"When a government becomes powerful, it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is an usurper which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance for votes with which to perpetuate itself." - Cicero
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force." - George Washington
"In all that people can do for themselves, the government ought not to interfere." - Abraham Lincoln
"The most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power." - John Stuart Mill
"The government's role is whatever the government defines it to be." - Helen Clark

Blogarama

Review Kiwi Pundit

< ? kiwi blogs # >







inHOUSE: Software development and services, web design, computer training, crystal reports, sql, business intelligence and reporting in Wellington, New Zealand

 
Citizens Juries

Three points about Citizens' Juries:

1. I am not interested in being told what I can and can't say by the government, so why would I give a shit if a bunch of random people tell me instead?

2. If you really believe they'll be randomly chosen, I have a bridge over Cook Strait you might be keen to invest in.

3. The government decides when to use a citizens' jury and how the process will work. They control what the jury hears and how it deliberates. Plus, if they don't like the outcome they can do it again with another citizens' jury until they get the right result and then stop. Just like the MMP referendum.

 
Mark Steyn on Global Warming

From the Telegraph:

In the past third of a century, the American economy has swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent. During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to destroy the planet.

Had America and Australia ratified Kyoto, and had the Europeans complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C - a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation. In return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion - and those are the US Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.

I'm still open to the possibility that CO2 emissions really do affect temperatures. But the evidence is nowhere near strong enough to justify us making big changes in our lifestyles. And the actual 'solutions' suggested so far, such as Kyoto, are sheer lunacy.

 
The Hobbit!!!!

Some good news for a change:

Peter Jackson has won the battle for Middle-earth and is to make The Hobbit.

The Oscar-winning Wellington film-maker and Hollywood studios New Line Cinema and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios announced today that they had resolved their legal dispute. Jackson and partner Fran Walsh will serve as executive producers on two Hobbit movies.

Pre-production will begin as soon as possible and both will be shot simultaneously, tentatively in 2009. The Hobbit is likely to be released in 2010 and the sequel in 2011.

Awesome. Really looking forward to it.

 
Sad day for democracy in New Zealand

I was in Parliament this afternoon for the final stages of the Electoral Finance Bill. The speeches from both sides were a bit weak, I thought. A lot of noise but not much substance. Rodney Hide's, in particular, was not up to his usual standard.

The core of the matter is how willing we should be to limit freedom of expression when people start using it in ways we find inconvenient. MPs and commentators have indicated their position on the liberal-totalitarian scale by their votes and comments. It's just sad that so many cannot recognise evil and resist it's temptation.

Peter Dunne reversed the position he has held up to now and voted against the bill. His conclusion was correct but his reasoning was not. Essentially, he likes the bill but thinks it will do more harm than good as the public are too stupid to recognise it's many benefits. More charitable summaries of his position are possible but I think mine is fair. Maybe people are still roasting him over his support for the anti-smacking law and he doesn't want to make the same mistake again.

Tim Shadbolt was there. There has been some suggestion that a campaign against the Southland Polytechnic funding cuts would be issue based, and therefore not illegal. This is incorrect. The part that has been cut out was s5(1)(a)(iii) which said:

taking a position on a proposition with which 1 or more parties or 1 or more candidates is associated

What remains, however, is s5(1)(a)(ii):

[can reasonably be regarded as] encouraging voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued ...

So the final version permits issue advocacy only to the extent that it doesn't encourage people to vote for or against any particular party. If Southland Polytechnic runs ads complaining about their funding being cut, any reader can figure out that the party in power is the one that did the cutting and, if they want the cuts reversed, they need to vote for someone else. If Shadbolt runs too many of them he's going to jail.

In the end, all election campaigning is about parties. Even if you are completely outside party politics and concerned only with a single issue, you can only advance that issue by getting people to vote for parties that agree with your position on the issue. So an effective election ad cannot just talk about the issue. It has to also make it clear where the parties stand on that issue. But as soon as you do that, you have a regulated election advertisement.

So the situation now is: if people can figure out what party or parties to vote for or against based on your issue ad, then the ad is caught by the bill. If they can't, your ad is of course quite ineffective for electioneering purposes. So, all election-related issue advocacy is still restricted.

 
The republican candidates are all shit

They always are. I'm just saying that they still are. But unlike the Democrats, they can be separated on policy. I'm just going to put this in a table. The last column is based entirely on my personal views so good includes supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage and partnerships, gun ownership, school choice, and tougher sentencing. Bad includes supporting restrictions on political campaigning, affirmative action, mixing of church and state, enviro-lunacy, and limits on legal immigration or excessive crackdowns on immigration.

