Mulholland Drive

The Yearning

Listen to my new song The Yearning over at blairmulholland.co.nz.

blairmulholland.co.nz

In between looking after bubs, I am gradually setting up a new home here.

It's essentially a vanity site.  It's not a blog as such, but I will be putting new stuff on there from time to time.  For the moment, I will be doing some crossposting here whenever that happens.  So subscribe to the feed on this blog so you know.

Here's a cute photo of Bella and her Daddy :-)

The End of Mulholland Drive

After some thought, I've decided to finish up here at Mulholland Drive.

I've been blogging for over five years now, on and off.  I first started when I was working for Richard Prebble at the ACT Office in Auckland, at a time when there weren't many blogs about in New Zealand, political or otherwise, and it's been great to see blogging flourish as a pastime and a source of news and fresh opinion.  I've had a great time ranting about current events, engaging in blog wars, being provocative, and most importantly making people think about fresh perspectives that may have been outside the standard mindset of popular discourse.

After five years I feel like I've exhausted myself creatively in the blogging medium, at least as far as the short and pithy stuff goes.  People know where I stand on most things, and I don't have the same capacity to shock and surprise.  There's not much I can say with my own blog these days that the blogs on that list to the left of the screen aren't saying equally well, or better.  If anything, I would like to write longer, better thought out stuff, but I don't think my own blog is a good medium for that.  I want to do other things with my spare time.

I'm also a different person now than when I started, which getting hitched and having kids will do to you.  Some of the things I've written and done in the past embarass me now, but I don't have too many regrets inasmuch as I wouldn't be who I am today otherwise, and at the risk of sounding cliched, mistakes are how you learn and grow.

Thanks so much for reading, it's been a privilege to have your attention.  I'll be doing other stuff on the interwebs I am sure, but as far as Mulholland Drive is concerned, this is goodnight.  :-)

The Burden of the Three Term Legacy

There have been four National-led governments so far, and they have all lasted at least three terms.  No National government has ever been elected and not won the next two elections as well.

That's why, despite present polling, recent developments are worrying.  Key's handling of the Worth debacle was appalling.  The Nats have already misread the public appetite for transparency on their expenses and on the Smacking Referendum.  And it's odd to agree with nearly everything M-m-m-Matt M-m-m-McCarten says in a column, but he has nailed it as far as the Mt Albert byelection goes.  Dangerous vulnerabilities have been exposed.

All Labour has to do is look competent, refresh their ranks a bit, and shear off a few of their rough nanny-state edges and they may get another crack in 2011 at this rate.  Don't let those high poll ratings fool you.  As Brash's Orewa speech proved in 2004, shifts can happen quickly.  And while this National government does not have the polarising nature of the last one at this point in the electoral cycle, the lack of competent management does not bode well.  Bolger and Richardson (at least in their first term) had conviction and a willingness to take tough decisions that Key and English simply do not possess.  And while Key has followed Clark's lead of attempting to neutralise issues quickly, Clark had Heather Simpson bringing up the rear with a large strap-on. Key has... Mr 21%!  Add to this a cabinet whose top tier are all new to government and it all combines to make them rather vulnerable.

Key's own point about remaining in touch with people needs to be adhered to.  He could start by recognising the community's concern about the smacking referendum, which, due to the liberal media moving in the wrong circles, has probably flown under the radar for him.  And while cruising and being unflappable has got him this far, more homework needs to be done on the PR front.  If he loses that, he won't get the three terms that Holland, Holyoake, Muldoon and Bolger gained before him.

Fifteen Years On and Still No Justice for the Bain Family

On 20th June 1994, David Bain woke up, took his gun and shot all five of his family members one by one.

Fifteen years later those five people still cry out for justice that they have not received.  And Robin Bain lies slandered by David Bain and Joe Karam as the supposed instigator of a murder/suicide. Of course, in this scenario Robin was thoughtful enough to wear gloves, change out of his bloody clothes afterwards, put them in the washing machine, then shoot himself at an angle where he had to curl his head into his chest and bend over while resting the butt of the rifle against the floor.

Well even if a jury couldn't see the implausibility of this scenario, it is obvious to any thinking person.  Robin Bain is innocent.

There's a great article from Martin van Beynen in the Press today that everyone with a passing interest in the case should read.  It talks about the bizarre verdict of the trial, and the jurors involved:

"Several aspects about this jury should worry us all.

The two jurors a man and a woman who were seen to congratulate Bain after the verdicts and who went to his celebratory party were the same two who spent the last three weeks of the trial paying little attention to the evidence and closing addresses. They giggled and wrote messages to each other.

The man would often sleep through parts of the afternoon.

Initially, the woman was so disturbed by the images shown as evidence that she turned her computer screen away. By her own admission, she spent the first two weeks of the trial in tears, and the trial lost half a day because of her anguish.

Another juror, known to another member of the media covering the trial, had a serious question mark over her ability to follow the evidence. Yet another went to congratulate Bain's legal counsel after the verdict."

This jury was flawed and has made a grievous error.  Many will want to move on, but those who know the truth will not allow it to be forgotten.

Rest In Peace, Robin, Laniet, Arawa, Stephen and Margaret.  God will give you justice, even if we cannot.

More Economics Fail

Economics is the only discipline where you can claim that 2+2=5 and that the moon is made of green cheese and, not only will nobody call you out on it, but government policy will be set on it and you will receive the acclaim of your peers for your gross errors.

Case in point the BERL alcohol harm study.  It's absolute bollocks from start to finish, and assumes that any consumption over 1.8 standard drinks represents a cost to the economy!  That's just a pint of good pilsener, or a single glass of shiraz!  And the study even footnotes none other than Karl Marx.  Ummm... yeaaaah....

So who was the tool that wrote this report?  Why, it's none other than our old friend Ganesh Nana!  You remember Ganesh, he was the twat that last year decided the fight against inflation should be abandoned.  I pointed out what complete bollocks he was talking at the time.  It seems Ganesh is not only wrong about that, he is also completely barking about a whole pile of other stuff too.

Of course Nana is entitled to his crackpot economic theories, but the real problem is that those crackpot theories are listened to.  Foolish decisions are made on foolish advice, and we need to point out which advice is good and which is tosh, because God knows I don't trust our MPs to know the difference.

Economics FAIL

This article is just one ginormous FAIL all round.

First of all, not even the economist in the story would be stupid enough, or have such a lack of a grasp of economics, to believe that "Banking Profits 'Bolster Recession'".  That's the invention of the subeditor at the Herald, who should be fired for saying something so cretinous.  Profits are a good thing.  Making money is a good thing.  If people are making money, that doesn't "bolster recession", quite the opposite.  A recession is when people don't make money, and if the banks are making money, it's a sign that things aren't as bad as they could be.

Secondly, IF the banks weren't making healthy profits... um... well, banks that do the opposite tend to collapse and spark... that's right! recessions!  Do you really want the banks not making money?

