Thursday, August 31, 2006

Baby Slings

My wife Holly is very clever!

She makes these Baby Slings in her spare time, and I must say they are fantastic things for carrying your baby or toddler in.

They are great for carrying the baby when you have other things to do, as you have both hands free.

They are great to take with you if you go for a walk, and your toddler suddenly decides he/she has had enough, and wants to be carried, or if you go to a concert, or even just the supermarket - you can carry up to a 5-6 year old on your back with these things.

They are great for breast-feeding mothers, as the baby can feed in there without anybody even knowing.

They are the very best thing for newborn babies as they are snuggled in nice and cosy against mum or dad, and you can keep your eye on them as opposed to clumsy back packs etc.

They come in a whole range of colours, and she makes them to order. They are fully adjustable to suit your height or size.

Earthbaby Baby Slings - the best way to wear your baby

You can contact Holly by replying to this post, or at:

This infomercial was supplied free of charge courtesy of the Tomahawk Kid, and should rack up some serious Brownie Points to the author. It should be remembered at such a time as when he does something WRONG. These points may then be DEDUCTED against the standing TOTAL, and retribution exacted according to that total.!

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Government school Rationing

"Zone cheats."

That is what some parents in Auckland have been labelled for simply trying to get the BEST EDUCATION for their children.

When I pay money for goods and services, I always attempt to get the best service or best quality goods for my money that I can.

I do not believe it is wise to purchase damaged, faulty or worn out goods for TOP PRICES

When I go out to a restaurant I only go to a restaurant where I know the food is GOOD - I will not on purpose go to a restaurant where the food is BAD, ill prepared, STALE, or of BAD VALUE.

So WHY are schools any different?

Why should I NOT attempt to get the BEST education for my children that my money can buy?

THIS is how the government run school system works! Parents are FORCED into paying TOP PRICES, and FORCED into receiving what they are given, with NO OPTION to change or exchange!

Break the rules (rules about which no one is really too sure) and you, sir and madam, are "zone cheats."

Can you imagine being called a "zone cheat" because you've been to the "wrong" supermarket; or the "wrong" book store; or the "wrong" service station?

What's the difference? Why do we have arbitrarily-drawn zones for schools when we don't have them for supermarkets, stores or service stations?


Simply because for the privately-delivered services we have something called a market, a place in which people can freely bid for the services they wish to purchase, and pricing and supply are set by entrepreneurs looking for a place in the market by meeting the needs and wishes of the customers they hope to attract.

There is no market in New Zealand's factory schools. Instead we have rationing.

In the absence of a market, we have government-imposed rationing -- rationing by zone; if you want to send your son to Auckland Grammar you will either have to pay $50-100-200,000 more to live in the zone, or you'll have to be a "zone cheat." If you're a "zone cheat," expect to be pilloried.

In a market, extra customers are a good thing.

Without markets ... extra punters are a bad thing ... a bloody nuisance ... cheats!

Good thing we don't have markets for our schools, huh? Rationing is so much more civilised than the way we buy our groceries, isn't it.

LINKS: School insists zone cheats should stay out - Newstalk ZB

Hat Tip to NotPC for much of this article

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Mr Izett - A pacifist with a penchant to KILL

There is a man in Tauranga that regularly writes letters to the local newspapers. His name is Mr Izett.
I first encountered Mr Izett about 20 years ago way way before I became interested inpolitics, and way before I understood them.

I had a band, and on our posters was the statement:
No Synthesizers, Gender Benders, Poofs or Posers.

Mr Izett wrote to the editor, complaining about them. He also complained about a cartoon sign of a woman - kind of American Graffiti era - 50s, that was showing her knickers.
I wrote a letter in reply - My very first letter to the editor.

Some 20 years later I noticed him again, this time calling for the government to ban boxing, because it is brutal, and he does not like it, so therefore it should be banned!

I wrote in reply to this, and we had an exchange of several letters. Me basically telling him to mind his own business, and if he didnt like boxing, then dont do it, but don't try to stop others enjoying it - after all, they participate of their own free will.

Then again some months later, he wrote a letter saying that all motorsports should be banned, because they waste fuel, and he doesn't like it.
Another letter followed shortly demanding smoking be banned! Why? - You guessed it - because he doesn't like it!

This man is a tyrant. He doesn't understand that calling for a ban on things that HE doesn't like, is an imposition on the rights and lives of other people to enjoy things that THEY like, and that they should be entitled to do them, so long as they dont force them upon other people, or prove to be a danger or threat to others.

In our latest exchange, Mr Izett writes calling for the government to re-introduce the death penalty.

I replied to him saying that there are other ways to punish criminals other than calling for the state to MURDER them. Here is my letter:

Just because they used "force" in the good old days doesn't make it
right! Mr Salt seeks to deny the FACT that the most uncivilised thing
one human being can do to another is use force upon him/them. I believe
it is Mr Salt that has some explaining to do! Much of what he says is
true, however, he negates the FACTS by trying to justify the state
"murdering people! Is this not a tad hypocritical when one of the ten
commandments, quite clearly states “thou shalt not kill!"
The soil of the earth is sodden with the blood of soldiers of one
religion or another, and he calls that civilised society! The New
Zealand of the good old days is dead and gone, not due to lack of
religious practices, but by the interference of government in the lives
of its citizens, by taking away personal responsibility, and replacing
it with the welfare state it has incrementally destroyed family,
extended family, and respect for others, and destroyed community spirit
completely - we don't have to care for our fellow man anymore - the
state does it for us! The welfare state, just like communism, was an
idea, based upon trying to help those less fortunate, but human nature
being what it is, has seen these ideas backfire, leaving the ugly,
uncaring society we have today. We have had almost a century of the
welfare state now - how much worse do things have to get before people
realise its time for a change – Hell, even the communists realise what
a crap idea it was now!
There used to be a time when everybody believed in God, and feared the
church - that time was known as "the dark ages!"

