Saturday, 20 October 2012
Friday, 19 October 2012
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Waitangi? It imposed no such obligation
I’m sorry, but this news this morning is ridiculous.
The Waitangi Tribunal has called on the Crown to apologise to the country's kohanga reo because they have suffered significant prejudice from early childhood policies of successive governments… The report follows a claim made to the tribunal by the Kohanga Reo National Trust last year.
“Prejudice”?! Really? What sort of “prejudice”?
And a claim? A Waitangi claim? About this? Have we gone mad?
The only prejudice I can see here is race-based early childhood centres set up and paid for by taxpayers on the basis of racial prejudice.
I have no problem at all with anyone wanting to send their children to early childhood centres using whatever language or languages they like. At that age children learn languages so easily, and the learning of them is so good for their development of literacy that introducing them to a wide range of languages is ideal.
But let’s not confuse that boon with the separatist aims of these race-based schools. Their aim is not literacy, but separatism.
[The Tribunal report says however] government policies have failed to support the Maori language immersion centres and to recognise their special role.
It would be far more accurate to say parents themselves have failed to support the centres by sending their children to them in large enough numbers, and the Kohanga Reo movement has failed those parents who do send them to their centres by filling them with teachers not fit for the role.
If there’s an apology needed here, it’s to parents from the movement for failing their children.
And what “special” role do these centres have? What could possibly be so “special” about them it needs to be recognised by government, apologised for by past governments, and paid for (through the nose) by taxpayers? Here’s your answer:
Kohanga reo are so important for the survival of te reo Maori, [says the Tribunal’s report], that the Crown's obligation to protect the language extends to kohanga too.
What “obligation” is that then? An “obligation” to “protect the language”? Where does this obligation come from? Well, remember that the Waitangi Tribunal is not just a race-based talking shop. It is also a supralegal body, with its opinions not grounded not in prejudice but in law. At least in theory. So this is a legal obligation they’re talking about.
And the law they point to? You guessed it: Te Tiriti, in which the British Government promised to protect Maori property. Except since Maori had no concept of “property,” the explicit concept “property” was translated as the vague and indefinable concept “taonga”—allowing gravy-train riders ever since to define and re-define and all along the line to claim government protection (and taxpayer resources) for whatever “treasures” they feel like.
The Tribunal found that the Crown’s early childhood education system … had failed to adequately sustain the specific needs of kōhanga reo as an environment for language transmission and whānau development. These failures constituted breaches of the Treaty principles of partnership and equity.
What “breach” is this then? Of the treaty principle of “partnership”?!
But the Treaty has no principle of partnership. It neither mentioned nor implied partnership. In three short articles it simply offered the introduction of British law, and the rights and protections that were then protected by British law. One law for all, you might say.
The Treaty which was drawn up and signed talked neither about race nor culture nor any partnership between them—nor about any permanent welfare, or a tax-paid gravy train into perpetuity. Like British law itself at the time it was colour blind, and welfare-free. What it promised was not the politics of either race or welfarism but the simple legal promise of protection of the rights of all, regardless of race, creed or skin colour.
This principle of partnership supposedly appearing in the Treaty, on the back of which so much garbage has been said and so many millions given away, is a myth. A modern myth.
If they do have anything in this about which to actually apologise , they could start there.
Religion vs Science
The State vs Christie Marceau
The first job of the state, its only legitimate role, is to protect the individual rights of its citizens—to protect each individuals’ rights to life, liberty and pursuit of property and happiness.
To protect our lives.
The primary purpose of incarceration is not to punish criminals. It is not to teach them a lesson, nor to turn them around. The primary purpose is protection. Protection for the harmless, like Christie Marceau, from the harmful, like her murderer.
The state, in the person of Justice McNaughton, failed Christie Marceau when it released on bail a man who had already been charged for kidnap and assault and attempted rape—for her kidnap and assault and attempted rape.
Justice McNaughton failed Christie Marceau.
The injustice system failed Christie Marceau—as it fails all of us when it fails to prosecute with sufficient swiftness, so because of long delays in coming to trial it releases on bail, and continues to release on bail, those charged with violence.
This is unconscionable. The price is paid in the blood of innocent people.
People like Christie Marceau.
And forget this nonsense of “not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.”
Guilty is guilty. Guilt properly should not require that you know you did wrong, that you understand what a moral action looks like, or that you were or were not in the grip of voices telling you to kill. It should not require this because the primary purpose of justice is not punishment. It is protection.
Protection for innocents like Christie Marceau.
Melnikov House, by Konstanin Melnikov
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
The worst Nobel Prize ever?
Amidst global economic collapse, *THIS* is what wins the Nobel Prize in Economics?!?
The world is building a tower of debt unprecedented in any prior era. The derivatives tower is estimated to be one quadrillion dollars. It has taken unprecedented government injection of methamphetamine to "stabilize" things, and every central bank and government knows they dare not reduce the drip or the patient will collapse.