The complete misinterpretation of Ulf Schoefisch aside, let's look at what he actually says, which is almost (but not quite) as asinine.  Firstly he says the profits are an indicator of the recession, which is not the same as what the story wants to imply, but, as already explained, is nonsense, because for our own financial health we want banks to make as much money as possible.

Having said that, he then goes on not only to suggest that banks should "reduce their profits" and "share the burden", but implies that the government should take back monetary policy from the Reserve Bank!

I'm not sure this guy has actually studied economics, because in the real world, when banks voluntarily reduce their profits, they can only do it one of two ways.  Either they become less efficient, which in itself contributes to economic shrinkage, or they cut their fees and charges, which would still collapse their share price, hinder their ability to raise capital, and potentially hurt them long term. 

Profits aren't some carveup where the vendor automatically wins and the consumer automatically loses - they're the result of transactions designed to grow the wealth and/or life satisfaction of both parties.  If you constrict that for one side, it just means somebody at the other end, probably a shareholder, has less money to invest in new jobs and enterprise.  And that's how a recession happens in the first place.

All this would be complete ivory tower irrelevance were it not swallowed hook line and sinker by the people who are supposed to be in charge - our Members of Parliament.  It really is rather scary.

Perspective on Sue Bradford's New Bill

A gentle reminder for Sue Bradford and her attempts to veto the only direct democracy outlet that the general public have in between elections:

Number of people required to hold a referendum: 

285,027

Number of people required to elect Sue Bradford as a list MP:

17,513

Gee, I wonder who has a bigger mandate to determine the validity of a referendum question?  Is it the people who slaved for a year to get nearly 300,000 signatures, or is it some failed parent and failed communist who gets in because a handful of voters like to hug trees?

The politicians are not listening on this one.  There will be blood.

The Smacking Referendum

Both Phil Goff and John Key are doing their level best to try and discredit the smacking referendum to be held this coming August.  They will fail.

Goff is trying to claim that the question is misleading.  He is talking horseshit.  The question could not be plainer or more straightforward.  It reads:  "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"  Before Sue Bradford's legislation, a smack as part of good parental correction was not a criminal offence in New Zealand.  After the legislation, it is now a criminal offence for parents to smack a child.  The question is precisely about the legality of a correctional parental smack.  Should it be a criminal offence?  Yes or no?  It's easy stuff.  Pretending the legislation does not actually criminalise smacking is sheer bullshit that nobody should buy.

My personal answer is a firm "NO".  While the MILF and I do not plan to use physical discipline on our children, I was physically disciplined as a child myself and cannot see that it personally did me any discernable damage (although I am sure our friends on the Left may argue otherwise!).  There is no serious harm done in using properly administered physical discipline on a child.  I support the Burrows amendment which would have excepted "transitory and trifling" discipline.

The referendum is not about the rights and wrongs of smacking, over which I am dubious.  And nobody is suggesting that real child abusers should be let off the hook by any legal loopholes.  The real issue is the rights of parents to use the method of discipline they feel is best for their child, without having nanny state, or their busybody neighbours for that matter, telling them what to do.

John Key's assertion that the legislation "is working" is, to my mind, naive.  The real damage of the amendment was not that parents might get sent to jail or hauled before the courts (although the latter has happened more than Key would care to admit).  The real damage was that parents can use the legislation as a weapon against each other in the Family Court.  It also gives New Zealanders, who are by nature notorious busybodies, the right to rat on their neighbours and tell them what to do.  Kiwi parents are not scared of being sent to jail, they are just pissed off at the nuisance of having others question their every move.

From that, one could argue that the issue is trivial - why should we change the law back?  Well... why change the law in the first place?!!!  It's just one less freedom that New Zealanders have.

Both Key and Goff will be hoping for a low turnout for this referendum, so that they can continue to declare the issue dead.  An organised "NO" campaign will need to work hard to get the turnout to make the result legitimate.

Mt Albert Byelection All Over

I don't think anybody comes out looking good from this byelection, except perhaps Ravi Musuku.  Every party could have done much much better.

Labour threw everything into defending this seat, but a huge chunk of its voters stayed home.  They were always going to win, but never covered themselves in glory throughout the campaign.  Most of their campaigners were ring-ins.  The only positive for them is that the Nasty Party now has a fresh face who is not tainted with the corrupt misgovernment of the past.

The Greens had weak opponents and a real opportunity to get their vote up and take the seat.  But they're weak in Auckland, their candidate was crap, and they couldn't capitalise on Labour's unpopularity.  They picked up some disillusioned Labour supporters, but shouldn't be too smug about coming third.

ACT, I have no idea why they ran.  Since their equivocation on the Gang Patch legislation, they no longer have a reason to exist.  It's hard to see what they are achieving in government, and their campaign reflected it.  They asked for a mandate for Three Strikes and... didn't get it!  They would have been better not to ask.  I don't know what they are trying to achieve any more.  As for the Libertarianz, it's all very well to be the only party of principle left standing, but 35 votes?!  Whatever you are doing, change it.  It's not working.

Which brings me to National.  Words cannot describe my disdain for National's campaign.  It was all so naive and gee whiz.  National are doing great things in government, but you wouldn't have heard about them in Mt Albert over the last month.  A campaign is a little bit more than putting up a candidate and saying how nice she is.  It also helps to have a candidate who takes campaigning seriously and is prepared to come up with some lines and talking points before a public meeting or interview so as not to look like a complete tool. 

The Nats went from a situation where they could have won the seat to one where Melissa Lee shaved a good ten points off Ravi Musuku's 2008 total.  Bravo!  Can we have some grownups running the campaign next time?  Sticking a blue rosette on someone and crossing your fingers ain't going to cut it anymore.

And the people of Mt Albert themselves?  They get a new MP, but they still get a government that takes 40% of what they earn, for little return.

Bain Must Be Found Guilty

Well after three months, and hearing all the evidence, and sordid tales of incest and red herrings aplenty, the David Bain trial comes down to just one question:

Why would Robin Bain wear gloves to murder the family if he was going to kill himself and announce himself the murderer with a note left on the computer?

A plausible answer to that question should see David Bain acquitted.  The problem is that there is no plausible answer.  Robin Bain was not a neat and tidy man for starters.   The defence says that he wanted to be wearing fresh clothes to "meet his maker", but this is not something depressed people do - they tend to believe, if anything, that God has given up on them.  The only way the defence could make his alleged actions make sense was if Robin were schizophrenic, and he had ritualized the killings in the name of obedience to the Voice of God, but there is no evidence of this at all either.

Now of course the defence does not have to prove anything in this regard.  But if it is not reasonable to believe an outsider killed the Bain family, and not reasonable to believe Robin made those aforementioned incongruous decisions, then the only reasonable explanation left is that David Bain murdered his family.  It is beyond reasonable doubt, because to do so means it is plausible someone else did it, and personally, on the evidence I have seen thus far, I believe it is not.

David Bain is a very clever guy, and by all accounts a very nice guy too.  But even intelligent nice guys can be murderers, as we know from guys like Ted Bundy.  Perhaps even if found guilty Bain has spent enough time in prison.  But he did it, and we need that confirmed once and for all.