Mr Izett didn't like this idea, and accused me of being a hawk, waiting to swoop upon him every time he writes something.
He also said in his latest letter that he was an atheist, and a pacifist.

Here is my LATEST reply to him.

There are too many people out there with the misguided belief that they have the right to dictate what other individuals may or may not do with their life, body or posessions, that I am not for one waking moment prepared to sit back and "take like a man" the unprincipled, thoughtless claptrap the likes of Mr Izett would force upon me.

Contrary to what Mr Izett thinks (sic) I do not just pick on him because he has a funny name, or wears a funny hat! I reply to letters writen by ANYBODY who make immoral, unprincipled, and outrageous statements, and especially when those statements are a direct affront to my life and the freedom of the individual.

For example, Izet states he is an atheist and a pacifist, well, please make up your mind, because your original letter stated that you wanted the government to murder people on your behalf! (re introduce the death penalty.)
Admittedly you did not express the wish to kill the people yourself, but instead call for government to do the dirty work on your behalf, which amounts to EXACTLY THE SAME THING!
Last time I looked, a pacifist was a person who was opposed to such things.
I also am a devout atheist, and a pacifist - I am a champion for the non-initiation of force principle (if you hadn't noticed) - I regularly speak out against those who would force their will upon others - It just so happens Izett is the perpetrator of such an act on a frequent basis. I simply reply in self-defence. Even a REAL pacifist is entitled to defend himself from the words and actions of an aggressor!

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Benefit Finders!

Since I discovered Libertarianism (a few years ago now,) I have endeavoured to instill in my children similar values.
Recently one of my sons became unemployed, so I gave him a rev up, and sent him along to “Jobfinders” who have an office in town that I pass ever day on my way to get lunch. In their window they always have a long list of jobs they have available, and of which there never seems to be a shortage. My son returned home to inform me that they couldnt give him a job, and they would not put him on their data base because he “didnt qualify!” Why didn’t he qualify? Was he not old enough? Was he not skilled enough? Was he too qualified? No! The reason he wasn’t eligible to apply for one of their jobs was because he is - wait for it - “not on a benefit!” Of course - I didn’t believe him! I thought this was just some lazy, teenagers excuse for not wanting to work, and a lame excuse to get out of showing up for an interview. I questioned him at great length, but he assured me that this was so. . . . Minutes later, I arrived at the “Jobfinders” office and asked to speak to the manager, who proceeded to explain the situation. He showed me a pile of jobs that he had available - the stack was about 100mm high. He then showed me another pile of sheets consisting of approx 12 sheets of paper - no more - these were the “people” that he had to place in a job. He explained that “Jobfinders” worked with WINZ. The applicants had to be on a benefit, because this was part of their “wages.” and the employer topped it up. I explained to him that I had worked hard to educate my children to be responsible for themselves, and not to be bludgers on the system if they were fit and capable of working, and I had tried hard to keep them off the dole.

He said, well, why dont you just tell him the dole is part of his wages, and not the dole.
So what if he takes a job and it turns out not to be suitable - he can quit the job (40 hours a week possibly), and still receive a benefit for absolutely “no effort’ at all - he wouldnt even have to get out of bed, and he would still get paid. I know what “I” would rather do.
I thought it was the governments job to discourage people from signing on to the benefit, and to encourage them to find work. - silly me!

Meanwhile Jobfinders still have a list of jobs a mile high - about 1 million people on the dole, and about 12 people on the benefit actually looking for a job.

Noah's Ark

And the Lord spoke to Noah and said, "In six months I am going to make it rain until the whole Earth is covered with water and all of the evil people are destroyed, but I want to save a few good people and two of every kind of living thing on the planet. I am ordering you to build me an ark." And in a flash of lightning, he delivered the specifications for the ark. "Okay," Noah said, trembling in fear and fumbling with the blueprints. Six months later it starts to rain. Thundered the Lord, "You had better have my ark completed or learn to swim for a very long time." And six months passed. The skies begin to cloud up. Rain began to fall. The Lord saw that Noah was sitting in the front yard weeping. And there was no ark "Noah," shouted the Lord, "where is my ark?" A lightning bolt crashed to the ground next to Noah. "Lord, please forgive me," begged Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems. First, I had to get a building permit for the ark's construction project, and your plans did not meet code. So I had to hire an engineer to redraw the plans. Then I got into a big fight over whether or not the ark needed a fire sprinkler system. "My neighbors objected, claiming I was violating zoning by building the ark in my front yard. So I had to get a variance from the City Planning Commission. Then I had a big problem getting enough wood for the ark because there was a ban on cutting trees because of the spotted owl. I had to convince U.S. Fish and Wildlife that I needed the wood to save the owl, but they would not let me catch any owls. So, no owls. "Then the carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board before anyone could pick up a saw or hammer. Now I have 16 carpenters going on the boat and still no owl. Then I started gathering up animals and got sued by an animal rights group. They objected to me taking only two of each kind. Just when I got the lawsuit dismissed, EPA notified me that I could not complete the ark without filing an environmental impact statement on the proposed flood. They did not take kindly to the idea that you had jurisdiction over your conduct and you were the supreme being. "Then the Army Corps of Engineers wanted a map of the proposed new floodplain. Right now I am still trying to resolve a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over how many Croatians I am supposed to hire, and the IRS has seized all of my assets, claiming I am trying to avoid paying taxes by leaving the country, and I just got a notice from the state about owing some kind of use tax. I really do not think I can finish your ark for at least another five years," Noah wailed. Then the skies began to clear. The sun began to shine. The rainbow arched across the sky and Noah looked up with a smile. "You mean you are not going to destroy the Earth?" Noah asked hopefully. "No," said the Lord sadly. "The government already has."

