"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

 
Zaoui Latest

The High Court has found that Laurie Greig showed 'apparent bias' and has disqualified him from participating in the review of Zaoui's case.

UPDATE: Greig has resigned. See also Big News and No Right Turn.

 
Those Freudian Bastards

From The Australian on Saturday:

Senator Macdonald said yesterday: "Syria is a country that has been a bastard state for nearly 40 years. But the leaders we spoke to in Syria appear keen to make linkages with the West and it sees Australia as having influence in Washington."

Today's correction:

A story headlined 'Syria seeks our help to woo US' in Saturday's Weekend Australian misquoted National Party senator Sandy Macdonald. The quote stated: "Syria is a country that has been a bastard state for nearly 40 years" but should have read "Syria is a country that has been a Baathist state for nearly 40 years." The Australian regrets any embarrassment caused by the error.

I'll bet the only regret is the Senator's, he wishes he had actually said what they printed the first time.

 
Fill In the Gaps

Adapted from Volokh:

Inland school trustee Greg Kraft remembers the dilemma he faced several years ago when he searched for a way to teach _______ to students in the Alvord Unified School District in western Riverside County.

"I didn't want it to be slanted one way or the other," Kraft said. "I didn't want the _______ coming in and saying, 'Don't ever _______.' And I didn't want the _______ to come in and say that every student should be _______."

"_______ is just a fact of life," Dutton said. "I think it's really important for young people to understand how dangerous ______ are and what they should do if they ________."

But some _______ advocates question the wisdom of teaching students about _______.

"Our view is that _______ have no place on a public school campus," said Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center near Los Angeles.

An Inland parent with two school-age children criticized the idea.

"If someone wants to know about _______, they don't need to learn about it in school. There are enough problems with _______ in school anyway," said Scott Stevenson, who has two children at Arroyo Valley High School in San Bernardino.

Fontana parent Sharon Allmond dismissed Dutton's bill as misguided.

"I think that's a parent's choice," Allmond said. "I don't think schools should be getting involved in teaching kids about _______."

The original is here.

 
Huge Loss

Historian Michael King and his wife died yesterday, in a car accident.

More here.

 
Fighting Talk

New left-wing blog, Fighting Talk. Looks good too.

 
Scrappleface

Rice Withholding Testimony for Her Own Book

(2004-03-29) -- U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said today that she doesn't want to testify before the commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks because she's witholding "insider information" for her own book to be released when her NSA job is done.

"Richard Clarke's book is flying off the shelves because people think he has some secret information about the Bush administration," said Ms. Rice. "In contrast with Mr. Clarke, I have actually had meetings with the president. I'd like to cash a few royalty checks myself, so I'm going to avoid spilling my guts for free on the public airwaves if I can."

Ms. Rice added, "For now, I think I'll just start spinning--you know, saying things I don't believe--since that seems to be the prerequisite for garnering credibility in this genre."

 
No Fun

Hahahahaha (from Darkness)

 
Under God?

Oxblog links to this powerpoint parody of the Pledge of Allegiance. As so often happens, real life is even funnier:

Breyer says that the pledge serves the purpose of unification at the price of offending only a few. Newdow says that "for 62 years [before it was amended in 1954] the pledge did serve the purpose of unification ... it got us through two world wars and a depression." But he adds that the idea that if adding in "under God" is not divisive, why did the country go "berserk" when the 9th Circuit opinion came down? Rehnquist asks what the vote was in 1954, when it was amended. Newdow says it was unanimous. Rehnquist queries how that reveals divisiveness.

Newdow: "It doesn't sound divisive? That's only because no atheist can get elected to Congress." Here is where people actually applaud like it's a ball game.

I really have no opinion on the legal merits and I think these kind of lawsuits are a waste of time, apart from providing valuable comic material. But since the time has already been wasted, I hope Newdow wins.

For some real analysis, see Volokh here, here and especially here.