UPDATE:

NO FREAKING WAY!!!!!

The lying bastard has finally got his way.  Clearly the jury felt there was reasonable doubt.  I can't understand that decision.  Not at all.  David Bain is a murderer, and this is a jury with no balls to say so.

Historical Revisionism

Jeanette Fitzsimons is obviously an advocate of Goebbels' epigram that lies become truth if you repeat them enough:

"Ms Fitzsimons said she had entered Parliament to "protect the vulnerable from the violence and degradation inflicted by the powerful".

She said she remembered the 1990s - a time of "political cruelty" and rising unemployment and said she and the Green Party would work in the current recession to protect vulnerable people."

I don't know what '90s she lived through, but in everyone else's '90s unemployment stopped rising in 1992 following Ruth Richardson's Mother of All Budgets, and, apart from a brief blip during the Asian Crisis, dropped steadily ever after.  Unemployment hasn't risen since Kurt Cobain decided things were less dangerous with the lights out.  What a stupid leftie liar.  Good riddance to her.

My Enemy's Enemy is Not My Friend

Anyone who thinks the Dalai Lama is a nice old man travelling the globe to promote world peace should read this story.

The old clown should not be given any more oxygen.  Let's Free China and Tibet will take care of itself.

Reichstag Fires

The much-touted proof positive that Germany was still a fascist state, that infamous event, the one that sparked the formation of the first Green Party, the Baader Meinhof militia and the German Autumn... was committed by a Stasi agent.

Deliberate or no, Herr Kurras had a vested interest in perpetuating and fleshing out the mythology.  He knew that a cavalier approach to policing the demonstrators would be inflammatory.  And so it came to pass that that great German martyr, Benno Ohnesorg, was killed by a commie.

It's now clear that the DDR was playing the Acht-und-Sechzigers and the RAF like a Stradivarius.  You almost have to admire it.  Fortunately, the free Germans realised that you don't just acquiese to commies simply because they blow up a few department stores and hijack the odd plane.  The RAF's murderous rampage was countered with an almost hysterical countercampaign on behalf of the authorities, the show-trial of the century for the top four, and (it is suspected), their eventual extrajudicial execution.  The commies got owned.  Sadly it was too late for Hans Martyn Schleyer, and so many other victims.

To paraphrase a popular Facebook group:  Ulrike Meinhof was a murderer and your sunglasses are not cool.  Anyone who finds New Zealand leftists amusing or appealing might like to remember that, at heart, these people are simple authoritarians.

Immaturity

What a pack of crying, whinging babies.  From someone who has dealt with that sort of thing of late.

One equal vote with their peers will never be good enough for some people.

I don't think being Maori makes you special.  In the parallel universe that some of these people live in, that makes me a racist.  In my world, that makes them racist.  They're not prepared to stand themselves and work for representation the way I am forced to do.  They think their brown skin entitles them to something that is denied me.

Well whatever.  These bigots may have "mana" amongst their own people, but I won't respect them until they put their names on a ballot for all races to decide on.  The reality is that Maori have largely declined to participate in local politics in Auckland, so for them to come whining with a begging bowl now is a bit rich.  Would Arapeta Awatere have gone begging on some hikoi for a seat at the table?  Hell no, he had real mana, which is why so many pakeha voted for him to serve on the council in the 1960s.

It seems likely that the best solution to all this would be to have two non-voting iwi councillors on the new council, giving both sides some measure of satisfaction.  However, if Maori want a vote on it, they should stand and get elected.  Nobody is disputing that Maori should have input into the new council, they just have to work for the right as all other New Zealanders must do.

This is Shameful

What kind of racist, redneck country is this where a pharmacist can openly be racist to the country's largest daily newspaper?

""Hi, I'm Melissa Lee, National candidate for Mt Albert," said the politician.

"Well you won't be getting my vote because I don't think we need any Asians in Parliament," the pharmacist shot back tartly.

Korean-born Ms Lee, a former journalist who has been in New Zealand for 21 years, asked brightly, "Why not?"

Mr Baird said he had his reasons. "They are very difficult people to deal with. They don't spend any money. I don't see that they bring any money into the country. Another problem is their English is very bad.

"You're all right," he told the candidate later. "You are almost 100 per cent. But, seriously, we find it difficult, particularly old people. We have Titus here to talk to them.""

Utterly vile (and poor Titus!).  He deserves nothing less than to be picketed and driven out of business.

I can't imagine anyone in Britain or the US being able to publicly state these views without fear of retribution.  That just shows you how far we have to go, and how deep set the bigotry is.

"Mr Baird voted NZ First last year"

That tells you everything you want to know.  Never have I been more grateful for the 5% threshold and the death of that disgusting political movement.  When these scum, their voters, "the selfish generation", finally die off, we will at last have a decent country.

"And a Pakeha mother who declined to be named turned out to be as "red" as Mr Baird's wife. Her simple verdict: "I'm going to vote for him - he's the right colour.""

At least this one has enough shame not to give her name.

The Realities of Politics

I see ACT has done a split vote to narrowly pass the Bill to ban gang patches, whatever a gang patch is.  What a shame and a tragedy.  In practical terms, it's no big deal, and ACT keep some measure of integrity by the split vote.  I don't even really begrudge David Garrett and John Boscawen their votes - I disagree with them, but they've never publicly pledged an alternative view.  And as that great Liberal Edmund Burke once said "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."  So whatever. 

Rodney Hide is another story.  It is one thing to change your mind from a publicly stated view, but his reasoning was pretty piss-weak.  He supports all freedom of speech... except gang patches.   Somebody remind him not to do anything "intimidating" in Mt Albert over the next month... like ask for peoples' votes.  There's no right not to be offended.  No exceptions.

Ultimately, the whole episode has exposed ACT's primary weakness - it doesn't know what it is.  Is ACT primarily a think-tank/pressure group or is it primarily a political party?  At the moment neither of those two masters are well served. 

For my money, there is already a fairly solid political party where principles are sometimes eschewed in the name of a broad base, a big tent, and a bigger enemy.  That is National, and realpolitik suggests National will always be where the power is and where change for the better in New Zealand has the best chance of coming from. 

ACT is never going to be able to do that.  ACT historically is first and foremost about principles, and that is what it should focus on - using those principles to come up with fresh policy ideas, and sticking to them, with a handful of MPs to act as their advocates and influence the politics of the day.  That is what ACT does best, and what ACT's ideal role is.

Loss Leader Liquor

It does seem like there's been quite a glut of supermarket wine sales recently.  I'm in an odd position on loss leader liquor, because despite liking cheap, good quality alcohol, the excessive discounting pisses me off.  Why?  Because I know that supermarkets make all their margins on the produce departments.  Things that are actually good for you, like vegetables and meat, are priced at a premium, while things that are indulgences, like chips, wine and chocolate, are knocked down to below cost.  The "child obesity problem", inasmuch as it exists?  Look no further.  Why pay five bucks for a bag of mandarins when a block of Cadbury's finest is selling for $2.99?