Name		Economy		Defence		Civil Liberties
Giuliani		Good.		Good.		Mixed.
Huckabee		Bad.		Bad.		Bad.
McCain		Mostly Good.		Good.		Bad - sworn enemy of free speech. Above average on everything else.
Romney		Mediocre if he's telling the truth.		Mediocre if he's telling the truth.		Bad if he's telling the truth.
Thompson		Good.		Good.		Mostly bad.

I'm not looking at electability as virtue in its own right but this is limited to the viable candidates only so Ron Paul is out. Huckabee would of course be a fucking disaster but it's hard to choose between the other four.

Romney is the weakest of them. I don't mind that he's changed his position on lots of issues since he was elected governor of Massachusetts. The problem is, I don't know which of those changes are genuine and which are fake, and his current positions aren't that great anyway. On the plus side, he is the only one supporting free speech in election campaigns.

Thompson has the least political experience, but as with Obama, I regard that an asset rather than a flaw. It didn't hurt Lincoln and Washington. He is the one most likely to rise in my estimation as more information comes in.

If it wasn't for the law that bears his name, McCain would be an easy choice but I'm not sure his promotion of that law is forgivable under any circumstances.

Giuliani is the one I would most like to have a beer with but that's not much use as a test. Other than abortion he isn't as liberal on social issues as I first thought.

At the moment I think I prefer McCain though it's very close.

 
I like Barack Obama

There, I've said it. And it's not just because the others are worse, though they are horrible. Nor is it because he's the Democrat who is least likely to win a general election, though that's probably true as well. And it's certainly not because his policy positions are sensible, though they are no worse than those of the other Democrats.

Obama is a fundamentally honest, decent guy who plays hard but fair. Other than his fundamental lack of respect for individual liberty that is shared by all the viable candidates, he would make an excellent president. I think the US, like Australia, has reached a point where they need a few years of left-wing leadership to remind them why they usually vote for the right. When Obama's statist policies lead to bad outcomes, he won't be as willing or as capable as Clinton or Edwards at lying his way out of it. Essentially, I want Obama to win because I want to establish that elections in the US can be won by someone with Obama's approach to politics.

The terrorists would likely, but not certainly, get a reprieve under Obama and a chance to regroup. However, the war on terror will take decades to win and it cannot dictate everything that happens for that length of time. European countries seem to take delight in doing the opposite of whatever the US is doing, so maybe they will pick up some of the slack.

A final point in favour of Obama that should not be underestimated is that Paul Krugman doesn't like him.

 
Good News from Iraq

There has been lots of good news coming out of Iraq recently and it's summarised nicely by Tim Hames in The Times:

By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home.

A year ago it seemed as if American forces would have been withdrawn in ignominious fashion either well before the end of the Bush Administration or, at best, days after the next president came to office. This will not now happen. The self-evident success of the surge has obliged the Democrats to start talking about almost anything else and the calls to cut and run have abated. If the US Army remains in Iraq in strength, continuing on its present path, then deals on a constitution and the division of oil revenues between provinces will be realised.

Secondly, the aspiration that Iraq could be some sort of “beacon” in the region is no longer ridiculous. It will never be Sweden with beards, but there has been the development of a vibrant capitalist class and a media of a diversity that is unique in the region. Were Iraq to emerge with a federal political structure, regular local and national elections and an economic dynamism in which the many, not the few, could share, then it would be a model.

In fact, the entire post-Saddam period has been better overall than the dictatorship of Saddam and his thugs. The recent improvements are just the icing on the cake. It's probably too much to expect much praise for the US efforts in the media, so the fact that media coverage of Iraq has dropped off is a positive indicator of progress. If things continue to get better, look for Hillary Clinton to start taking credit for her vote in support of the invasion.

 
Inequality

One of the things I decided when I started this blog is that I wasn't going to blog about blogging. Too many blogs I otherwise enjoy do this. The stuff is boring and I skip right over it.

But I couldn't resist linking to this (via Paul at the Fundy Post). Here's the main highlight:

Inequality on the Web

There are about 1.1 billion Internet users, yet only 55 million users (5%) have weblogs according to Technorati. Worse, there are only 1.6 million postings per day; because some people post multiple times per day, only 0.1% of users post daily.

Blogs have even worse participation inequality than is evident in the 90-9-1 rule that characterizes most online communities.

The web is, in fact, almost a perfect meritocracy. Nobody needs to know your race, religion, gender, age or hair colour unless you choose to reveal it. There is no cost, qualification or other barriers to entry and (cross fingers) government regulation has so far been light.