"The economy is recovering,” sayeth the Fed, “and zero interest rates will continue until 2015, and we will buy $40B+ of mortgage bonds per month with no set limit," Unemployment goes down only because people drop out of the workforce and onto welfare, disability, or social security when their patience (and savings) run out.
The marginal productivity of debt--how much additional GDP does the next dollar of borrowing buy--has been falling for many decades.
Capital destruction continues to accelerate. Savers are hosed, and let's not even talk about people trying to live on a fixed income!
Keynes' theory, the bedrock of the modern economy, is in a shambles (or ought to be if people could think their way out of a wet paper bag). And the most prestigious prize in economics?
Yeah, let's award that to a couple of guys who have played with a model for central planning when money cannot be used (e.g. organ donations, where buying organs is illegal).
The Philosopher is in
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Bad weather for warmists
Bad advice for NZ
Various monetary cranks in both politics and journalism continue to advise that the best way for NZ to get richer is to make our currency poorer. To make it poorer by the simple expedient of diluting its value with truckloads of new paper, to be spent on white elephants of their choice—combined with Muldoonist “capital controls” requiring the permission of the state to transfer your own money abroad.
This advice for the Greeks, appearing today at the Mises Daily, is just as much advice for these deadheads. (I have changed only pronouns, proper nouns, and some of the insults.)
Their statist advice stems from their misunderstanding of basic economics in which they views symptoms as causes.
They offer no explanation for our increasing debt burden, high cost structure, and high unemployment other than the standard Keynesian explanation of inadequate aggregate demand. Once this fallacious view is swallowed, the prescription follows axiomatically, i.e., devalue the currency to restore competitiveness vis-à-vis foreign markets, which will increase aggregate demand and reduce unemployment…
That's it! There is no need to cut public spending. Quite the contrary, because public spending adds to the Keynesian concept of aggregate demand, and aggregate demand cannot be allowed to fall…
These monetary cranks see the world upside down. In their world of aggregate demand, a weaker currency always is preferable to a stronger one, because a weak currency purportedly makes a nation more competitive in international markets. But this is pure propaganda. A weak currency not only makes necessary imports more expensive, reducing prosperity, but it also is an outright subsidy to foreign buyers of a nation's goods. As I have argued in "Value in Devaluation?" and as James Miller has argued in "Mark Carney's Zero-Sum Game," currency devaluation is merely a transfer of wealth from all of a nation's citizens to politically favoured industries, usually export industries. It is no different from giving a subsidy to any domestic producer. The subsidy is paid by all the citizens of the subsidizing country, not by the foreigners who buy the subsidized good. They get a bargain.
Furthermore, devaluation does not make a nation more competitive. It does nothing to spur increased domestic saving or external capital investment, which lead to the increased application of capital per capita, the only sources of increased worker productivity and the only sources of increased real wages. Devaluation does not reveal the onerous, wealth-destroying effect of economic regulation, not does it reveal the true costs of the welfare state, which relies on high taxes to fund present consumption at the expense of future prosperity. What the state spends cannot be saved and invested, no matter how cheap the currency.
And, contrary to statements that "improving competitiveness is at odds with the objective of reducing the debt burden," a country will never be able to reduce its debt until it does become more competitive. It may well become impossible for NZ to pay all of its debts if it continues to borrow at the current rate, but this merely reveals the dire reality of current policy; it does nothing to change that reality. The increase in the debt burden must stop! It must stop now!
…So, the cranks put forward a devalued argument for a devalued currency. And if NZers resist outright theft through devaluation, then the government must trap their wealth internally, where it can be plundered later, by using capital controls to stop transfers to safer, foreign banks. The fact that the free movement of capital was one of the pillars of free trade apparently must be sacrificed for the benefit of the state…
All tyrants love a crisis…
Monday, 15 October 2012
Benghazi murders are Obama’s hostage crisis
One thing I was struck by in the recent US Vice Presidential debates was how the candidates of both major parties seem now to both accept the fact that the attack on the US’s Benghazi embassy and the murder of the US Ambassador and three of his staff was not an over-excited protest over a YouTube clip that coincidentally occurred on the anniversary of 9/11, but a concerted terrorist attack.
As Mark Steyn points out, this concession follows weeks of lying.
There was no demonstration against an Islamophobic movie that just got a little out of hand. Indeed, there was no movie protest at all. Instead, a U.S. Consulate was destroyed and four of its personnel were murdered in one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility.
This was confirmed by testimony to Congress a few days ago, although you could have read as much in my column of four weeks ago. Nevertheless, for most of those four weeks, the president of the United States, the secretary of state, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and others have persistently attributed the Benghazi debacle to an obscure YouTube video — even though they knew that the two events had nothing to do with each other by no later than the crack of dawn Eastern time on Sept. 12, by which point the consulate's survivors had landed safely in Tripoli.