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Cigarettes, Drugs and Chocolate

I read an interesting newspaper clipping from the New York Times, posted on Lindsey Mitchells blog recently.
It inspired me to write the following article - a subject that continually annoys me

People deal in drugs because there is a large profit to be made!
WHY is there a large profit to be made?
Because they are illegal, and their price is ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED due to the problems and dangers in getting them into the country, distributing and selling them, and hiding them from the LAW.
The REAL price of these drugs is so SMALL that without government interference, there would be such a tiny amount of profit to be made, it would be a waste of time being a DRUG DEALER - there would be more profit to be made selling ORANGES on the side of the road! This same argument can be applied to TOBACCO! - have you noticed how many servos and dairies are the target of armed robbers lately - their target being CIGARETTES! WHY?
Because cigarettes are expensive! WHY?
Because of the artificially high price due to the insane amount of TAX put on them by the government to discourage people who CHOSE to smoke from doing so!

SO, what we have is this:

• People who chose to smoke, and KNOW the risks are penalised by the government.

• People who chose to smoke, but cannot afford to because the artificially inflated prices are forced into criminal acts (armed robbery) to continue their habit.

• If cigarettes were not so expensive, they would be able to be personally responsible for their health costs by having medical insurance.

• Those who have private health insurance are penalised again in higher premiums.
This is all because as we are forced to fund the welfare state. The ill health of smokers is a drain on that resource, so by placing high taxes on tobacco products, they can recover the cost of the medical expenses they incurr.

All the afore-mentioned people are UNHAPPY with government, their unjust laws and the high taxes

This is all well and good you may say, but remember - these are individuals that CHOSE of their own FREE WILL to participate in these actions.

HERE are the consequences of the government interfering in the lives and liberties of the individual:

Completely INNOCENT workers and business people - corner shop owners, petrol station attendants, families and children - have their lives put at risk every day because of govt trying to stop other people from harming THEMSELVES (smoking!)
Where is the justice in THAT?

People chosing NOT to smoke (or do drugs - it's the very same argument) on a daily basis are held up at knife and gunpoint by CRIMINALS wanting cigarettes (or cash to buy drugs)

Here is the REALLY important thing:

People commit crimes because the WANT drugs, not because they are ON drugs.

Most cigarette smokers would be more than happy to sit at home with a cup of tea and have a quiet cigarette, rather than have to go on an ARMED ROBBERY to get the smokes first!
Most people who do drugs would rather sit at home and quietly get smashed and listen to music rather than have to go out and commit ARMED ROBBERY to get the cash to purchase the drugs first!

INNOCENT people are being PUNISHED in DIRECT RELATION to laws made by government.
These people have done nothing wrong! Where is the justice in THAT? ALL of these innocent people are ALSO unhappy with Government - as their lives and livelihood are put at risk DIRECTLY due to government rules and laws.

The Solution: Remove the taxes from tobacco, and legalise ALL drugs Let the people who CHOSE to participate in these things do so. Parents, Schools, and voluntary organisations could, and should be educating people on the REAL consequences of drug and substance abuse, and the need for personal responsibility, should they chose to continue the habit.

All these people will be happy with the government for returning their freedom of choice.

Watch the decrease in petty burglaries and petrol station hold-ups.

All the INNOCENT people will be happy with government because they have had the TARGET removed from their chest

. . . That is untill the government do the same with CHOCOLATE!

I can see it now - gangs of schoolchildren parking their peddle cars outside the petrol station, wearing their Zorro and Batman masks, going on armed holdup raids armed with their water pistols, and making away with schoolbags full of Crunchie and Mars bars.

or even WORSE - a gaggle of GRANNIES walking in to the local corner shop, and beating the shopkeeper to death with their handbags and umbrellas to get their FIX of chocolate almonds.

Don't laugh - it's not funny! - and it's going to happen -

if you let it!

Monday, August 21, 2006

Oh for the good old "dark ages"

In a letter to the local paper I wrote that the most uncivilised thing one human being can do to another is to use force upon them.

A Mr Salt replied to me asking to explain the fact that in the "good old days" when they had the death penalty, and more people believed in god and the church, that you didn't need to lock your doors and windows at night, and a murder in the country was a very rare thing as opposed to today.

He blames these things upon there being no death penalty and there being less people believing in god and the church.

Here is my reply to him.

Just because they used "force" in the good old days doesn't make it
right! Mr Salt seeks to deny the FACT that the most uncivilised thing
one human being can do to another is use force upon him/them. I believe
it is Mr Salt that has some explaining to do! Much of what he says is
true, however, he negates the FACTS by trying to justify the state
"murdering people! Is this not a tad hypocritical when one of the ten
commandments, quite clearly states “thou shalt not kill!"

The soil of the earth is sodden with the blood of soldiers of one
religion or another, and he calls that civilised society! The New
Zealand of the good old days is dead and gone, not due to lack of
religious practices, but by the interference of government in the lives
of its citizens, by taking away personal responsibility, and replacing
it with the welfare state it has incrementally destroyed family,
extended family, and respect for others, and destroyed community spirit
completely - we don't have to care for our fellow man anymore - the
state does it for us!

The welfare state, just like communism, was an

idea, based upon trying to help those less fortunate, but human nature
being what it is, has seen these ideas backfire, leaving the ugly,
uncaring society we have today. We have had almost a century of the
welfare state now - how much worse do things have to get before people
realise its time for a change – Hell, even the communists realise what
a crap idea it was now!