 
What he said

Andrew Sullivan is back and has this accurate summary of the Richard Clarke issue:

The way some people are now talking, you'd think the White House hadn't targeted Afghanistan and al Qaeda before Saddam. But they went to al Qaeda's base first, taking the war to the enemy patiently and determinedly - with enormous success first against the Taliban and then against Saddam. Millions are now liberated from unspeakable tyranny; reform is afoot in the Middle East; al Qaeda has been seriously wounded. Not a bad start. But I agree with the Washington Post yesterday that the more worrying sign is the way the White House has responded. They have been close to hysterical, defensive to an absurd degree and therefore unpersuasive. Their response to Clarke evokes far more doubts about their pre-9/11 conduct than anything Clarke could have mustered by himself.

 
Cricket News

At the Basin Reserve in Wellington today, NZ has a chance of making history with a 2-0 series win over South Africa. They also have a chance of repeating history by losing and drawing the series. Good luck guys.

In the race for the all-time record for test wickets, Shane Warne is on 517 and Muttiah Muralitharan on 513, in pursuit of Courtenay Walsh's 519. To be fair though, when these guys retire and their stats go into the record books permanently, there should be an asterisk next to Warne's name with a note at the bottom saying: "These remarkable numbers were achieved in spite of a year of Warne's career being stolen by a bunch of real assholes".

The other salient point is that the number of tests played has increased in recent years. Bowlers' stamina and longevity have increased as well, but more tests per year will mean more wickets taken. If you list the top 20 test wicket-takers in order of dismissals per game, you can see just how amazing Murali is.:

Name	M	W	W/M
Muralitharan	88	513	5.83
Lillee	70	355	5.07
Hadlee	86	431	5.01
Kumble	81	382	4.72
Warne	110	517	4.70
Marshall	81	376	4.64
Donald	72	330	4.58
Trueman	67	307	4.58
McGrath	95	430	4.53
Waqar	87	373	4.29
Ambrose	98	405	4.13
Imran	88	362	4.11
Pollock	82	334	4.07
Akram	104	414	3.98
Walsh	132	519	3.93
Gibbs	79	309	3.91
Botham	102	383	3.75
Willis	9	325	3.61
Underwood	86	297	3.45
Kapildev	131	434	3.31

UPDATE: Fuck.

 
Oil for Food?

Latest update:

So where did the money go? Into Saddam's pocket is a good guess, with lesser amounts creamed off by the operators of front companies, smugglers and, perhaps, even UN officials.

According to the best estimate of the non-partisan US Government Accounting Office, Oil for Food generated at least $10 billion for Saddam's family, and a further $1 billion to pay the 1000-plus UN bureaucrats who were supposed to be keeping it honest.

Again, the focus is on Kofi Annan, who helped set up Oil for Food in 1997 and installed his close friend and fellow diplomat Benon Sevan as its director. Last week, with Rosett's series igniting a firestorm over the UN, Mr Sevan was not answering his phone. According to a UN spokesman, he is using up accumulated leave before retiring.

For his part, a po-faced Mr Annan now concedes "it is highly possible there has been quite a lot of wrongdoing", and has authorised an internal investigation.

Whan you have a massive transnational bureaucracy with an enormous budget and no democratic accountability, this sort of thing is to be expected. If Benon Sevan was on Saddam's payroll he should end up in prison, but he won't.

 
Canary in the Mine

'Canary in the Mine' is the latest NZ blog, from John McNeil of the Maxim Institute.

 
Guns for Kids

The Chipmunk Rimfire rifle designed especially for children sounds like a great idea It's no fun trying to hold and fire a .22 when you're a skinny little 10 year old or younger.

If you want to get one, a good place to start is at one of these stores.

Also, check out this mindless drivel:

Parents Centre New Zealand chief executive Viv Gurrey said the advertisement sent a clear message to kids that it was OK to kill - and children would not differentiate between animals and people.