Yet there is always someone who will cry about inequality and is just blind to the fact that inequality can arise from people being less capable than others, or making different choices.

Obviously those who can't afford a computer and internet connection are excluded, but the article is about active participants as a percentage of all internet users, not as a percentage of the population.

Paul's response is spot on:

Of course, this sort of thing is not a new problem. Participation in the High Renaissance was a constant worry for contemporary advocates of an inclusive and diverse society: research found that, in all Italian city states surveyed, less than one per cent of the population had completed a fresco in the previous twelve months; rates for the playing of the viola da gamba and the invention of flying machines also were disappointingly low; only such activities as kicking a pig's bladder around the streets, jew-baiting and fornication proved to have widespread popular appeal.

Nothing much has changed then.

 
Turning Homosexuality On and Off

Interesting new scientific developments:

What if you could take a drug that would quickly alter your sexual orientation from straight to gay, or vice versa?
To their surprise, neurobiologists have discovered that homosexuality can be turned on or off in fruit flies. They’d known that sexual orientation can be genetically programmed, but they didn’t realize it could also be altered by giving a drug that changes the way the flies’ sensory circuits react to pheromones.
Within hours of the treatment, previously heterosexual male fruit flies would be courting other males, and treatment could also cause flies who had been engaging in homosexual behavior to become exclusively heterosexual, the neurobiologists report in Nature Neuroscience. You can read a summary of it here from the University of Illinois at Chicago, the home of one of the researchers, David Featherstone.
“It was amazing,” Dr. Featherstone said. “I never thought we’d be able to do that sort of thing, because sexual orientation is supposed to be hard-wired. This fundamentally changes how we think about this behavior.”
I asked Dr. Featherstone if it might be possible one day to quickly alter humans’ sexual orientation. Here’s his answer:

Although I am not sure my research is a big step in this direction, I think that ultimately the answer will be: Yes. After all, the goal of neuroscience is a complete understanding of brain function. Understanding in science is typically demonstrated by the ability to control a process.

There is no ethical dilemma here: if scientists did develop a drug humans could use to change their sexual orientation, people should be free to use it or not as they choose.

What is interesting about this for me is that it highlights the folly of gay rights advocates using the argument that sexual orientation is something that individuals cannot control, like race or sex. Unlike race or sex, sexual orientation is a combination of genetics, environment and choice. The extent to which those three factors contribute is uncertain and can change over time.

There is only one valid argument for treating gays the same as everyone else. That is, provided there is no coercion, people's sexual preferences and practices are their own private business which other people, and especially the government, have no business interfering with. Attempting to base gay rights on any other foundation is a dangerous and unnecessary risk.

 
Maternity Services

Wellington hospital, especially the maternity unit, has come under attack after a woman went home five hours after giving birth and her baby tragically died later that night.

As it happens, Mrs Kiwi Pundit gave birth to our first child in the very same hospital five days earlier. Our experience couldn't have been more different. We did have a specialist rather than a midwife as our lead carer. Actually we had Dr John Tait, who is the Clinical Director of Womens Health at Wellington Hospital and has been quoted in the media in response to the above incident. There is no comparison between a midwife and a doctor of the quality of Dr Tait. It is fairly expensive to hire your own specialist, while a midwife is paid for by taxpayers, but if you can afford it there aren't too many more worthwhile things to spend your money on.

The care we received from the hospital midwives was also excellent. Our daughter was induced so we were in the delivery unit for four hours before contractions began and a further ten hours until the baby was born. The labour lasted eight hours and a midwife was by my wife's side for most of that time. We stayed almost two days after the birth with no hint from the hospital staff that we should go home. In fact, I got the impression they would have liked us to stay longer. Once we expressed a desire to go home, they got a pediatrician to check out the baby before we left. We've also had a midwife visiting the house every couple of days.

Back to the original issue, I am skeptical that there is cause and effect here except in the obvious sense that anyone is going to be treated faster if they are already in a hospital when a medical emergency occurs. If the baby is fine when born, the main reason to keep mothers in hospital after birth is to look after the health of the mother and ensure breast feeding is properly established. That is why first time mothers stay longer, not so much because the baby might stop breathing in the first couple of days after birth.

The other issue here is that district health boards don't run hospitals in the way that boards of directors run companies. With no control over pricing or staffing costs and only very limited control over what services are provided and how work is done, their management options are severely limited. The health boards are really just there to take the blame when things go wrong, while the major decisions are made by politicians and ministry bureaucrats.