To "politicize" means "to give a political character to." It is a reductive term, capturing the peculiarly shrunken horizons of politics: "Gee, they nuked Israel. D'you think that will hurt us in Florida?" So media outlets fret that Benghazi could be "bad" for Obama — by which they mean he might be hitting the six-figure lecture circuit four years ahead of schedule.
But for Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, it's really bad. They're dead, over, gonesville. Given that Obama and Hillary Clinton refer to Stevens pneumatically as "Chris." as if they've known him since third grade, why would they dishonor the sacrifice of their close, personal friend by peddling an utterly false narrative as to why he died?
You want "politicization"? Secretary Clinton linked the YouTube video to the murder of her colleagues even as the four caskets lay alongside her at Andrews Air Force Base — even though she had known for days that it had nothing to do with it…
In the vice presidential debate, asked why the White House spent weeks falsely blaming it on the video, Joe Biden took time off between big toothy smirks to reply:
"Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community."
That too is false…
The Benghazi attack, the non-reaction to it and the lying about it, are as symbolic of American defeatism today as was the Iranian hostage crisis in the last days of Jimmy Carter’s defeatist Presidency.
The Benghazi murders are Obama’s hostage crisis.
[Hat tip Thrutch]
MACHINEOF THE DAY: Mars Rover
One-hundred years ago we were just beginning to leave the ground, for brief periods, in contraptions made of wood and canvas.
Now, not only do people parachute back to earth from the stratosphere, men sit at their desks on earth controlling on a far distant planet a small robotic machine designed to explore and investigate—controlling it as if they were there and sitting in its cockpit.
It’s easy to take this stuff for granted.
Which is why a new book by William J. Clancey about Mars’s robotic geologists, Working on Mars: Voyages of Scientific Discovery with the Mars Exploration Rovers, is so fascinating.
This is, in Clancey's words, "a unique human-robotic enterprise," by way of "teleoperated robots" or "telerobotic tools."
The book is … not a New Yorker-style profile of mission scientists in their lab at Pasadena [says my reviewer a the BldgBlog] but it nonetheless reveals the bizarre methodological requirements of working on another planet through remotely controlled machine-surrogates. From altered sleep-patterns (to keep pace with the longer days on Mars) to darkened window shades (to enact on Earth the darkness of the Martian nightfall for rovers), the actual practices of the scientists come to the foreground of Clancey's study.
It is through these practices that the humans can engage with and control—or at least efficiently keep track of—these radically off-site prosthetic extensions, the rover now understood as "a mechanism that can be 'acted through,' an extended embodiment of the human eyes and hands of the people who control its actions from Earth."
It is a remotely operated surrogate sensory apparatus—organs without a body.
We should never lose our sense of wonder at how cool human beings can be. We can do this!
More pictures here.
QUIZ: Which presidential candidate are you closest to?
These sorts of quizzes usually discount presidential policies that turn you off completely in favour of those for which you’re mildly in favour—in short, they highlight every minor similarity and ignore any major difference.
But this quiz does at least allow you to write your own policies. Sort of.
Anyway, here are my results after running through twice to see if it made any difference (the second time without rewriting policies to make them closer to what I’d support). What do you come up with?
Falling at the speed of sound!
Man breaks speed of sound…without a vehicle. For the first time in history.
What makes it even cooler is this breaks a record that has stood for over fifty years—and the bloke who held that record was on Baumgartner’s crew.
The previous highest, farthest, and longest freefall was made by Col Kittinger, who leapt from a helium envelope in 1960. His altitude was 102,800ft (31.3km). (His mark for the longest freefall remains intact; he fell for more than four and a half minutes before deploying his chute.)
Col Kittinger, now an octogenarian, has been an integral part of Baumgartner's team, and has provided the Austrian with advice and encouragement whenever he has doubted his ability to complete such a daring venture.
ECONOMICS FOR REAL PEOPLE: Classical + Institutional
Here’s your note about tonight’s session at the Auckland Uni Economics Group:
We have a very interesting programme for you tonight with two—yes, two—guest presenters.
As we all know there are a number of different schools of economic thought, and tonight’s student presenters will provide short presentations on areas of expertise or interest to them. One will present insights into Evolutionary and Institutional Economics, and the other on ideas she’s learned in reading the Classical Economists.
There will be plenty of time for discussion so this is a great opportunity to be introduced to economic ideas that may be new to you.
This is what university is about so we look forward to a great discussion.
Date: Monday, October 14
Location: Case Room 2, Level Zero, Business School, Auckland University
We look forward to seeing you there.
Labels: Economics for Real People
Sunday, 14 October 2012
It really is all about morality, you know.
How you vote, how you live, why you visit the mall…
Yaron Brook promoting his new book Free Market Revolution
at the October 8 “Liberty On the Rocks” event in Colorado
[Hat tip Paul Van D.]