"Children in this country are getting murdered and abused. This sends a clear message that killing is OK. It propagates the cycle. When children see ads like this they see that it is OK to kill, it's OK to have a gun," Gurrey said.

- Obviously it's quite ok to kill, in fact I prefer my food to consist almost entirely of things that used to be alive.
- If Viv Gurrey's children can't differentiate between animals and people then she is hardly a fit person to be the chief executive of the Parents Centre - and she better have a chat with her kids before they start dating!
- What does the abuse and murder of children by adults have to do with the choice between a kid using a gun they can easily handle and a kid using a larger gun that is harder for them to handle?
- What is stopping any kid from going to the kitchen drawer, taking out a sharp knife, and sticking it into someone they have a problem with? Could it be that children actually possess morals and self-control and are capable of exercising restraint?

 
Yet Another NZ Blog

Dave Crampton's Big News.

Note the change of URL if you grabbed it earlier.

 
A Satirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test

The test is here. A sample:

The Center for Public-Health Dietary Self Control releases a study that says eating just one jelly donut is as harmful to human health as smoking 10,000,000 cartons of cigarettes. Do you...
CONS: keep eating jelly donuts.
LIBL: demand that jelly donuts be removed from vending machines, and public school cafeterias.
LBRT: hoard jelly donuts before they are regulated off grocer's shelves.
COMM: hoard jelly donuts so you can sell them on the black market.

What techniques are best for maintaining discipline in the classroom?
CONS: If just one student misbehaves, severely punish the entire class.
LIBL: Force boys who refuse to settle down to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin and Prozac.
LBRT: Anyone who doesn't want to be in class can leave.
COMM: Anyone who doesn't want to be in class can be made an example of.

What should people not be allowed to do in public?
CONS: Offend the sensibilities of others.
LIBL: Offend the sensitivities of others.
LBRT: Offend the sensibilities of yourself.
COMM: Offend the sensitivities of the authorities.

What's the best way to stop people from illegally crossing our borders?
CONS: Seal the borders so no one can get in.
LIBL: Do nothing to beef up security at the borders, and offer illegal aliens a wide array of free services.
LBRT: Allow unrestricted passage across the borders.
COMM: Seal the borders so no one can get out.

 
Bizarro

David Farrar praises Associate IT Minister David Cunliffe, and I agree with Sue Bradford.

Watch out for a blue moon tonight.

 
Treaty Clauses

A response to No Right Turn:

1) I should clarify that I'm not a lawyer, in case anyone thinks otherwise. I'm a law student but only started this year and my full-time job is and always has been in software development.

2) NRT: please, pretty please, with sugar on top, add a freaking comments function.

3) On the substantive issue of treaty clauses, I absolutely believe that the Treaty should be enforced by statue, or even better by a binding constitutional document, and that parliament should enact whatever is necessary to make this happen. The relevant part of article 2 of the Treaty says the following:

(English) Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession

(Maori) The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.

The example given by NRT is the Crown Minerals Act 1991. The key point here is that the Treaty protects property belonging to Maori, that is why the word 'their' is used in both versions above. The Treaty has absolutely nothing to say about property owned by the Crown, whether that property is minerals in the ground, a new prison, or a sum of money collected from taxpayers.

The only way that the 'principles of the Treaty of Waitangi' could be relevant to Crown property is if that property is subject to a treaty claim. Once any such claims have been settled, a reference to the Treaty in that statute is entirely redundant. Most of the treaty clauses are in Acts that could never give rise to any conflict with the Treaty of Waitangi.

It may seem relatively harmless to include a treaty clause where it cannot possibly have any effect. However, courts are extremely reluctant to interpret a clause in an Act as having no effect. They have a method called the 'purposive approach' which basically means that the court guesses what they think Parliament really meant when they passed the law in question. As a result, pretty much anything can happen and quite often does.