 
Venezuela Watch

The effects of socialism in Venezuela are now so unmistakable that even the Guardian is reporting them without any ifs, buts or maybes.

Welcome to Venezuela, a booming economy with a difference. Food shortages are plaguing the country at the same time that oil revenues are driving a spending splurge on imported luxury goods, prompting criticism of President Hugo Chávez's socialist policies. Milk has all but vanished from shops. Distraught mothers ask how they are supposed to feed their infants. Many cafes and restaurants serve only black coffee.

Families say eggs and sugar are also a memory. "The last time I had them was September," said Marisol Perez, 51, a housewife in Petare, a sprawling barrio in eastern Caracas. When supplies do arrive long queues form instantly. Purchases are rationed and hands are stamped to prevent cheating. The sight of a milk truck reportedly prompted a near-riot last week.

Up to a quarter of staple food supplies have been disrupted, according to Datanalisis, a public opinion and economic research group. To Chávez's detractors the scarcity is evidence that his revolutionary "21st century socialism" is driving South America's oil power towards ruin. Government price controls on staple foods are so low that producers cannot make a profit, they say, and farms and businesses hesitate to invest in crops or machinery, or stockpile inventories, for fear of expropriations.

And here people are clamouring for the state to intervene to prevent investment in Fonterra.

 
Don't criticise until it's too late

Now Cullen is telling us we shouldn't criticise his bill suppressing political speech until we see the version reported back from the select committee.

By then it will be too late. Labour is determined to rush this through before Christmas so that opponents can't effectively attack their record during the election campaign. There is a convention that such legislation should not be enacted in an election year.

Incidentally, this highlights the error of the parties who supported the first reading of the bill 'so they could improve it'. We all got to analyse and submit on a bill that is quite different from the one that will be put before Parliament. The bill that becomes law will be one that the public has effectively never had an opportunity to submit on. If the minor parties had been united against the original bill it would have failed at the first reading, forcing a rewrite prior to the select committee stage, not after. That would have been a much better process.

 
Herald Bias

Is the Herald biased against Labour, at least on the editorial page? It's a reasonable question I suppose, though of course nobody accused the Human Rights Commission of mounting a campaign against the Labour government after they said essentially the same thing. Ockham's Razor would suggest that when criticisms are coming from just about everyone who doesn't directly benefit from Labour being re-elected, the best explanation is that the criticisms are true.

Anyway, searching for editorials on the Herald web site I get the following (the one line summaries and comments are mine):

13/11: There should be an open and rigorous public examination of the 'terror' evidence.
Analysis: neutral, though only the left seems to be upset about the evidence getting out.
12/11: Labour's law changes are oppressive and designed to protect incumbents
Analysis: right, assuming only the right places fairness above power
12/11: Canadians should not be allowed to invest in Auckland airport
Analysis: left, nationalist, state interference in markets, economically illiterate.
11/11: Fireworks should not be banned
Analysis: neutral, maybe slightly left as it contradicts Key's statement
11/11: Tax cuts are a good idea and we should have had them earlier
Analysis: right, especially since the editorial also points out Helen's lies about the advice from Treasury
10/11: Netball
9/11: Corrections letting murderer walk away from Wellington prison
Analysis: right, actually mostly neutral but I'm scoring it as right as he also attacks Annette King's excuses
8/11: Revised curriculum is 'impressive' and a 'catalyst for a smarter society'
Analysis: left, parrots mindless far-left dogma throughout. Even throws in a call for more teachers. No right-wing journalist would stand for reading and writing being sidelined to such an extent.
7/11: Proposed regulation of the real estate industry
Analysis: neutral, essentially descriptive and doesn't take a position on whether state regulation is the answer.
6/11: Tax cuts
Analysis: right, see above, same comments apply
5/11: Howard should have gone earlier
Analysis: left, an attack on Howard's policy not just strategy.

Out of eleven editorials, there are four right, three left and four neutral.

Hardly evidence of bias, and I somehow managed to pick a period without a single editorial pushing the global warming theory. The two tax cut ones could be read as an endorsement of Labour's proposed policy if they didn't focus on Clark's lies. Reporting on lies told by politicians really ought to be regarded non-partisan, and would be neutral in its actual effect if Labour Ministers would just start telling us the truth.

Conclusion: there's no bias on the editorial page based on this sample.

 
Charles Chauvel

I have only met Charles Chauvel once but my impression is the same as Cactus Kate's. Apart from being brown, gay and having union ties, he is also extremely intelligent, capable and has had a very successful career specializing in employment law. His views on the economy are still hard left and have not been affected, as often happens, by dealing with customers who have a choice as to whether they pay for the work he does.

