individual rights.

Clark broke the law and had it repealed so she wouldn't face the consequences, as Labour used government administrative funding to pay for electioneering. She ran a tight ship, a Cabinet comprised of people she largely regarded as far less competent than herself (which is true), and subverted Ministerial authority by having Cabinet papers vetoed by H2 before they got presented to Cabinet. She promoted racially driven policies with "Closing the Gaps", before hypocritically turning her back on them when Don Brash got traction with "One law for all". She warmly embraced giving local government far more extensive powers to spend your money and interfere with what you do. She retained a tight grip on the anti-competitive and centrally controlled state education and health monopolies that all are forced to pay for, whether they deliver what users want or not.

She's off to lead a featherbedded lazy UN organisation, and live off the back of global taxpayers' money (mostly from wealthy Western countries) travelling to many countries, like the Queen of aid and development.

Yes it is bad politics to have sour grapes and not cheer her on. However, it is hypocrisy to pretend you thin she deserves a cheer - I'd have preferred if she spent her life as an academic, and didn't try to run other people's lives. The New Zealand economy, the health and education of New Zealanders, New Zealanders' property rights and their individual freedoms have all suffered because of this woman.

A better approach would be for those politicians who have consistently opposed her politics (and to be fair plenty of National MPs have not), to simply excuse themselves from the House. Let Labour, the Greens, Jim Anderton and Peter Dunne have their love in.

Will National support racist local government?

Now once John Key signed a confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party we all knew the Maori seats in Parliament wouldn't be going anywhere. Not a particularly big deal, after all they already exist.

However, race based seats for local government ARE new, and National opposed them vehemently whilst in Opposition.

The NZ Herald is reporting that the government is considering Maori based seats as part of a mega Auckland council. John Key was non-committal about it, but Pita Sharples expressed support for the concept in principle, although he had issue with the detail.

Do you want local government representation to be based on your race, or just your political views? Is it appropriate in the 21st century for psychologically based identities (for ethnicity is in the mind, not a matter of fact) to be legally entrenched in political representation, or for it to be based on one person one vote, and for representatives to be based on political views not the legend of ethnicity?

It would be nice if the Minister of Local Government - Rodney Hide - made it abundantly clear that race based local government representation will not be allowed under this government.

Paul Goldsmith, Auckland City Councillor, agrees.

Electricity review might deliver useful answers

I tend to be sceptical of reviews, but the report in the NZ Herald of the government's announcement of a Ministerial review into the electricity sector is likely to look at how this state dominated generation and retail sector needs to be unshackled to allow competition to operate more freely.

Gerry Brownlee has indicated one issue is duplication of sector governance, which basically means too much bureaucracy. Energy security is important as Labour interfered considerably to try to guarantee supply (at high cost), and pricing given the government is the key market player is worth observing. The question being whether Labour milked the SOEs for dividends compared to investment in capacity.

The panel appointed includes some useful heavyweights. Brent Layton and Lewis Evans are excellent infrastructure sector economists who understand markets, Stephen Franks should add a reasonably sound legal perspective, and David Russell while on the left, becomes the consumer representative. Toby Stevenson knows the electricity sector intimately, and Miriam Dean is a competition lawyer.

Not a unionist, token ethnic representative or gender balance in sight, a review made up of intelligent, talented people.

However, will it be allowed to recommend privatisation of the sector? There is little sign that it will support the crazy Green agenda of recreating a single state owned monolith electricity generator.

So I am cautiously optimistic that it will unshackle the sector, and support more private sector investment (after all minority private investment wouldn't be full privatisation would it?).

More importantly, will a similar heavyweight team review the telecommunications sector?

Police let protestors smash RBS branch

Nice, so the Police forces in London have done relatively nothing to stop the graffiti, window smashing, raiding and robbery of a Royal Bank of Scotland Branch in the City of London.

The BBC is reporting that people are moving freely in and out of the Branch, and riot Police are not moving in yet - presumably because they don't have the number ready yet. I am seeing windows being smashed live on camera still, some 15 minutes after it started.

RBS is 70% state owned, but it is slightly chilling that the Police are unable to respond directly to such wanton vandalism and theft.

One of the protestors said it is because "our money goes into their pockets", which of course is the fault of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party who took it out of "their pockets" in the first place!

G20 - what good it could do

While the UK media fawns over the arrival of Barack Obama, and several thousand solutionless people who are statists or anarchists, the G20 summit COULD achieve good if only two things happened.

1. The G20 came out, unanimously, against trade protectionism, in favour of renewing the Doha round, and a new emphasis on lowering barriers to trade in primary products, manufactured goods and services. THIS could do more to encourage global recovery than any other government measure because, it basically, is about removing government measures.

2. The less free G20 members (China, Russia in particular) might notice that an economy in trouble can have public political protests largely kept under control.

However, this is unlikely. Far more likely are platitudes, a few moans from poorer countries that it isn't their fault (but showing how dependent they are on wealthy country demand), and a demonstration that everyone is in agreement that the recession should end.

On the other side, I've noticed in the protests some Soviet flags (because the USSR was known to accept public protests as a matter of course), and the hard left "Stop the War Coalition" is calling for US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end to aid for Israel and unilateral nuclear disarmament. In other words, surrender to Islamists and leave nuclear weapons in the hands of dictatorial governments. Charming lot.