There used to be a time when everybody believed in God, and feared the
church - that time was known as "the dark ages!"

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Single Cell Denizens of the Council Chambers

No, it's not the latest HORROR MOVIE about to hit the screens - it's Tauranga Council's version of a "Mondo-SNUFF Movie, taking place in the local council chambers! - read on!

The Tauranga City council is about to hold a referendum concerning building a 21 million dollar museum in the city

Why is it that the council chambers appears to be the perfect habitat for single-cell organisms? Why is it that the otherwise seemingly intelligent beings that enter within are suddenly struck with the inability to rub 2 braincells together - the process required for the generation of a thought! (singular)!
It‘s not a question of "do we need a museum!" the answer to that is YES! The REAL question is "do we need a COUNCIL FUNDED MUSEUM! and the answer to that is NO!
Before they go spending $70,000 of the ratepayers money on a referendum (the result of which they will probably chose to ignore anyway - ie the previous referendum concerning water meters), perhaps they should make sure the QUESTION is appropriate!
For example. If I asked Cr Dillon (a woman who would have no second thoughts spending her grandmothers last cent on something she wanted - for the public good of course!) if she would like a lollie, and when she accepted it, charged her an extra 13% on her rates every year to pay for it, she would be outraged.

That is because the question is misleading.
I am not in the habit of just bagging peoples ideas for the sake of it though! - only BAD, poorly thought-out ideas! - they, I'm afraid are "fair game," and if you are prepared to say something bloody stupid, then I feel it is only right I point it out. Especially if you are getting paid by ME (the ratepayer) to do it! As an alternative SOLUTION, I suggest the council advertise for entrepreneurs or private investors to build a facility suitable to house a museum, promising to BEND OVER BACKWARDS, whilst doing backward summersaults to cut red tape, compliance costs etc, etc to make it as easy as possible for them to invest, and get the project underway. Then instead of PAYING thousands of dollars to house the citys artifacts in STORAGE, the council could "rent them out" to the privately run museum, and actually get a RETURN for them instead of them being a liability. (How about that then! a PROFIT instead of a LOSS) But here is the REALLY good thing! Should the museum not prove to be profitable, it would not cost the ratepayers ONE RED CENT! However a private facility would have a much better opportunity to be run at profitably than a council one, as it would be the investors money at stake, so he would have to do everything in his power to make it work financially. If it was run by the council, it would be just another white elephant, sitting there costing the ratepayers thousands every week to run at a loss - forgotten, and written off by the council just like K Road. Should a private investor NOT be found, it is quite obvious that a museum is NOT required, because an investor would do his sums, and work out how much it would physically cost to run such a museum, and do PROPER market research as to how much the public would patronise the project. If the sums did not add up, an investor would be FOOLISH to invest in such a project! SO THEREFORE, if the council go ahead and build one ANYWAY, what does that make THEM?

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Marshall Heating System cranks

I have been in my new house for almost a year now, and have experienced the first real winter. As you can see in the pictures above, we have a high ceiling in the kitchen dining Lounge area, and coupled with the unisulated (but double skinned) clearlite panels on the walls on either side of the house, has proved to be a little difficult to heat - (in fact we froze our tits of!)
I designed a heating system, based upon a Marshall solid fuel water heating system to heat all the bedrooms, but did not include the dining, kitchen , lounge area as we have an open fire which I was relying on to take the chill off the air, but it was hugely unsuccessful, so, in conjunction with my brother, who is an air conditioning and sheet metal ducting engineer, constructed an "add-on"to the existing system, which you can see in the pics above. It isamazing - it is so efficient, I could't hope for anything better.
The air coming out of the 3 down vents in the horizontal pipe is about 56 degrees!
The Vertical pipe in the corner, and the horizontal pipe up at the top ceiling height with the 2 vents in is just a "recirculating" system. It sucks in the hot air that has risen up there, and blows it back down into the lounge (see pic 2 and 3).
The temperature of the room was 21 degrees, and the air coming out of the recirculating fan (pic 2) was 26 degrees.
While this heating system is running, the fire in the Marshall must be cranking also to keep the water temperature up to at least 60 degrees, and it does chew through the firewood, but while we can get this for free, it is the cheapest way of heating a 376sq m home!

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Arts Funding Lollie Scramble

This is my reply to a letter (you can read it directly after my reply) in the BOP Times tonight.
This is the kind of crap that REALLY gets my blood pressure up to boiling point.
It is quite hard to give these people the good SLAPPING they deserve in only 200 words - this is the best I could do under the circumstances - think I'll sit down, have a nice calming cup of warm milk AND A COUPLE OF VALIUM now!!!!
Big Bully scores ALL the Lollies in the Arts Funding Lollie Scramble
“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the PROBLEM” This can aptly be applied to Y. Houghton, for it is such thinking (sic) that has ratepayers around the country in the mess they’re in! I liken it to a lolly scramble at a childs party - where the biggest bullies get the most lollies. Y Houghton wants the stolen booty spent on the arts, but NOT the arts it has been designated to, while others don’t want it spent on the arts, but a stadium – and on and on goes the squabbling. You’ll NEVER get everybody to agree on what the loot should be spent on and up to 49% of the ratepayers could be unhappy with the decision, so why not give it back to those it was STOLEN FROM and let THEM decide (it’s theirs after all). That way EVERYBODY will be happy because they have spent their own money on things that are important to them. Besides, councils should’nt be dabbling in arts and entertainment ANYWAY! There are enough people out there interested in these things to fund and foster them without councils forcing those who are not! – You’re nothing more than a bunch of bullies and control freaks willing to impose your selfish wants upon others – shame on you!