In short, he is almost the perfect Labour MP. His only failing is his annoying belief that people should be promoted based on merit, not seniority, ability to spin, or willingness to prostrate themselves before Aunty Helen on a daily basis.

 
Herald Editorial Says It All

Today's front page:

When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.

...

In the face of near-universal condemnation, the bill should have been withdrawn. Instead it will be tweaked to dilute some of its worst features. But the attempt to restrict non-party participation in election discussion will remain.

Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour.

Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties, it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage - a bill to extend the law legalising the use of public money for political purposes that were ruled improper by the Auditor General after the last election.

The Clark Government's refusal to bow to public opinion on this subject beggars belief. It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information.

Now, having grudgingly repaid the public purse, they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again.

Strong words, but entirely justified.

 
Venezuela

Is it any wonder that developing countries end up with shitty governments? The decent governments eventually get voted out but the bad ones .make sure they never :

Gunmen opened fire on students returning from a march Wednesday in which 80,000 people denounced President Hugo Chavez's attempts to expand his power. At least eight people were injured, including one by gunfire, officials said.

The violence broke out after anti-Chavez demonstrators -- led by university students -- marched peacefully to the Supreme Court to protest constitutional changes that Venezuelans will consider in a December referendum.

The amendments would abolish presidential term limits, give the president control over the Central Bank and let him create new provinces governed by handpicked officials.

Since New Zealand is sliding down the economic ladder towards second world status, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that our left wing government is also messing with the electoral system to prevent its own demise.

 
Biofuels

This article has almost convinced me that biofuels are a good option. And it doesn't mention the possibility of improvements using genetic technology.

 
Cheating Offsets

From Marginal Revolution:

An innovative British firm, Cheat Neutral, now offers cheat offsetting:

At Cheatneutral, we believe that we should all try to reduce the amount we cheat on our partners, but we also realise that fidelity isn't always possible.

That's why we help you neutralise your cheating. Your actions are offset by a global network of fidelity, developed by us. By paying Cheatneutral, you're funding monogamy-boosting offset projects - we simply invest the money you give us in monogamous, faithful or just plain single people, to encourage them to stay that way.

Many people have already successfully used Cheat Neutral:

David cheated on his partner of ten years, Sebastian, with a younger man. He described for us what happened:

"Seb was so angry with me, I felt really bad about what I'd done. I came to Cheatneutral to offset the side effects of my cheating, and later on, Seb said the only reason he could forgive me was because I'd offset my cheating with Cheatneutral. Thanks to Cheatneutral, we're still together, I can feel good about my cheating, and I've helped to reduce global cheating as well! If I do cheat on Seb again, I'll definitely be calling Cheatneutral."

 
Busybodies everywhere

Taxpayer funded busybodies are everywhere. Now they're spying on us in public restrooms.

 
Medical science is as reliable as climate science

From last Thursday's Herald:

Obesity and inactivity are leading triggers for cancer, says an international report to be made public this afternoon. The report, by the World Cancer Research Fund, will re-shape cancer messages about food and underpin official advice for years to come.

And from today's Washington Post:

Being overweight boosts the risk of dying from diabetes and kidney disease but not cancer or heart disease, and carrying some extra pounds actually appears to protect against a host of other causes of death, federal researchers reported yesterday.

The counterintuitive findings, based on a detailed analysis of decades of government data about more than 39,000 Americans, supports the conclusions of a study the same group did two years ago that suggested the dangers of being overweight may be less dire than experts thought.

Maybe the UN should set up a committee to overstate the evidence for one side and disregard the evidence for the other side. By doing so, a 'scientific consensus' can be reached, thus settling the issue.

But seriously, the human race got where it is today through people taking part in lots of physical activity while eating whatever the hell they wanted or could get. That has to be the best bet, at least until the scientists sort their shit out.

 
Deja Vu

The Government's "reforms aimed at improving competition in the telecommunications market" consist of retaining a monopoly supplier but forcing them to charge a price determined by bureaucrats rather than by the market.

This kind of strategy has been tried before. It didn't work in the Soviet Union, it isn't working for our health system and it won't work for supply of broadband. High prices provide incentives for suppliers to produce more and for customers to seek substitutes, thus decreasing demand. Without price signals there is an absolute 100% guarantee there will be shortages, either in the form of reduced performance due to network overload or even people actually being denied connections.

Even Telecom's competitors are doubtful the regulations will work, as this story mentions.

