Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Search and surveillance
Kia-ora
We are a passive lot. Our rights to privacy, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, have been slowly frittered away by various Governments over the years. while rights to freedom from surveillance without cause have been taken away.
The media have mostly been silent. When they haven’t been actively supporting it, using, mostly, specious excuses about cutting crime.
The skynet bill and the new search and surveillance bill are unacceptable infringements on our rights to freedom from search and seizure.
Already existing laws about surveillance and airport and port security also exceed the rights of search, of ordinary citizens, that authorities should have.
In the interests of corporates and "supposedly" fighting crime, or terrorism, our rights to privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and right to protest are being steadily reduced.
The potential for Government and police, to misuse these laws has already become apparent, with over 50 cases where the police exceeded their legal powers. Instead of charging the police responsible, with breaking the law. The Government proposes to make these acts retrospectively legal.
We are a passive lot. Our rights to privacy, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, have been slowly frittered away by various Governments over the years. while rights to freedom from surveillance without cause have been taken away.
The media have mostly been silent. When they haven’t been actively supporting it, using, mostly, specious excuses about cutting crime.
The skynet bill and the new search and surveillance bill are unacceptable infringements on our rights to freedom from search and seizure.
Already existing laws about surveillance and airport and port security also exceed the rights of search, of ordinary citizens, that authorities should have.
In the interests of corporates and "supposedly" fighting crime, or terrorism, our rights to privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and right to protest are being steadily reduced.
The potential for Government and police, to misuse these laws has already become apparent, with over 50 cases where the police exceeded their legal powers. Instead of charging the police responsible, with breaking the law. The Government proposes to make these acts retrospectively legal.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
For Those Who Still Think Man Made Global Warming is a Beat Up.
Kia-ora
Those who went on forever about a mistake in the IPCC report ignored the real story.
The fact is, the glaciers are disappearing!
Watching a glacier die.
And the polar ice. Arctic Ice Shipping Routes.
Not that you could tell from the response of the New Zealand Government.
Even Labour, lets us down.
Those who went on forever about a mistake in the IPCC report ignored the real story.
The fact is, the glaciers are disappearing!
Watching a glacier die.
And the polar ice. Arctic Ice Shipping Routes.
Not that you could tell from the response of the New Zealand Government.
Even Labour, lets us down.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
On internet Surveillance and Interception.
Kia-ora
Years ago, when you applied for a marine radio operators licence, you had to sign a statement that you would maintain "secrecy of correspondence".
"Secrecy of correspondence" was the legal principle that, "Under no circumstances would you divulge the contents of any radio message to a third party".
In other words privacy of communication was sacrosanct. All radio operators hearing a message, including Government radio operators , were only allowed to divulge the existence or the contents of a radio message to "the proper recipient".
I am sure this was often honoured in the breach by intelligence agencies. But the principle that an individuals right to privacy overrode any other interests ,for any reason, was there.
Similarly it has been a legal principle, in most "democratic" States, that phone calls can only be intercepted on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Usually by a judicial or court order. Police are not allowed to listen to private phone calls at random.
WHY THEN! Are we allowing the State, and even worse, private ISP companies and copyright holders to breach a our privacy IN CASE WE ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
WE DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO BREACH OUR "PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION", ON THE TELEPHONE, LIKE THIS.
Sure they have all sort of laudable reasons. Protecting copyright holders, attempting to limit paedophilia and catching organised criminals. But anyone, who wants to intercept other forms of communication to prevent these crimes, has to see a judge.
Of course reasonable people support intercepting paedophiles and terrorists on the internet. Who wouldn't.
However, those people can easily find ways and means to bypass internet scrutiny.
While the rest of us have our rights to privacy and free and open communication with our friends trampled on.
Once a Government starts internet scrutiny do you think they will stop with intercepting illegal traffic. How long before they intercept Wikileaks, The New Zealand Socialist Party. The Labour party! Anything which embarrasses them!
How long before the SIS and police start making lists.
Of people who are not comfortable with the present Government.