. . . and THIS (more VOMITUS) from the socialists
I was gobsmacked to read "arts seek extra $850,000 (BOP Times Aug 2) I wonder at the insensitivity or arrogance of this group of art enthusiasts.
I agree in part to the request, but isnt the request a bit retrospective?
If there was so much support for a new art gallery why are more funds required to develop an additional arts facility? Surely these initiatives should have been presented in conjunction with the new art gallery proposal. Developing an art gallery trail at a cost of $180,000 would have been a much cheaper interim measure to the construction of a gallery. The new gallery has thwarted the development of a combined Tauranga community art, heritage entertainment centre which would satisfy a broader section of the community. Until councillors can consolidate the dreams of all lobby groups into one community wishpool, monies desperately needed to develop basic city infrastructure ie roading, transport, sewerage etc will be whittled away.
Please could Tauranga City Council stop this ad-hoc appeasement of the loudest groups and focus on the combined cultural needs of the community
Y Houghton, Tauranga.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Awesome Architecture

Inspired as I have been by NotPC's architectural postings, I came across some interesting German architecture here.
There is just something about clever, and unusual architecture that fascinates me - Is it just the scale of things, or is it when somebody conjures up something completely alien to the normal brick and tile semi-suburban Mr James-type home or the tried and true multi-story office block?
I don't know - perhaps PC can explain just WHAT it is that makes these buildings so EMOTIVE.
Whatever it is, I personally get great satisfaction from these amazing structures, at the same time as I am intrigued by what was going on inside the heads of their creator

The Truth About Money

I have posted this before, but thought I would post it AGAIN because it is so SIMPLE, yet so TRUE!

If only they would teach stuff like THIS at school!
This, writen by economist Milton Freidman

The four ways money is spent:

When you spend your money on yourself, you're keen to get the thing you want most at the best price. Think middle-aged men haggling with a Porsche dealer.

When you spend your money on other people, you still want a bargain but you're less interested in pleasing the recipients of your spending. That's why children get underwear at Christmas.

When you spend other people's money on yourself, you get what you want but price concerns go out the window. O'Rourke points to second wives, riding around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches, who shop at Neiman Marcus (think girl heaven) as this type of spender.

When you spend other people's money on other people you don't give a damn.
That would be government.

So don't blame politicians for your tax bills. If you want lower taxes, you need to wean yourselves off government services and the belief that the answer to every problem is that the government ought to "do something". It's not just a case of governments doing more with less. It's about governments doing less with less.
When that realisation dawns, you may discover that most things the government can do, you can do better and a whole lot cheaper.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Toll Bridges and Tauranga Traffic Woes

Some years ago now Tauranga City Council was in great debate with the Tauranga public over whether they should be allowed to keep a toll on the Tauranga Harbour bridge or whether it should be removed completely.

NOBODY was interested in ANY kind of reasoning other than TAKE IT OFF or LEAVE IT ON - REGARDLESS of the consequences.

The pressure groups eventually won, and the toll was lifted.

The very next day saw beginning of Tauranga's major traffic congestion problems.

This is all over and done with now, but at the time, a small bunch of FREE THINKING individuals put their heads together and presented the Tauranga Council with an alternative solution to the MINDLESS TAG Pressure Group (headed by present Tauranga Councillor Rick Curaq) bleating TAKE IT OFF, TAKE IT OFF!!

The mindless morons in power at the time were so blinkered by the argument (take it off or leave it on!!!) that they couldn't even be bothered to read Our 10 page submission and it was TOTALLY IGNORED.

NOW some years later some brilliant councillor has come up with some ideas - and guess WHAT! - They are some of the ideas WE presented all those years ago.

Please read the following submission prepared by Russell Watkins, Graham Clark and Mike Gordge concerning the Tauranga Toll Bridge, the effect of removing the toll, and some SOLUTIONS to the problem.
The mindless bureaucrats at the Tauranga City Council could not have developed a solution to match this in their DREAMS, but I suppose its not in their interest to really! If they found solutions to the problems, they would do themselves out of a job now wouldn't they! and lets face it, Why are they there? Let's face it, if they were doing it for the COMMON GOOD, they would be doing it for NOTHING wouldn't they?



Presented to
The Tauranga District Council
By Tauranga Libertarianz

Executive Summary

Proposals to remove tolls from the Tauranga to Mt. Maunganui toll bridge are understandable but short-sighted. Removal of tolls will not only reduce road revenues but will also increase “costs” by increasing traffic flow thus increasing travel time for all bridge consumers. Additional traffic means higher maintenance costs and greater pollution.

Keeping tolls in place makes economic sense. Yet the bridge was financed with tax monies and bridge users paid off the debt. The most sensible solution is to turn the bridge into a company owned by shareholders who are made up of bridge users. Users would buy monthly or yearly passes and through the purchase of such passes would also be purchasing shares for that year. At the end of the years a percentage of any profits from the bridge would be set aside for future major renovation and the remainder distributed to the owners; i.e. to the users themselves.

New technologies allow traffic to flow smoothly without having to stop for tollbooths. And it is possible to use variable pricing techniques to reduce congestion during peak traffic times.

The Toll bridge from Tauranga to Mt. Maunganui was built on the premise that once it was “paid for” that the tolls would be removed. Such a promise was easy to make years ago when the final installment was not due for some time. But now that the bridge has been paid for the political question is whether or not unrealistic promises made years ago should be kept.

The first option facing policy makers is to remove the tolls as their predecessors have promised. But what does this mean? Will the bridge, in fact, become free? The obvious answer is: No. As the saying goes: There’s no such thing as a free lunch. In this case there is no such thing as a free bridge.