There is a familiar pattern of the government imposing regulations that cause bsuinesses to struggle, then declaring "market failure" and using that to justify even more intervention. They did it with power companies and Air New Zealand, now they're doing it in telecommunications.

 
A tale of two poll results

In Australia, a lead of 54% to 46% is describe by the always objective print media as 'a crushing lead'.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, a lead of 51% to 39% is editorialised by parroting the Labour spin that Clark is "pleased to be holding support across recent polls at the levels on which it was elected in 1999". Some people might think it worth mentioning that Labour's coalition partner held the balance of power in 1999 but now no longer exists.

 
Proportional representation fiasco

Belgium has now been without a government for 150 days. Problems like this are bound to happen sooner or later under proportional representation. The only reason it hasn't happened yet in New Zealand is that the parties holding the balance of power are so unprincipled and self-interested they have been bought off with baubles each time. But that won't always be the case.

It's already close to impossible for new list-based parties to enter Parliament and the proposed changes to funding rules will have the effect of making it even harder. At some point, possibly as early as next year, we'll reach a point where only National, Labour and the Maori Party will have seats. If the Maori party had the balance of power, what are the chances of either major party being willing to meet their demands? Not high, I would suggest.

 
Academics talk some real crap sometimes

This is the latest example.

Scientists say the human brain is "hard-wired" in a way that makes belief in God help addicts to overcome their addictions. Psychiatry Professor Doug Sellman and colleagues at Otago University's National Addiction Centre have joined theologian Lloyd Geering to argue that breaking an addiction requires a "higher power" than most addicts can summon by themselves.

They said yesterday that belief in an ideal imbued with spiritual meaning was "a universal human trait found in every human society throughout recorded time". Dr Sellman said it was the same trait that allowed human beings, unlike other animals, to "imagine what is over the mountain".

Atheists can imagine just like anyone else. I can imagine there is a river of chocolate on the other side of the mountain but reason, evidence and science tell me it won't really be there. The same applies to God and other myths and fantasies.

Addiction is almost entirely explained by a willingness to accept long term costs in exchange for lesser short term benefits. This is done entirely consciously and voluntarily. To beat addiction it is both necessary and sufficient to apply one's mind to the long term effects of behaviour so that quitting best satisfies the addict's preferences.

Unfortunately our society is moving more and more in a direction where short term benefits are enjoyed by the addict and long term financial costs are incurred by taxpayers. This shifts the equation somewhat in favour of addiction but there are still plenty of significant long term non-financial costs borne by the addict.

Going to heaven is a long term benefit, if you believe in it. So it's not impossible that finding religion could help addicts. However they would also have to believe that going to heaven is conditional on their quitting. This seems theologically doubtful and practically quite unlikely.

 
Josie Bullock

The employment case against the Corrections Department is now in court.

Why shouldn't Bullock compare herself to Rosa Parks? The scale of the problem is obviously not as great but the principles involved are exactly the same.

 
Fireworks

Can one baby suffering moderate burns really be the catalyst for banning fireworks across the entire country?

Sometimes I wonder if people realize that there are four million people in this country. A small to medium amount of enjoyment multiplied millions of times is a hell of a lot to give up to prevent injury and property damage to a small number. There was an article the other day suggesting that 1 in 5 New Zealanders health suffers significantly from alcohol use. These health scares are usually gross exaggerations but still, the cost/benefit analysis for banning fireworks is surely much worse than for banning alcohol.

Maybe the difference is that people who enjoy fireworks the most are not old enough to vote.

 
Mallard's Attack on Henare

What happened?

The original version was that Henare made an insulting remark, Mallard punched Henare in the head, then Henare grabbed Mallard's throat. Over the last few days there has been an attempt by Clark to claim that the throat grabbing came before the punches.

We may never know for sure but it's highly unlikely the revisionist version is correct. As David Farrar says, why would anyone, especially Mallard, apologize for hitting someone who hand was around their throat? Punching under those circumstances is fine, and if the attacker squeezes your throat too hard then poking them in the eyes is not out of the question.

It also just doesn't ring true to suggest that Henare followed up a smartass insult by going straight for the throat. Who does that? Grabbing the throat of someone who is punching you makes much more sense, especially if you're taller and can hold them at a distance.

Clark is a master at this sort of manipulation. It won't be long before the media adopts her version.


How serious was it?