Loss leading on alcohol and junk food is immoral as far as I am concerned.  I mean, hell, if Foodtown is going to beg me to take their Jacobs Creek Shiraz for $6.99, who am I to demur? but I'd sooner pay ten bucks and pick up a swag of loss leading Golden Kiwifruit with it.

Maybe Progressive and Foodstuffs will now start loss leading on healthy products, but I won't be holding my breath.  I won't be holding my breath for Labour and the Liquor Licensing Authority to stop playing Nanny either.

Faith in Supercity Restored

...by the PSA!

If ever there was a time where I started listening to some of these objectivist types screaming hysterically that the Supercity was going to make for more bureaucracy and control, the PSA has stopped those thoughts in their tracks comprehensively.

"PSA national secretary Richard Wagstaff said: "We're concerned that Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has stated that the transition agency will be responsible for the 'rationalisation' of Auckland's new government arrangements.

"That sounds to us like the agency will begin cutting local government staff in Auckland."

Isn't that awesome? Good news for the region's ratepayers!

Artifacts

My grandmother's old National Party membership receipt:

Mulholland Drive Sides With Lefties!

A Justice Ministry proposal to slash jobs has been condemned by the Public Service Association.

I'm with the PSA.  Justice is the only legitimate role of government, and it is already underfunded.  It's the only government department which should be getting bigger.

Having the axe fall on Inland Revenue is one thing, but the justice system deserves better than this.  Let's find our savings elsewhere.

That's How We Roll

Labour gets it:

Mr Goff said the proposals looked like a "jack-up" between National, ACT, Auckland City Mayor John Banks and a "small but powerful business elite".

Well duh.  Of course it's a jackup.  The more "local democracy" you have, the more opportunity for busybodies and little Hitlers to seize the reins of power.  These people are invariably authoritarians and leftists, and they get in because not enough attention is paid to the election of what are considered to be minor positions.  How do you think the Student Unions elect communist executives all the time?

Auckland is a Centre Right town, simple as that.  The present system has allowed leftie scumbags to run things against the political leanings of the majority of Auckland residents.  Well let's put a stop to that shit right now.  Labour and the Left are screaming and crying about this because they know if the proposed changes go through they will never run any part of Auckland again - the voters will never allow it.  They know that in an Auckland-wide campaign they have neither the money, nor the people, nor the policies to ensure victory.

So yeah, it's a jackup, bitch.  That's how we roll in the big city.

The Fun Police

The Law Commission has decided that, despite years and years of raising taxes on alcohol failing to stop people drinking it, maybe we're just not taxing it hard enough.

They have decided that, despite nobody dying from young drivers having one beer before getting behind the wheel, maybe such indulgences should be made illegal.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the man responsible for the Treaty Industry (TM), has also complained he doesn't understand why a pub should be open at 6am.  I would put it to him that if he doesn't understand, he should not prevent people who do from buying a martini at that time.

Why should the government stop restricting alcohol sales?  Because alcohol is fun.  Because people enjoy it, most of the time responsibly.  Because I like it and want to buy it.  That should really be all the argument anybody ever needs.

Celebrities Say the Darndest Things

Jackie Chan has had some sort of frontal lobotomy to be making these sorts of comments:

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said. "I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."

Chan added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

Imagine being able to do anything you want!  Unacceptable!

Not Up For Selection

Contrary to what may have been reported, my name is not going forward for selection as the National Party candidate for Mt Albert.  It would have been fun, but not this time.  However, National have my wholehearted support to take the seat, and I hope to help where I can.

What I will say is that I really am beyond caring what anybody thinks of my party memberships, past or present.  Political parties are not gangs, they are just brands.  I will utilize any brand I damned well please to fight for good policies for New Zealand.  Because those goals remain unchanged.

Midwife Madness

I have to say that before I "got pregnant", I did not know what a midwife was at all.  I had heard the term, but that was about it.  I guess I assumed they were some sort of glorified maternity nurse.

Now that I have discovered what a midwife is I am appalled.

Seriously folks, we are talking about one of the most stressful and dangerous times in a woman's life and instead of using a medical professional, most women get stuck with a mafia cabal of sandal-wearing amateurs.  When looking for a Lead Maternity Carer in our local area, we were given a list of providers.  Out of several dozen names, TWO had the title "Doctor" in front of their name.  (By the way, if you need an LMC in Central Auckland, Dr Andrew Wong has a clinic on K Road and is awesome).  Worse, when we found out that twins were on the way, we could not see a public specialist without making an appointment with a midwife first.

The story on tonight's 20/20 shows the tragic consequences of letting loose amateurs on a complicated birth.  Who are these women?  Why are they being put in charge of our wives and partners during such an important event?  And how come in this specific instance they can botch things up so badly, ruining this poor couple's lives in the process, yet not only remain immune to financial responsibility, but STILL BE PRACTICING THEIR VILE TRADE?!!!!

Introducing profit motives into healthcare in this country is no longer an intellectual exercise for me.  I have now seen the system up close and personal, and not only is reform non-negotiable, it is an urgent case of life and death for many.  If doctors could set and charge their own prices for being an LMC, and if women were given the right to sue for medical malpractice in New Zealand, midwives would not exist.  Doctors would be climbing over each other to deliver babies instead of running away from pregnancy like it is a plague.  Midwives, you see, are entirely a product of a socialised healthcare system, a system which is failing women badly.  And for my part I'll be damned if I let one near my partner's delivery without a professional present and monitoring it.

Dear Tangata Whenua,

From all the news reports I've been hearing lately, it seems as though some of you are confused as to your right to representation in Auckland politics.  Some of you are calling not only for special seats on the new Council reserved for Maori, but also an unelected Councillor representing local Iwi.  You seem to believe, incorrectly, that Maori are not allowed to serve as Councillors.

I am happy to report that this is not the case!  You've been able to be represented the whole time!

It's easy to get Maori representation on the new Council.  When the time comes, just visit the Auckland Council website and download a nomination form, just like this one.  Fill it out, drop it off, run a campaign on issues people care about, and you should have no problem getting yourself, or someone similarly swarthy, a seat at the table.

It really is a shame nobody thought of this before, since some of you are planning to go out and march on the streets about it.  Sounds like a lot of effort to me, when you could just put your name forward and get elected instead, no?

I honestly don't know who all these racist bigots are who are telling you you aren't capable of getting votes.  That Harawira bloke sounds a lot like one of those chaps from the National Front - always trying to put the bros down.  Funny name, what is that, Italian?  Exactly why we need some Maori politicians instead of these dickheads telling you that you can't do stuff.

Well I hope we've cleared that up.  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.

How Can You Tell a Planeload of Objectivists Has Landed?

You can still hear the whining after they cut the engine.  In this case, Greater Auckland has landed and the whining continues.

They completely miss the point of the Greater Auckland reforms.  We were never going to get a situation where the local councils were abolished and all their services were contracted out privately.  So if they expected that (and for some bizarre reason, they are acting as if they did) they were always going to be disappointed.