The bridge and the roads leading up to it will still require maintenance on a regular basis. At some point the bridge will probably require major renovations. The traffic that the bridge generates also creates secondary costs in the form of street cleaning, maintenance of non-main roads, traffic control, etc. The fact that the toll may be removed does not mean that all the primary and secondary costs of the bridge disappear as well.

With costs remaining a new source of revenue must be found. The alternative would be using tax funds to cover these costs. So while it appears that bridge users are saving on the one hand they will be spending more on the other. There is a second way in which the “costs” of the bridge will be passed on to drivers. This will be in the form of additional congestion.

Tolls are a form of road pricing and as such they help allocate scarce resources. Demand for the bridge will, at times, exceed supply. This is inevitable. Even with a crude price system, in the form of a toll fee that remains the same throughout the day, this problem occurs and congestion results. Road consumers refer to these peak times as “rush hour”.

Thus the “free” bridge is not free at all. And the taxation method for financing the bridge creates some major problems, which are too often ignored by policy makers.

First, tax funds are centralised in one tax pool from which various projects are financed. Where this is done for road and bridge maintenance the results, too often, are that funds which should be used for maintenance are diverted to politically beneficial projects. The temptation is great for police makers to divert the funds to projects, which will win them support. Since elected officials are elected for short terms (the other option is not acceptable either) then the incentive is for them to accept short-term solutions. What happens ten or twenty years down is not a major concern to someone facing an election in the next few months.

Experience from around the world indicates that this phenomenon is not particular to any city, region, or nation. In the US state of Connecticut taxes were used to finance road maintenance yet the funds collected always exceeded the amount spent. Funds were then diverted to projects favoured, not by those who paid the taxes, but by those who spent them. The result was tragic. On June 28, 1983 the Mianus River Bridge on a major interstate highway collapsed killing three and injuring three more.

An investigation showed that road related revenues were only partially used to pay for road costs. A significant amount of the funds were instead diverted to the general budget of the state. In just a five year period revenue exceeded expenditure by US$223,576,000

The centralised tax pool method of financing bridge and road maintenance is highly deficient because the incentives in this system encourage policy makers to postpone maintenance in favour of new projects that appeal to special interest groups.

The second major problem is that a reduction in direct costs for use of the bridge will increase demand while reducing income. So as income to maintain the bridge drops the number of bridge users will increase. One of the functions of pricing in a modern economy is to help allocate scarce resources.
When a good or service is “free” the result is that the demand for said good or service will increase. So we end up with diminished revenues but increased costs. Combined with the political incentives to divert tax funding to favoured projects a potentially destructive combination of policies is created.

Increased demand will result in increased congestion. This inflicts additional costs on road consumers and also has residual effects on non-bridge users as well. Drivers will see an increase in travel time as more cars attempt to enter a limited space. As the cars idle or slow down the amount of petrol used per car will increase and the amount of pollutants released will increase as well.
The former imposes an additional cost on the drivers and the latter imposes an additional cost on the surrounding area.

Kiran Bhatt, of The Urban Institute, notes: a congested situation, each additional vehicle disturbs
and slows down the traffic flow with the result that
not only does that vehicle suffer time loss and experience
increased operating costs, but that it also imposes these
disadvantages on all other vehicles on the same road.1

Congestion, however, is much more. It is also passed on to non-road users as carbon monoxide pollution. A report by Thomas Higgins notes: “In areas where dense traffic occurs primarily at peak periods, traffic congestion and large volumes of carbon monoxide emissions go hand-in-hand. In most cities, peak period traffic accounts for about one-third of total traffic in an eight-hour period; as a result, reductions in peak traffic alone will substantially reduce carbon monoxide pollution.”2 Higgins notes that in Los Angeles morning congestion alone was responsible for 40 percent of vehicular smog and that a 25 percent reduction in peak traffic would reduce all smog by 7 percent and vehicular smog by ten percent.

With “free” roads there is one rule of thumb that has proven true over and over: demand will rise to meet capacity. As the US Department of Transportation admitted: “new roads soon reach capacity, and the problems become worse than before”. 3 Economist Anthony Downs calls this the Law of Peak-Hour Expressway Congestion: “On urban commuter expressways, peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity.”4

Thus the three main problems discussed here are interrelated. The removal of tolls will mean in an increase in demand and thus an increase in congestion. As the number of users increases the cost to maintain the bridge increases as well. But the increase in costs was directly related to the abolition of tolls. Thus just as expenses increase revenue drops to zero. Meanwhile bridge consumers are paying more in the form of time and higher petrol costs due to slower traffic and non-users, and users alike, are paying through the increase in vehicular pollution caused by longer travel times. Every problem associated with the bridge is exacerbated by the removal of tolls.

As presently structured the tolls on the bridge mean that consumption of bridge services is directly related to the costs, one pays. Those who do not use the bridge do not pay for the costs except to the degree that these costs are passed on to them as consumers of products, which are transported across the bridge. The fact that there is a one-to-one relationship between use and cost is important.

Under a “free” bridge scenario this link is broken. Instead payment is via the political process where there is no corresponding relationship between taxes paid and the amount of political goods consumed. “Your tax bill will be the same whether you like or dislike the national defense, agriculture, or antipoverty policies of the government. You will be taxed for subsidies to higher education, television stations, airlines, cultural centers, and many other political goods regardless of whether you consume or use them.”5 Thus public sector organisation breaks the individual consumption payment link.