My initial reaction to these kind of things tends to be 'who gives a shit?'. What's important is that Ministers do a good job of running the country, regardless of whether they are decent people in other respects. I wouldn't have sacked Ruth Dyson for drunk driving, or Dover Samuels for being accused of various crimes (which he probably didn't commit), or Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle for fiddling their accommodation expenses either, unless there was some reason to think their ability to perform as Ministers would be significantly affected. On the other hand I would be much quicker to cut loose Ministers who make a mess of their portfolios, such as Annette King in health and George Hawkins in just about everything he was involved in.

For this to happen though, the media would have to spend as much time and space reporting on outcomes in health, education and crime as they do on MPs' extra-curricular activities. Don't hold your breath.

Also, there are much worse things than punching someone. In this case, the insult was minor and the name mentioned was someone Mallard was't even involved with, so clearly the punches were a massive overreaction. But generally, given (for example) a choice between living in a country with people who think it's ok to insult someone by making sexual comments about their mother, or with people who will retaliate with violence to such comments, I would much prefer the latter. The 'sticks and stones' rule is good as a legal rule because it's easy to understand and enforce, but as a moral rule it is a only an average first approximation.


Punishment

Apparently the punishment consists of being moved to a different seat, and giving up two portfolios in exchange for three new ones. I think Mallard is lucky that the incident occurred at a time when the far left faction of the Labour party was already becoming underrepresented.

The parliamentary privilege question is more interesting. Dean has set out the relevant law but I can't agree with his conclusion. They key point, which the media appear not to understand, is that privilege attaches to Parliamentary activities, not the physical Parliament building. A bunch of MPs can hold a select committee meeting on a beach at Gisborne and be covered by parliamentary privilege, but a punch-up in the debating chamber may not be. What matters is whether the acts done are part of the 'proceedings of Parliament'. Even if the punches were a response to an insult which was a continuation of insults uttered during a Parliamentary session, it is a real stretch to include them in the proceedings of Parliament.

There is a private prosecution underway and a summons has been issued.

If there is parliamentary privilege, then the rule that appears to prevent action on breaches unless they are reported to the Speaker at the earliest available opportunity seems almost designed to ensure that MPs will get away with stuff.


Smacking

It should be obvious but this has nothing to do with the smacking debate. Mallard is not a hypocrite for voting to ban smacking and then punching Henare, especially once he admitted he shouldn't have done it. And Rodney Hide is certainly not a hypocrite for voting against the anti-smacking bill and advocating the prosecution of Mallard. People who say that are just nuts.

But while on the subject of hypocrisy, there may be a viable candidate. This is from Rodney's blog:

[15 May 1997] Hon. ANNETTE KING (NZ Labour---Rongotai): Within 3 minutes of the announcement on television last night of the Privileges Committee's decision, the phone in my parliamentary office was ringing. I was berated by an irate member of the public who was astounded that one of the highest-ranked leaders of the land could be found guilty of assault and behaviour unbecoming of a member of Parliament and walk away with the proverbial wet-bus-ticket slap. I have to say that I am not happy with the signal this decision sends to young people in New Zealand, to the public, and to criminals. It says to them that aggressive, angry, obnoxious behaviour and violence are OK if one's name is Winston Peters or if one is the Deputy Prime Minister and a Cabinet Minister. But nothing has changed for the ordinary people of New Zealand. The full weight of the law would come down on them.

 
French at it again

This is really sickening.

President Nicolas Sarkozy urged the West to trust Arab countries with nuclear technology yesterday as he signed a deal that could see France supplying Libya with a new reactor.

Mr Sarkozy's visit to Libya and the nuclear deal both came immediately after the release of six Bulgarian medical personnel and one Palestinian, all of whom had been sentenced to death for allegedly infecting hundreds of children with HIV.

Why is it that French leaders are always such terrorist-loving scum? When they're not actively assisting in the butchery of innocent people, as they did in Rwanda, they are hard at work trying to block others who want to do the right thing. No government is so evil the French won't sell them weapons, and now nuclear technology. Anyone who thought Sarkozy might be different needs to wake up. France is a sick, sick country.

And I pity any foreign aid workers who happen to be in Libya next time Gaddafi decides he wants something.

 
Pants on fire

I had hesitated to blog on the latest Benson-Pope allegations because it seemed a bit of a storm in a teacup.

Unlike some others, I could believe that Benson-Pope's flunky might make the phone call without the knowledge of the Minister. I could even believe Hurring really thought there might be a conflict of interest that justified at least letting the Chief Executive know. Of course, the Chief Executive should have had enough backbone to say that he did know and he was fine with it.

However, it's much worse for Benson-Pope now that he has revealed in Parliament that he spoke to Logan and said he would be "less likely to be free and frank" in meetings with Setchell.