Let me spell this out for you:  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.

At the moment, the bulk of the councils are controlled by these busybodies and leftists.  Anybody who wanks on about "local representation" - this is what it is code for - little Hitlers with their own patch trying to maintain their power over the local sandpit.  The Greater Auckland reforms will eliminate these people forever - banishing them to local boards where they will still have input, but it can be filtered by a Council that has to take the whole city's interests into account.

At the risk of letting the cat out of the bag and giving the Left a stick to beat us with, these reforms are squarely aimed at so-called "centre-right" dominance of the Auckland region.  The inclusion of wide tracts of National-voting rural areas was no mistake.  Nor was the plan to have eight at-large councillors, a strategy which will see a more obvious contest between big tickets take place with debates on the direction of Auckland as a whole rather than simply the interests of a local ward.  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.

The end result will be one where the whole Auckland region will be ruled by a council not dissimilar to Auckland City's at present - one where rates rises are kept at a minimum and spending is capped.  Prudent management of this nature will ensure movement towards less government and more freedom for everyone in the region, something which I would have thought Owen McShane would approve of instead of pulling out Godwins Law on the proposal.

Parole Board Bigotry

So John Barlow has an "innappropriate" attitude towards guns?  WTF?!

John Barlow is a murderer.  He should have to pay reparations to the Thomas family for the rest of his life, and failing that, he should be punished in some way.  For now, I'm not going to pass judgement on whether he should be let out of prison or not, but it seems ridiculous to keep him there because he happens to believe that people should be allowed to own guns as a self defence measure.  If that was the sole reason for locking him up, you can lock me and my Texan spouse up too.  There's nothing wrong with guns, except when you use them to murder people like John Barlow did.

Ashamed to Be a New Zealander IV

Three weeks ago I let Vodafone know that I was moving.  They told me that my internet would be connected the following Monday.

Monday came and went and still no internet.  I rang up and asked what the problem was.  I got apologies, a month's free internet and a promise it would be on the following Monday.

The following Monday came and still no internet.  I rang up and asked WTF was going on?!  I was told it had been installed and there must be a problem with my modem.  After all manner of fiddling about with it, we concluded the modem was fine and that there was a fault with the installation.

On Thursday I was texted and told that there was "no capacity at the exchange".  I was not entirely sure what this meant, so I rang up, and guess what?  They are all out of Broadband in Whangaparaoa!  I am now in the queue, like some pre-capitalist Eastern European peasant lining up for a loaf of bread, in the hope that enough people in Whangaparaoa will cancel their account and allow me to join modern civilisation.

I am just horrified.  This is third world North Korean stuff.  And all because the politicians, in their infinite wisdom, decided they were going to steal Telecom's property and "unbundle" it.  Newsflash:  If telecommunications companies think someone is going to steal their networks, they won't build any more of them!  It's really simple.  Now we are stuck with waiting for the government to waste my tax money building something that every private interest is now too scared to.

So I am stuck blogging from my Mother's computer, and from the free ones at the Whangaparaoa Library.  Thanks big government!   Arseholes.

Ashamed to Be a New Zealander Part III

Our Xenophobic Government
Okay, so we are in the middle of a recession, and instead of rewarding hard work and productivity we are demanding employers get rid of the conscientious foreign workers and rehire the lazy Kiwi ones.  What.  Bull.  Shit.

This is disgusting, racist and shameful.  The employer has kept his hardest working and most productive employees.  He has laid off the slackarses who were bankrupting him.  How dare the government punish him?!

We need more migrant workers in a recession, not less.  These people will work harder, they will make us more money, and they will increase profits.  Those profits will drive a recovery.  Handicapping businesses by forcing them to hire lazy Kiwis will just make the recession worse.

Home Taping is Killing Music

When Roger Shepherd started Flying Nun Records, independent releases in New Zealand were a rare occurence.  The major labels controlled what music was heard and how you heard it.

Now music has moved on again.  Almost anybody can spend a few hundred dollars, set up a home studio on their computer, and put the results online for the whole world to hear.  Record companies have become completely redundant, reduced to glorified marketing and distribution firms.

This makes Roger Shepherd grumpy.  To which I say, "tough shit, Roger".

It always used to amuse me that in an industry where very few of the artists ever made money anyway, there was a free glossy music magazine called New Zealand Music, entirely funded by the music industry.  Someone was making money out of music, but it wasn't the artists.

Now the balance has shifted away from leeches like Shepherd and back to the people who make music, and the people who pay to hear it.  That is the market in action.  Good riddance to the middle men.  Now that is not to say that intellectual property should not be protected, but there are ways and means of doing it that don't involve draconian suspensions of the Magna Carta.  Record companies represent an outdated model of music-making, so they should be the last people consulted.  They are modern day luddites protecting a sunset industry.

Shepherd was an innovator in his time.  It is sad to see him railing against technology to protect his patch today.

At Least Prostitutes Get Paid

I've been dismayed, although unsurprised at how unwilling many supporters of ACT are to rock the boat on the Gang Insignia issue.

Government is about compromise, so they say.  We can't be ideologues, we can't be too dogmatic, so they say.  It's not practical to stand on principle, they say.

All this assumes that ACT's support of the Gang Insignia Bill is a compromise.  It is not.  It is a capitulation.  It is greasing in exchange for hopes built on sandcastles and rainbows.  It does not even guarantee anything.  What is ACT going against its principles to receive?!

Let me explain the difference between compromise and capitulation for some of those bloggers who are a bit slow.  A compromise for ACT would be to lower taxes less than you wanted to, or to raise one tax to offset the other, or to retain state ownership of an asset, but reform it, or to retain parole but with longer sentences.  Something like that.  It's where you get less than you like, but you still move towards where you want to go.  I obviously recognise that this is necessary when a party is part of the Government.  I support compromises on policy if that is what it takes.

But not this time.  The Gang Insignia Bill does not offset anything.  We don't get more freedom elsewhere in exchange.  We lose it.  It's draconian legislation that will not hurt the people it is supposed to target, but has the potential to drastically curtail the civil liberties of anyone disliked by the powers that be.  It is fascist.

Let's assume this capitulation even does what the MPs say it does, and guarantees support for three strikes.  (It doesn't of course, it will make no difference to the select committee hearings, and National supports similar reforms anyway)  I want ACT supporters to think, really think, about how badly they want this three strikes law.  Would you nationalise a bank for three strikes?  Would you bring back export subsidies for three strikes?  Would you introduce a capital gains tax for three strikes?  How far would you be prepared to go?  Don't tell me that any of this stuff is "just the reality of government", because that's bullshit.  ACT gets five votes in parliament because 3.5% of the population decided they did NOT want National representing them.  Why pretend otherwise?

EVEN IF turning New Zealand into a socialist state and nationalising the means of production was what the three strikes bill was worth, it's still a fucking stupid thing for the ACT MPs to do.  Why?  Because it shows that ACT principles mean nothing.  It shows National that ACT can be bought and no price is too high.  It gives ACT no leverage for its objectives.  National now knows that ACT are on side with any crazy bullshit they want to implement, that their votes can be counted on in parliament, that Rodney and Heather have been satiated by their baubles, and that ACT can otherwise be ignored.