One result is what economists, particularly environmental economists, call the “tragedy of the commons”. Communal property, such as “free” bridges, is used by everyone regardless of the costs they inflict on the resource. Since these goods are “free” the amount of use is not reflected in direct costs to the user. Therefore, the user gets his “money’s worth” by using as much of the resource as possible and as often as possible. Environmental economist Robert J. Smith noted: “By its very nature a common property resource is owned by everyone and owned by no one. Since everyone uses it, there is overuse, waste, and extinction. No one has an incentive to maintain or preserve it. The only way any of the users can capture any value, economic, or otherwise, is to exploit the resource”.6 In the case of bridge use everyone has paid prior to any use, through taxes, and this payment is not directly tied to the amount of the resource consumed. Therefore, the more road use expended the better the financial return to the user. In a pricing system, such as tolls, the more use expended the higher the cost: use and cost are proportional.

Equity and Pricing

Tolls, or road pricing, is a system where cost equity is encouraged. Economist A.A. Walters pointed out:

The common denominator of existing user charge
theory and practice is the idea that “the user should pay for
the roads”. A larger fraction of of the expenditure on the roads
has been incurred only because of the existence of cars and
trucks, and so the owners of these vehicles, rather than the
general taxpayer, should foot most of the bill for the roads.

Several variations are played on this basic theme. Probably the
two best known are the benefit principle — that users should
pay for the roads in proportion to the benefits received — and
the so-called “incremental cost” principle — that users should
pay according to the highway construction costs required for
their type of vehicle. The basic idea is one of equity; it was
thought fair and proper that users pay the highways.7

According to a study done by the Greater London Development Plan, “the effects of introducing road pricing are more likely to be progressive than regressive”.8 An article in the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy also concluded that the per capita income of road users is higher than the per capita income of those who use public transportation. Commuters, the very people most likely to use the bridge, are usually more affluent than other workers.

A Fair Alternative

Removal of the tolls completely is economically insane. As we have seen it will create numerous problems which were not anticipated by those who originally promised the removal of the tolls once bridge costs were paid in full. On the other hand tolls bridge users were promised that the tolls would be removed.

The question then is whether or not both problems can be addressed in a fair and equitable manner. And while the most sensible alternative is the privatisation of the bridge the problem of how to achieve such a goal has to be addressed. Politically such a move is likely to upset bridge users. After all they have been paying for the building costs for several years. Sale of the bridge would mean windfall profits for the government but those who actually paid for the bridge would get nothing back. It would be quit surprising if bridge users did not oppose such a move.

One alternative, which takes this problem into account, is privatisation where bridge users become bridge owners. This alternative is not only fair but sensible. The process would not be particularly difficult and politically it is not likely to arouse consumer anger.

The first step would be to delineate exactly what properties would be “privatised”. In this case the bridge itself and arterial roads directly leading to the bridge should be included. Funds raised by tolls would be used to maintain the bridge and these critical links to the bridge.

The second stage would be the creation of a company which would be vested with ownership in these properties. This company would be made up of share-holders who own stock for a one year period. Stock in the company would be distributed to bridge users as outlined below.

The bridge itself would remain a toll bridge. Rates for use would vary for casual automobile users (that is those who use the bridge on an irregular basis), those who qualify as commuters, and commercial users. Toll rates for casual users can remain, to begin with, as they are today. A higher fee would apply to commercial users such as trucks, busses, etc., for the simple reason that such vehicles impose more maintenance costs on the bridge. Commuters would pay a monthly rate equal to the costs they would normally pay for commuting to and from work five days a week.

Bridge customers would have the option of paying for use on a daily, casual basis, at a tollbooth. Or they would have the option of purchasing a pass that will allow them unlimited usage for one month or for one fiscal year at a time. Technology currently available would allow these consumers to use the bridge without having to wait in line at a tollbooth. It would be these customers who would become stock holders in the bridge itself.

A one year usage prepaid by a customer would give them 12 shares in the company. Any one who purchased a one month pass for the bridge would receive one share for each month purchased. This allows customers who do not need a full years worth of service to become stock holders as well. Stock shares are good for one fiscal year of ownership and each year shares are again purchased by customers. A shareholder who purchases 12 shares thus has the right to unlimited use of the bridge for that fiscal year. Commercial customers can also buy shares but the rates would be higher for them as they are inflicting higher costs for their usage.

A management company would be hired to keep the books for the bridge company and to hire contractors to maintain the infrastructure. They would also pay salaries for toll collectors as well. But the management company would not own the bridge but be employed by the owners or the shareholders. In this sense management is just as much an employee as are the toll collectors. The management company would have a contract with the shareholders and the length of the contract would be determined by the parties to the agreement.

At the end of each fiscal year the management company would present a report to all shareholders. In that report they, using common business practices, would determine the costs for bridge maintenance and the revenues received. They would decide how much of profits should be invested for future expenses and what amount should be paid out to share holders as dividends.

This type of “privatisation” where users become owners the basic economic incentives are still in tack. The end of year profits would reimburse regular users for tolls paid in excess of actual costs. But no individual consumer would be tempted to over-use the bridge.

The Technology

Instead of using old-line tollbooths modern technology could be used instead. The most sensible is the Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) method. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey noted that: “AVI offers the possibility of fully automatic, non-stop toll collection, with time and fuel savings plus convenience and safety offered to the motorists, as well as greater efficiency and security of funds for the toll road agencies, and less noise and air pollution for roadside residents.”

An AVI system is made up of three main components. The first component is the transponder, which is a small sealed package similar to a thick credit card. The transponder is either mounted inside the windscreen, under the vehicle. or elsewhere. This piece of equipment identifies each vehicle with a unique code number, which is picked by an interrogator and transmitted to a central computer system. The transponder unit is passive and relies on the interrogator to activate it. The transponder unit can be placed over the road in a fashion similar to road direction signs, by the side of the road, or it can even be placed under the road and activated as the vehicle drives over it. The interrogator receives the weak signal emitted and, once the information is gathered, it is sent to the computer, which can identify the vehicle type and time of day.