Firstly it is political interference in an employment matter, which is unlawful even if the dismissal was justified.

Secondly, it shows conclusively that B-P's pants have been well and truly on fire for the last week.

Thirdly, it calls into question Clark's statement that B-P did not get involved in the sacking. Either he lied to her or she lied to us. If the former, he is probably being chastised severely right now, and if the latter, Helen will sacrifice him to save herself.

UPDATE: He has been sacked resigned.

Interesting that Clark and Benson-Pope still can't get their stories straight with Clark saying "his conduct had fallen short of the standards required of a Minister" and Benson-Pope insisting he didn't do anything appropriate.

The scary thing is, Benson-Pope may actually believe he did nothing wrong. After seeing the footage of yesterday's question time, he gave the above response without the slightest hint of guilt or apprehension. He didn't seem to realise at all that he had just incriminated himself. I wonder how much lying, misleading and evading a person has to do before they reach such a state.

 
Tell-tale signs you're addicted to blogging

From a commenter at Tim Blair's blog:

I apologize for my cryptic, drama queenish “goodbye”. In my defense, I knew what was happening, panicked, and at the same time lapsed into the denial we heart patients are known for. Somehow, instead of calling 911 right away, I had the irrational thought that I should be saying goodbye, so I emailed friends, posted my post, and deleted my email screen name. I truly thought it was the end this time. I was lucky my husband came in and realized something was wrong, or things could have gone from bad to worse.

 
Latest from Venezuela

The rot continues to set in:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has vowed to expel foreigners who publicly criticise him or his government.

"No foreigner can come here to attack us. Anyone who does must be removed from this country," he said during his weekly TV and radio programme.

Mr Chavez also ordered officials to monitor statements made by international figures in Venezuela.

He did not mention any names, but his comments came on the same weekend that Manuel Espino, president of Mexico's ruling National Action Party, criticised Mr Chavez at a pro-democracy conference in Caracas.

Mr Espino told the conference a plan by Mr Chavez to end term limits on Venezuela's presidency were a threat to democracy.

There is no democracy in Venezuela since it is now impossible to democratically remove Chavez. The rigging of their elections (with some help from Jimmy Carter) has been going on for some time. Socialists can only retain power by cheating in elections and suppressing dissent.

On a related note, Labour has just introduced their proposed changes to our election laws. I'll have more to say about this soon.

 
Interesting developments

From Heather Roy's Diary, discussing yesterday's passage of her amendments to Labour's law change which would have prevented victims appearing before the Barole Board:

I introduced my amendments and gave a speech to support these, explaining why victims' rights should be upheld.

What followed was a 30-minute flurry of activity: New Zealand First MP Ron Mark, who has always been consistent in these matters, decided my amendments were worthy of support; Labour, dependent on New Zealand First votes, weren't happy and thus commenced heavy lobbying of Mr Mark – who found himself suddenly surrounded by a gaggle of Labour MPs.

To pass the time while the matter was decided, several other Labour MPs were called upon to make speeches vigorously opposing my amendments. However, following discussion with Mr Burton, Mr Mark seemed to have convinced Labour that my amendments were sensible after all.

The Minister was faced with either suffering an embarrassing public defeat or swallowing his pride and supporting my amendments. Despite all the Labour MPs who had spoken against my amendments, Mr Burton chose the latter – effectively cutting his colleagues off at the knees – and, when it came to the vote, I had the support of the entire House.

Heh.

 
Sedition and Electoral Reform

I hope you all put in your submissions supporting abolition of the offence of sedition.

It look as though the amendments to the Electoral Act will be introduced soon. It's ironic that Parliament will be voting to legalise advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government while at the same time they are criminalising non-violent advocacy of the democratic overthrow of the government.

 
Racism double standards

I don't know if John Howard is a racist bastard but his proposed policy is certainly racist. Different laws based explicitly on race are the most pristine example of racism there could be.

Someone should ask Hone Harawira if he thinks New Zealand's primary health scheme is racist. When Labour first proposed having Maori PHOs with higher per capita funding than ordinary PHOs some of us suggested this was racist. The counter-argument was, that since Maori have, on average, poorer health than non-Maori, the scheme was needs-based not race-based. Never mind that healthy Maori are eligible and sick non-Maori are not. Simply funding the care of sick people would still result in more being spent per person on Maori compared to non-Maori. But this was apparently an inefficient way to deliver services.

The situation in Australia is that aboriginals are, on average, much more likely to molest children than are non-aboriginals. The correct response is to treat people as individuals, arrest the criminals and try to find bett