It was a lame, gay, stupid thing to do.  We're here to make New Zealand a freer society, and we can compromise on that as long as we are working towards that goal, but not if we are moving New Zealand in the other direction.  No bill, no Government Ministry, no balance of power is worth that, and if supporting the Gang Insignia Bill is something that an ACT supporter thinks worthwhile for any reason, they are in the wrong party.

Finally, a message to the five ACT MPs.  Chester Borrows did not vote for you.  I did.  Think about that when you sit on the next reading of this Bill.

Dirty Deals Done Dirt Cheap

It appears that National and ACT have done a grubby little quid pro quo over banning gang insignia and the three strikes law.

Let me say first of all that I am, by and large, a consequentialist on these matters.  For example, I disagree with School Vouchers, but I see that system as an improvement on the Soviet education system we have now.  I disagree with all tax, but I would rather raise GST if it meant getting rid of income tax. 

What I would never do, however, is vote for something I knew was wrong in order to get through something else unconnected that I thought was right.  That's just an unacceptable breach of principle.  I'd rather have no laws change at all.  And while the consequences might ensure that the law I wanted passes (and in this case, lives of innocent victims are saved), in the long run my credibility is damaged, and I may not be able to get further changes enacted.

That is what has happened, and what will happen,  in this case.  In making such a deal, ACT have shot themselves in the foot quite drastically.  They have pissed off their own activists, made themselves look opportunistic to the public, assented to a ridiculous law that could well be used against us by an unscrupulous Labour regime in the future, and missed an opportunity to distinguish themselves from National, something that is vital to their survival.  And the reality is that such a deal is not necessary.  We have a C&S agreement with National on the Three Strikes Bill.  We do not have an agreement on "gang insignia" (whatever that is).  National has to send ACT's bill to committee or ACT leaves the Government.  And if National vote against it, they will need a good reason or wear the consequences politically.  It is not ACT's responsibility to prop up National at the expense of our own dignity and principles.

ACT needs to stand up for itself on issues like this over the next two and a half years, or it simply will not survive, let alone be in government again.  All other junior partners in New Zealand government have failed after one term.  If ACT continue to behave like this then they will become yet another failure.

UPDATE:  Some good commentary on this subject from Lindsay Mitchell, TUMEKE, and (gasp!) The Standard.  There is a dialogue on Lindsay's post with David Garrett, while Tane at the Standard rightly points out that it was exactly these sort of grubby deals that ACT was criticising Winston for!  That's an angle I hadn't thought of, and one which makes my view of the situation even dimmer.

The Kiss That Sealed the Vows

No, I didn't slip in the tongue.

ACT Shits on Freedom of Expression

Well this is bullshit.  ACT has spent the last three years vehemently opposed to the ludicruous idea of "banning gangs" and banning "gang patches".  And yet suddenly ACT are now voting to do just that!!!!  We now have an ACT MP talking about covering up "intimidating" tattoos.  WTF is an intimidating tattoo?!  How Nazi is that?

Who are these people?  I sure as hell didn't vote for this u-turn on something I thought was a basic principle of the ACT Party.  All I can figure is that they are doing it so as not to embarrass National.  WELL THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB!  Your job is to stand up for what you have been saying for the last three years and vote against draconian legislation that takes away people's human rights.  Your job is to stand up for freedom and individual responsibility as specified in the founding principles of the Party.  And if you don't start doing it, this upcoming conference is going to be very embarassing for you.  I can guarantee it.

National Walks the Walk

Once again it is the National Party that advances the rights of Maori, despite polling only 5%-10% among New Zealanders of native descent.

Repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act will remove a shameful blight on our nation's history, where even in the 21st Century, the Crown still saw fit to confiscate Maori land.  National is now being true to its founding principles in affording the same property rights to Maori that it affords other New Zealanders.  It is continuing a long heritage of real gains for Maori, starting back in the 1920s with Gordon Coates and Sir Apirana Ngata and their efforts to compensate Iwi for confiscated lands, continuing with the Holyoake government's anti-discrimination laws, and Sir Douglas Graham's treaty settlements.  Labour have no comparable record - the Waitangi Tribunal was set up only after a massive protest led by Dame Whina Cooper.  For all the support they have received from Maori, Labour have nothing to show.

It is this history that even someone like Hone Harawira can recognise - and now the Maori Party can rightly justify their support of the current Government.  It seems only fair that voters will repay them in kind.

The next question is:  Will Labour vote to abolish their own law?  It will be interesting to see the mea culpas on this one!

David Garrett is Right

If the Bill of Rights conflicts with our ability to provide an appropriate deterrent to crime and to keep innocent people safe from violence being used against them, then the Bill of Rights is wrong.  We should change it.

The whole point of giving people rights is to protect their person and property.  Not to protect people who do damage to others.

You would think he'd suggested we bring back flogging the way some people have been carrying on.  It's a nonsense.  The Bill of Rights is not holy writ.  I've never thought it particularly useful in defining what a constitution should consist of in this country.  And frankly, this is just Ben Thomas waving his dick around Chris Finlayson's office a bit, and nobody should take this opinion seriously.

The three strikes law will work.  It will make law-abiding New Zealanders safer.  It does not constitute unduly harsh punishment for repeat offenders.  In fact, they can have all the colour television, cooked breakfast and conjugal visits they like in there, just keep them away from me and my family.  That's the whole idea.  It's not about punishment for them, it's about safety for me.  Liberal handwringing on this issue is unacceptable.

Float It!

TVNZ is in trouble.  The last thing the government needs is another millstone around its neck.

Why doesn't the government float it and do a share distribution, in a similar way to what has happened with some of the power companies?  It would mean they still honour their pledge not to sell assets.  I could decide for myself whether TVNZ was worth me owning (Answer:  Definitely not!).

For anyone who thinks that this will mean the end of quality public service television, they should STFU and tune into Triangle - privately owned, not-for-profit, and does a way better job than the station that's supposed to be looking after those interests.  Amazing how the private sector does these things better... or is it?

Good God I Feel Like a Liberal

It's a long hard revolution.  But it looks like rendition is suddenly A-okay now that it's done by a Democrat.

"Well gee", sez Obama, "how else are we going to fight terrorism if we shut down Gitmo?"  It's a very good question.  Well, why don't we go back to 1297 and ask King John what he thinks of that hmmm?

"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."

Clever guy that John bloke.  Matter of fact, that would be the whole underpinning basis of Western Civilisation.  That's what separates people like you and me from the terrorists we fight.

Or at least it used to be, until Obushma came along.

(oh yes, I just went there!)

Controversial My Arse

Well, the RMA amendments have been revealed, and true to form, Nick Smith has made a complete ballsup of them.