On top of that, there is a vocal minority who really believe the Treaty is all about dual sovereignty, tribal socialism and racial group preferences, and who will try to use these treaty clauses to justify their agenda. This doesn't work so well in the courts, but it can be successful in government departments, schools, hospitals and so on.

Most of the treaty clauses in legislation should not be there, and the remainder should certainly be preceded by something like: 'Where crown property is subject to an outstanding treaty claim, ...'.

 
Hahaha

 
New Blog

The Right Prescription: 'Politics in New Zealand with a Particular Emphasis on Health'.

At the moment they only have Heather Roy's press releases but worth keeping an eye on.

 
What are they thinking?

Sad story from Tauranga about a 6 year old girl with behavioural problems who has been refused enrolment at the local school.

If she had problems at school before, it has just become a lot worse now that her name and photo are the lead story in the Herald (the online one at least, I don't get the printed one). The media are willing to voluntarily suppress the identities of a person who shoots and kills someone in the street, and people who make fabricated rape allegations. Why can't they do so here? Does anybody know if there are ethical guidelines that govern this sort of thing?

 
Wow

From Samizdata:

We locked you up in jail for 25 years and you were innocent all along. That’ll be £80,000 please.

This is just so utterly bizarre I'm having trouble believing it can really be true. What do they charge the ones who are guilty? Words fail me actually, so I'm just going to stop writing at this point.

 
Risk Management for the 21st Century

I really like this idea. DoctorsKnow.us is a website that lists details of all medical malpractice claims, thereby enabling subscribing doctors to refuse non-emergency treatment for litigious patients, their lawyers and their expert witnesses.

Unfortunately the site has shut down, citing 'unanticipated controversy'. The google cache is here and there's some commentary here. Let's hope they get going again or someone else does. It would also be useful to have a similar site for records of employment disputes.

 
A Better Life

This ABC poll is the result of a survey of 2737 Iraqis across the country from Feb 9-28. There are still plenty of problems in Iraq, but the overall feeling is positive, as shown by the response to these questions:

How things are going today: Good 70%, Bad 29%
Compared to a year ago, before the war: Better 56%, Same 23%, Worse 19%
How they'll be a year from now: Better 71%, Same 9%, Worse 7%

 
The government they deserve

Some things that don't add up:

1. For over a year now, critics of the war in Iraq have been telling us that there is no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and the attack on Iraq is detracting from the war on terror, not contributing to it. In that case, why are people so quick to assume that, if the bombing in Madrid was the work of Al Qaeda, it must be a consequence of Spain's participation in the war in Iraq?

2. Spain has taken a hard line against both Muslim terrorists and Basque separatist groups. Yet if Al Qaeda is behind the bombing then Aznar is supposedly to blame for provoking the attack, but if ETA is responsible then there's no reason to blame the government. How does that work?

3. How does anyone think terrorism can be stopped as long as the Middle East is full of religious and/or socialist dictatorships that oppress their citizens while the ruling classes get rich from oil revenues? Democracy is the biggest threat to their power, that is why they have to undermine or destroy it. The voters in Spain have assisted the terrorists in doing just that.


Meanwhile, here are some quotes from the Russian 'election':

"Russians have to understand that to have full democracy of the kind that the international community will recognize, you've got to let candidates have all access to the media that the president has," - Colin Powell

"Russian voters already have significant experience in democratic elections and don't need suggestions from anyone, even less so from representatives of a country that has clear flaws in its election procedures," - Dmitry Kozak, head of Putin's campaign headquarters

"I voted for Putin because he is going to win anyway and what is the point in voting for someone else," - a Russian voter.

 
You want facts with that?

From No Right Turn:

It's election time. The ruling party warns media outlets that they will be complicit in illegal activity if they run ads criticising the government, and hints darkly at licensing problems or legal action. A scene from Singapore, Hong Kong, or Malaysia? Nope - it's the good old USA...

It sounds disgraceful, and it is, but there are a few salient points missing from NRT's account.