They have done it before.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
New Zealand at the Crossroads
Kia-ora
The NYT on the "success" of Neo-Liberalism.
As "No Right Turn" says this graphic is "an appalling indictment of Neo-Liberalism".
In New Zealand we have seen the effects just this year. Over 17% increase in wealth for the top few percent while 200 000 children live in relative poverty.
The pattern in New Zealand, since our great Neo-Liberal experiment, following the USA, Ireland and UK, has been the same.
Coddling the rich is destroying the American dream.
"No matter how many times it's said, lowering tax rates for the highest income Americans does not create jobs or stimulate the economy. In fact, a detailed look reveals that the overall economy does slightly better when taxes at the top are significantly higher. This also holds true on the state level, as states with higher top personal tax rates have growth rates and median incomes that average greater than those with low (or even no) taxes. No matter how many times the experiment is repeated, or how long you extend the results, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not stimulate growth."
Most of the wealth earned by Americans went to corporates.
"Corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income".
In New Zealand cutting taxes for the wealthy was supposed to stimulate the economy. Since the first round of high end tax cuts, investment in the productive economy, wages and manufacturing, in New Zealand, stagnated, and capital flew to gambles on offshore markets.
Decimation of Union and employee rights, and cuts in Government spending has resulted in huge drops in real income, for all but a few New Zealanders.
New Zealand is at the crossroads.
We can vote for National and ACT, and join the list of failed States like the USA and UK.
Another three years of failed Neo-Liberal policies will destroy the country we know.
Do we want third generation unemployment and riots in the streets like the UK. Or the repressive, unequal, surveillance society the USA has become.
For the first time since 1984 we have a clear choice. Continue down a failed Neo-Liberal road, or Own our Future.
We can vote for the Greens and Labour. For sensible policies, which were middle of the road, before Neo- Liberal religious hysteria took over.
The NYT on the "success" of Neo-Liberalism.
As "No Right Turn" says this graphic is "an appalling indictment of Neo-Liberalism".
In New Zealand we have seen the effects just this year. Over 17% increase in wealth for the top few percent while 200 000 children live in relative poverty.
The pattern in New Zealand, since our great Neo-Liberal experiment, following the USA, Ireland and UK, has been the same.
Coddling the rich is destroying the American dream.
"No matter how many times it's said, lowering tax rates for the highest income Americans does not create jobs or stimulate the economy. In fact, a detailed look reveals that the overall economy does slightly better when taxes at the top are significantly higher. This also holds true on the state level, as states with higher top personal tax rates have growth rates and median incomes that average greater than those with low (or even no) taxes. No matter how many times the experiment is repeated, or how long you extend the results, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not stimulate growth."
Most of the wealth earned by Americans went to corporates.
"Corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income".
In New Zealand cutting taxes for the wealthy was supposed to stimulate the economy. Since the first round of high end tax cuts, investment in the productive economy, wages and manufacturing, in New Zealand, stagnated, and capital flew to gambles on offshore markets.
Decimation of Union and employee rights, and cuts in Government spending has resulted in huge drops in real income, for all but a few New Zealanders.
New Zealand is at the crossroads.
We can vote for National and ACT, and join the list of failed States like the USA and UK.
Another three years of failed Neo-Liberal policies will destroy the country we know.
Do we want third generation unemployment and riots in the streets like the UK. Or the repressive, unequal, surveillance society the USA has become.
For the first time since 1984 we have a clear choice. Continue down a failed Neo-Liberal road, or Own our Future.
We can vote for the Greens and Labour. For sensible policies, which were middle of the road, before Neo- Liberal religious hysteria took over.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Climate Change Is Here. Now!
Kia-ora
Kassie Siegel: Climate Change Is Here Now
"Climate change is happening now, we are causing it, and the costs of inaction -- to us, to plants and animals, to the physical world that we depend on -- are too steep to ignore and pass to the coming generations".
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Pambazuka News.
Kia-ora
"Through the voices of the peoples of Africa and the global South, Pambazuka Press and Pambazuka News disseminate analysis and debate on the struggle for freedom and justice."