Kiwiblog reports that they will:

• enable local councils to make planning changes more quickly (currently takes six years on average)
• prevent companies using the law to stymie competition from rival firms
• no change to the environmental purposes of the act
• major projects could now be heard by a board of inquiry headed by an Environment Court judge or a retired judge
• local bodies could nominate people also to serve on the board
• limit the number of appeals that go further up the track
• increase the power of the courts to be able to ping players that have abused the RMA process
• maximum fine for breaches of RMA to increase from $200,000 to several million probably

"In summary it is not about changing what projects get consent, just about speeding up the process which is insanely long at the moment."

There is no increase in property rights of citizens in this bill whatsoever.  It's all about tinkering with the bureaucracy involved so that land owners get screwed faster.  And if you dare exercise your property rights, you'll be hit even harder!  It's garbage.

I can't see how ACT could support this bill beyond committee stage in its current form.

The problem with the RMA was always the principles of the Act - that your property was not yours to do with as you liked, but to be "planned" with by government.  That principle will not change one iota with this bill.  It's the developments that need to be made easier, not the processes!

No National supporter should pretend they are happy with these changes.

Where Are the Dissenting Voices?

It's disturbing that almost nobody in the MSM is daring to question the wisdom of dropping the Reserve Bank's OCR so low.  We are left with a few sensible people on the blogs to point out the madness of it all.

Brian Fallow, for example, clearly needs to get a clue:

"Today's cut means governor Alan Bollard has slashed the official cash rate by an emphatic 4 percentage points in just three months.

Such bold steps leave you wondering whether to be relieved that they have been taken or alarmed that they are necessary. Both reactions are appropriate."

Firstly, there is nothing "bold" about what Bollard has done.  It is the easy option.  Bollard has made a mockery of the Reserve Bank Act from day one, and any sensible Finance Minister would have fired his arse a long time ago.  This is not the actions of a man who wants to control inflation (which I think might be somewhere in his job description), but someone who wants to be popular - "Free money for everyone!".  Even when we had the highest rate in the OECD, inflation was still running at 5%, betraying his timidity.  BOLLARD SHOULD BE FIRED - that is all there is to it.

As for Fallow, what planet is he on?  Why the "relief"?  These drastic rate cuts are going to send our economy even further down the toilet.  As in the 1930s, a market correction is now being turned into a full-scale depression by foolish politicians and idiot Reserve Bank governors.

Let's state it simply, once again - this crisis was started by the false economy of cheap credit.  How is it going to be solved by even more cheap credit?  You don't keep the wolf from the door by continuing to feed it.

Prediction:  World economies will amble on like this for a few more years, and then we will have a second collapse that will really fuck us.  Then, maybe if we're lucky, Milton Friedman might come back into vogue, and Keynes will be given the arse, as he should be.

No More Bush

Watching Obama's inauguration, in sharp contrast to most of the people I saw on screen, was something I did with a sense of resignation and despair. 

I find myself rather indifferent to Obama himself.  He's just a dude.  And really, that's all I can find, good or bad, to say about him.  It's probably more words than he deserves really - English places limits on the brevity of what one can say.  What got elected wasn't really this particular individual at all, but some sort of Wonkaesque factory of Hopes and Dreams (TM).  I guess we are about to find out if Hopes and Dreams, goodwill and Fluffy Bunny Rabbits can run a country.

It's also pertinent to recall that we've been here before - in 1977, when that great personification of Hope, James Earl Carter III took the oath of office after the term of another very unpopular President.  Four years later Reagan kicked his arse all over the continent.

The most depressing thing of all is that this is far from Change - it really is more of the same.  Same old big spending bureaucratic government, same old tired Keynsian economics, same old stupid belief that liberty comes from someone taking your money and telling you how it should be spent.  When I looked at Obama on the rostrum this morning, all I saw was another guy who thinks he knows better than me.

At least Bush is gone.  Are there really people who are going to defend Bush after the last eight years?  Bush's legacy has been to destroy small government Republicanism for a generation.  He oversaw massive increases in government spending and government powers.  He used the resolve generated by 9/11 to engage in an unnecessary war which, while it liberated the Iraqi people, damaged the liberty and reputation of America.  He has left his own party in tatters, caught between extreme fundies and wishy-washy centrists, neither of whom can capture the imagination of Joe American, and forced the exposure of Palin well before she was ready.  Bush could have been a great President, and yet he squandered all his opportunities, and ruled against his own rhetoric, his own platform, his own heritage, and the hopes and dreams of those who elected him.  He takes his place with Carter and Truman as one of the worst Presidents ever.

So forgive me if I'm not one of those millions of cheering idiots who showed up at the Mall to herald proceedings.  We had an awful American President before and we have a mediocre one now.

I'll leave you with a conversation snippet between my American fiancee and I this morning while watching proceedings:

MILF:  (Rubs pregnant belly)  See babies?  You're going to be citizens of the greatest country on earth!
ME:  Yeah, and they'll be American citizens too!

UPDATE:  Allright!  Allright!  Historic moment... blah blah blah... God bless America, here ya go:

The Low Inflation Mirage

There's a select few of us out there who actually understand economics, and know what a disaster the Keynsian model has been throughout the last 80 years.  Unfortunately, none of us are actually in charge right now.

That's why you get stupid articles like this one.

The drop in inflation is based entirely on the collapse of petrol prices - a factor outside of the Reserve Bank's control.  Had oil not suddenly halved in value, inflation would have increased by 1% instead of dropping by 2%.  And it increased because dumbarse Bollard, cheered on by the dumbarse media, continues to flout his employment contract and dropped the OCR.  The drop collapsed investment in this country, which collapsed our dollar, which made everything imported into this country suddenly a shedload more expensive.

Inflation is nasty.  Inflation impoverishes people, empowers the moneylenders, and yes, widens the gap between rich and poor.  And not in a good way.  Dropping the rate further when food and commodity prices are rising only leads one way, and that is the way to poverty.

If we'd stood out amongst all the Western nations firing up the printing presses and held firm on the OCR, we would be weathering the storm right now.  New Zealand would have been a safe haven for those looking for financial refuge.  And we'd be halfway to an economic recovery.  But no, it's like the lessons of the last eighty years never happened and we're all spiraling right back down.

People Like to Say Salsa!

My TPOA will tell anyone who cares to listen how awful New Zealand store-bought salsa is by comparison to what is available in America.  Hitherto NZ salsa was the only variety I had eaten, but I have to say that, having made the homemade stuff, there is no comparison.  Authentic Texan salsa is the way to go.  Note that it has to be made with jalapenos (you can find jars of them in the Mexican section of the supermarket) - there is no substitute.  Chillis will not do.

Here's my own adapted salsa recipe:

Blair's Texas Salsa

You will need:

One Can of Tomatoes
Two Vine Tomatoes
Two Red Capsicums
One Onion
Three Cloves of Garlic, chopped
One and a Half Teaspoons of Salt
Quarter of a Cup of Malt Vinegar
One Coriander Potplant
Several Slices of Jalapeno (five is a good number, it's raunchy without burning your mouth out)

Puree the can of tomatoes, the jalapeno slices, the garlic,one of the capsicums, half the onion and half the coriander in a blender with the salt and vinegar.