• The relevant anti-free speech legislation, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law, passed the Senate with Democrats supporting it 48-3 and Republicans voting against 38-11.
• The GOP then went out and worked hard to raise $200 million without accepting any more than $2000 from any one contributor, as required by the new law.
• Meanwhile both MoveOn.Org and the Media Fund (created by a former Clinton adviser and Kerry campaign manager) are relying on large contributions from wealthy individuals such as George Soros.
• Now the Republicans are saying, even though most of them vehemently opposed the oppressive law, that it's only fair that both sides play by the same rules.

As George Will says in this article:

House Republicans are now trying to subpoena records of these Democratic groups, clearly hoping to have a chilling effect on them. This is disgusting -- but Democrats deserve it because they have entangled America's core liberty, political speech, in an ever-thickening web of regulations that they now are evading.

I'd also add that political speech in the U.S.A. is still much less restricted than in NZ or most other countries. Try collecting donations to pay for TV ads critical of our Labour government in an election year and see how far you get.

 
Prebble v Huata

ACT has posted the judgment online here (100K PDF).

While I'm not sure about the merits of the legal reasoning, the outcome is unfortunate. Donna probably should have done the decent thing and resigned, but there's really no way to know how many ACT voters made their voting decision based on policy and how many made their decision based on the people on the ACT list. Had Kenneth Wang been on the list instead of Donna from the start, it's quite possible that ACT would have won fewer seats in the election. Courts can't be expected to guess at the reasoning of voters in this way, it should take something more substantial than this to overturn the choice made at the polling booth.

 
The Nader Effect

John Kerry is in danger of being slowly and painfully devoured by a flesh-eating parasite, as this poll shows:

The Republican incumbent had the backing of 46 percent, Kerry 45 percent and Nader, the 2000 Green Party candidate who entered the race last month, was at 6 percent in the survey conducted for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

 
Latest innovation in needs-based funding

From the Herald:

An outburst by Education Minister Trevor Mallard over a mosque being built with taxpayer money shows how touchy the Government is about race-based funding, Act MP Rodney Hide says.

Mr Mallard was yesterday furious with his officials after being forced into an embarrassing backdown over the mosque, at Christchurch's Hagley Community College.

Mr Mallard had "condemned" the college's spending of $121,000 of taxpayer funding on a mosque.

He was then told his own ministry approved the spending and officials attended the opening.

Mr Hide said the Labour caucus was split on whether it supported the building of a mosque in a school.

"Tim Barnett opened it and attacked those who criticised it.

"Dr Ashraf Choudhary calls it needs-based funding, and the minister still thinks it is wrong, while his own department actually approved it."

It's hard to believe that the Ministry of Education would approve $121,000 for a taxpayer-funded mosque without running it past the minister first. Construction of religious buildings is pretty far outside the accepted business of the state, even by the standards of the present government. Maybe officials slipped the approval into the middle of a big pile of papers at a time when they knew the minister was too busy to read them.

Actually, I don't categorically object to taxpayer money being spent on a mosque if it's part of a system where funding is tied to outcomes. If Christchurch Community College can spend money on a mosque and still deliver the same quality of education as other institutions who spend their money on teachers, books and equipment, then good luck to them. However if their results drop, their funding should be cut accordingly.

On the other hand, if (as this government has done) you've worked hard to establish a system where objective comparison of different educational establishments is close to impossible, then you really have no choice but to exercise detailed control over the manner in which taxpayer money is spent.

 
Edwards Drops Out, Now It's Kerry vs. Kerry

Latest Scrappleface:

"I think we're going to see them go at it hammer and tong until the convention," said Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democrat National Committee. "We couldn't hope for two men who offer more contrast; the war hero vs. the peace protestor, the wealthy husband of an heiress vs. the assailant of the privileged class. One backed the attack on Iraq, the other opposed it. One voted for the USA Patriot Act, the other denounces it. One supported the president's 'No Child Left Behind' education plan, the other is harshly critical of it."