Pambazuka News.
"Through the voices of the peoples of Africa and the global South, Pambazuka Press and Pambazuka News disseminate analysis and debate on the struggle for freedom and justice."
Pambazuka News.
The wealthy deserve their wealth??
Kia-ora
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
Those at the top, got there, mostly, because of A) inherited wealth, B) the old boy network. (The real advantage of private schooling). C)total psychopathic self interest and disregard for others. (Called theft when done by those at the bottom).
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.
On Riots.
Kia-ora
Right wing politicians are quick to distance themselves from rioting, and public revolt, in many countries around the world.
"The responsibility lies with criminal elements".
Well! It does, but mostly with the unpunished criminals who have destroyed cohesive society for their own gain.
Is it surprising that after decades of selfishness, meanness, unpunished theft and blatant tax dodging from the top, that those at the bottom follow the example.
You ruin, destroy and steal everything from people, including any hope for a better future. Then you are surprised they turn as mean and self centred as you.
Right wing politicians are quick to distance themselves from rioting, and public revolt, in many countries around the world.
"The responsibility lies with criminal elements".
Well! It does, but mostly with the unpunished criminals who have destroyed cohesive society for their own gain.
Is it surprising that after decades of selfishness, meanness, unpunished theft and blatant tax dodging from the top, that those at the bottom follow the example.
You ruin, destroy and steal everything from people, including any hope for a better future. Then you are surprised they turn as mean and self centred as you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The wealth was earned by the efforts and contribution of workers and tax payers.
I have already said that the skilled and entrepreneurs earn their wealth. It is their money.
A good Doctor, Teacher, builder, scientist, entrepreneur, (Your decent business with well paid employees) The person who produces and markets a more efficient windmill, deserve all we can pay them.
But as we all know it is State supplied infrastructure, education, stability and rule of law that enables them to prosper, as well as their own efforts.
How many successful businesses does Somalia produce. The locals have to resort to piracy!
For most of the wealthy though IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY! It is basically stolen money.
Do you really believe it is right that 50% of the richest people in NZ pay little or no tax despite being the biggest beneficiaries of the society we have created over decades.
Do you thing financiers should still be getting bonuses when they f–ked up so badly it cost trillions in tax payer funds worldwide to fix it.
What do the Koch brothers do to have such a large share of the worlds wealth? They have used their money to make the USA a failed State.
What actually did Key do that is such benefit to society that he earned 50 million. In fact he cost the NZ economy many times that to make it.
It would be more than fair to tax him 50% of his unearned dollars to mitigate the damage he did.
Fayrich stole millions when they acquired rail at mates rates, knowing they could asset strip all they liked. Some future Government would always have to build it up again as a vital piece of infrastructure for exporters. Should claw a proportion of that back also.
The property developer in Christchurch who went to court to overturn a council decision about building on dodgy land. Who is now sitting on his millions in Australia while we all pay for the damage.
Farmers who are sitting on millions in capital gains when they retire who pay $1700 a year in tax while paying starvation wages, and, still demanding all the benefits paid for by other peoples taxes.
Why should our elderly, sick and young people be living in poverty in one of the richest countries in history, just so the very rich can avoid a few% contribution to the society they benefit from.
We tried letting the wealthy keep more. It has proven to be a disaster.
1/3 decrease in investment, manufacturing almost gone, a relentless slide down the economic rankings, increasing inequality, massive hemorrhage of capital to financial gambling.
The way to get new money in the system and keep what is there is to bring back workers bargaining power (so money they have earned stays here a wages instead of disappearing offshore), tax capital flows, tax speculation, tax the wealthy more and use that money to invest in New Zealand (Including research and development as well as the health and education of New Zealanders), stop paying overseas banks to add zeros to their electronic ledgers and lend capital to ourselves. (Gaddafi’s big crime). As that arch lefty Adam Smith said. Tax the owners of capital and leave the producers alone.
Waiting for the private sector to re-allocate capital to benefit society has not worked, and never will!