Finely dice the two vine tomatoes along with the remaining capsicum, onion and coriander, and stir into the puree.  Refrigerate overnight to mature the salsa.

Serve with unflavoured corn chips, or anything else you feel needs a bit of a kick.  Bueno!

Buy Kiwi Made Suspended

An excellent decision from Gerry Brownlee.

The Buy Kiwi Made campaign was a ridiculous waste of money, and was based on poor misguided theories of economics.  Economies grow not through nationalism, but by raising productivity.  You raise productivity by taking resources out of industries that are inefficient, and putting it into industries that are.  New Zealanders are great at farming sheep, and the Japanese are very good at making electronic gear.  The Japanese are crap at farming sheep, and New Zealanders are awful at making electronic consumer goods.  So why would the New Zealand economy benefit from being encouraged to manufacture and buy more tv sets, when those resources are better off being used to supply the world with wool and lamb roasts?

We need to trade with the world.  We need to figure out things we do well, sell that stuff to the rest of the world, encourage investment here, and then use that money to buy what the rest of the world makes better than us.  None of this autarkic bullshit that Sue Bradford has foisted on us for so long.

Stupid Retarded Deluded Lying Leftist Morons

Yeah, fuck the poor, fuck the farmers, let's just destroy our economy so Russia can afford to arrest a few more journalists.

You have to love the veneration of Obama by these deranged people.  Newsflash fools, Obama is about as hollow a hollow man as a politician can be.  Would Obama ever be so stupid and ignorant as to send an ETS like New Zealand's one to Congress?  No, you dumbfucks, never in a million years.

Questions for you retards:

1.  How much has the global mean temperature risen since 1998?  How much?  Give me a number.  Why can't you give me a number you retarded fools?  If the science is so fucking settled, then surely it can be quantified.  Give me a figure on the rise over the past fifty years even.

2.  Do you acknowledge that there was a mini-ice age during the reformation period?  Do you acknowledge that temperatures were much warmer during the middle ages than they are now?  What is it about modern man that renders us so incapable of adapting to climate change by comparison to our forebears?

3.  What are all these horrible things that climate change is supposed to bring anyway?  Since when has weather been such a problem for resourceful human beings?

4.  Who are you to question a qualified environmental scientist like Rodney Hide?  Yes, that's a fallacious argument, but no more fallacious than relying on the IPCC and whatever other government-funded bureaucracy telling politicians what they want to hear.  Science settled my arse.

5.  Assuming all your worse nightmares come true, HOW THE FUCK is an Emissions Trading Scheme in a pissy country of four million people supposed to stop all this?  No it does not give us any fucking political leverage you naive morons.  "Hey, look!  We impoverished ourselves!  You should too!"

6.  Do you really still believe all that horseshit about CO2 causing climate change, even though all that crap Al Gore spouted in his movie has been completely debunked, and CO2 levels have been shown to follow rises and falls in global temperatures?

It's time to stop all this crap.

Lefties, your stupid fucking religion disgusts me and if you want to destroy livelihoods and send the world back to the stone age you will get a bullet before I will allow it to happen.  Take your fucking manbearpig scare stories and piss off back to the caves.

Mulholland Drive Debates the New Social Development Minister's Kite-Flying

Stealing from people with no kids to pay for those who choose to have kids is wrong.

Any questions?

Good.  STFU then.

PS:  Bob McCroskrie, like a stopped clock, is right for once.  The only way out of this Working For Families nonsense that doesn't piss people off will be income splitting.  The new government should implement it.

PPS:  I do like the fact that Paula Bennett is not prepared to crap all over DPB recipients.  You will never hear me do that either - in fact, it pisses me off when some of my brethren in the ACT Party do it.  People all want the best for themselves and their families, and they follow the incentives.  If government makes it such that it is more profitable to be on a benefit, then that's how people will conduct themselves.  Nobody should be mad at people on benefits.  Be mad at the people who dole them out, and the people who steal from the productive to fund those benefits.

The Elephant and Donkey in the Room

I'm pretty philosophical about the US election.

I would prefer McCain to be the President, given the choice.  Especially for New Zealand's sake - there is no better advocate on our behalf in Washington.  But frankly, he deserves to lose - while he had a good convention, his debating performance was mediocre, and he's just looked old and tired.  He's not done much to inspire the confidence required of a President.

The only point after the convention when McCain came back in the polls was right after the Palin Biden debate.  The media want you to believe she has been a terrible choice (it's Don Brash all over again), but I maintain that, while a little green, she was the best choice McCain could make.  What is obvious, however, is that her lack of foreign policy nous is much more than a hostile media's spin, but a glaring handicap to her aspirations.  When your staff don't even know who the French President is - and these people are supposedly immersed in politics - you can hardly expect this team to be fit for office should McCain buy the farm.  Prior to the phone prank, I would have backed her for a 2012 run, but it really has sunk her.  2012 will be all about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and "Is America ready for a vegetarian President?"

Which brings us to Barack.  As I commented elsewhere, it seems like Obama is the political equivalent of big tits - it doesn't matter what's going on above the neck, the public worldwide are too busy drooling at his cavernous young charismatic black man cleavage.  He strikes me as quite left wing, so I hope he doesn't turn into Kenyan Jimmah Cartuh.  If he models himself on Bill Clinton, who was, after all, the first black President, he will be a good thing for America.  Especially after eight years of Bush.

Should There Be Term Limits in New Zealand?

Thinking about New Zealand politics and the propensity for politicians of all stripes to outlive their usefulness, I am wondering if it is time we considered term limits for both MPs and ministerial warrants?

The US President may only serve for eight years, although in extraordinary circumstances a President could, in theory serve for almost ten years (or 9 years 364 days to be precise).  I think this is good practice.  Sometimes a President outlives his usefulness after only one term.  Think George W Bush, whom, had he lost, would probably be remembered far more fondly than he will doubtless be now.

Eight years seems like a good length of time.  I would like to see Ministerial warrants last for only eight years - after that, you can't be called upon again.  It seems obvious to me that after eight years as a Minister, whatever good ideas you might have would be all but exhausted.

So, for example:

• Helen Clark would have stopped being Prime Minister in 2004, Michael Cullen would have to stand down at the same time;
• Jenny Shipley would have only had one year on the job as PM before standing down in 1998;
• Jim Bolger would never have been Prime Minister, retiring in 1983.  Bill Birch would have relinquished his warrant in 1992;
• Roger Douglas would have been finished around the time he actually did finish - 1988;
• David Lange would not have been affected by the term limit;
• Rob Muldoon would have only been Prime Minister for three years until 1978;
• Jack Marshall would have shot his entire Ministerial load by National's 1957 defeat.  Ditto Keith Holyoake and Sid Holland.

Overall, NZ political history would be very different!  And very much for the better.

The other term limit should be for list MPs.  You serve nine years and then you go... unless you can win an electorate.  That seems fair to me.