This system would mean that vehicles need not slow down to be processed when it comes to verifying payment. All monthly and yearly customers would receive a transponder code for the period of time for which they have prepaid. Casual bridge users who do not drive across the bridge frequently enough to make it beneficial to purchase a monthly or yearly pass could still arrange for a transponder in their vehicle.

There would be two possible uses of the transponder for casual users. First, it would be possible for them to prepay a specific amount in toll fees. Each time they use the bridge the computer reduces their balance accordingly. A sign over the lane they use could transmit back to them the balance in their account. It is also possible to use this system to send an end of month statement to consumers the way the phone company sends a bill. The statement would show date and time of bridge use. This may be beneficial to commercial users in that it records where their vehicles were at specific times thus improving efficiency.

Once a AVI system is put into place greater economic efficiency can be generated by the use of a true pricing system. Bridge use is very time sensitive but the cost of tolls usually remains the same regardless of varying demand. In the private sector this is addressed through variable pricing.

A theatre ticket at prime time on Friday night is more expensive than the same ticket on Tuesday afternoon. Some bars and restaurants charge a cover charge during their “rush” hours while offering discounts at other times of day.

The way this could work is relatively simple. During rush hours when the bridge is congested extra costs are imposed on all users and non-users because of the additional time it takes to travel across the bridge and because of the higher use of fuel and higher emissions of pollution. One function of prices would be to lower demand during rush hours and shift some traffic to slower hours. This would smooth out traffic patterns benefiting all bridge users and the environment.

During rush hour an additional fee could be charged. Regular commuters, who use the bridge during rush hours, would receive a bill for the additional amount at the end of the month. Casual consumers would have the higher rush hour fee deducted from their account or billed for it depending on which alternative is chosen for use. During non rush hours the toll fee could be, lowered to reward consumers who use the bridge during non rush hours. The net result should be smoother traffic use, less pollution, and a more efficient use of petrol and vehicles. There would definitely be a shift in consumer usage toward non rush hours and when that happens the consumers are rewarded by lower costs.

Regular and semi-regular bridge users would be channeled by this system to the automatic lanes. So only infrequent users would be required to slow down in the manual toll lanes. Efficient use of the bridge would be encouraged but bridge users, being the owners, would not pay more than necessary for keeping the bridge in working order. Revenues in excess of expenditures are returned to the user/owners in the form of year-end dividends. A portion of such revenue could be invested and saved for future anticipated major renovations thus avoiding the necessity of emergency expenditures by government.


1 Kiran Bhatt, What Can Be Done About Urban Traffic Congestion? (Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute, 1976). p. 5.
2 Thomas Higgins, Comparing Strategies for Reducing Traffic-Related Problems
(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1978) p. 5.
3 A Transportation Improvement Package for the Relief of Traffic-Related Problems, US
Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
Washington, DC. No date or pages.
4 Anthony Downs, “The Law of Peak-Hour Expressway Congestion” Urban
Problems and Prospects, Second Edition. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, p. 185-99.
5 James D. Gwartney and Richard Stroup Economics: Private and Public Choices,
(New York: Academic Press, 1982). p. 71.
6 Robert J. Smith, “Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons,” The Cato Journal,
Vol. 1. No. 2 (Fall, 1981), p. 457.
7 A.A. Walters, The Economics of Road User Charges, (Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press, 1967), p. 1-2.
8 C.D. Foster, Evidence to the Greater London Development Plan Inquiry on the
Regression of Road Pricing, GLDP Inquiry, 1972.

Monday, August 07, 2006

The Good Vs the Bad & the downright Ugly!

Darnton Vs Clark

This is the first I have mentioned of the Darnton Vs Clark lawsuit in which Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton is suing Labour leader Helen Clark for misappropriation of funds.

Things are just starting to get a little interesting, so thought I would post this - a press release from the Libertarianz party

Clark's Pledge Card Lies

Lower Hutt businessman and Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton today
accused Helen Clark of lying to the public over her comments on the
Auditor-General's report on election advertising. Darnton, who filed
papers in the High Court in June suing Helen Clark over her pledge
card spending, said that Helen Clark's interview with Paul Holmes on
Newstalk ZB this morning "contained so much misinformation it's
difficult to know where to start."

"Her first and most outrageous claim is that the 'spending is
allocated to parties to promote their policies'. This is just plain
wrong, wrong, wrong. The spending is allocated to parties for
parliamentary business. It's to run the office, not to run for office.
The rules explicitly state that parliamentary business doesn't include
election advertising. Helen Clark either hasn't read the rules or
thinks they don't apply to her."

Darnton continues, "She also claims that declaring the spending
illegal is 'changing the rules after the event'. Again, wrong, wrong,
wrong. As I said before, the rules explicitly exclude electioneering
and the rules governing appropriation of public money – the Bill of
Rights Act 1688 – have been on the books for three hundred years and
are fundamental to the way we do government. They're the very rules
that separate a democracy from dictatorship. If Helen Clark isn't
aware of these rules either, or doesn't think they apply to her, she's
not fit to govern."

Darnton welcomed the leaked findings of the upcoming Auditor-General's
report into election spending. "I look forward to the release of the
full report. So far it looks very promising. Clark and her cronies
might finally be held accountable for their wrong-doing. We're waiting
for the filing of her statement of defence with the High Court next
week. If she thinks she can mislead the judge the same way she
attempts to mislead the public the trial should be very entertaining."

More information on the case can be found at

Thursday, August 03, 2006

They ARE listening

Up until the age of about 35 I was blissfully unaware of the world of politics - I could not even have explained the difference between the left and the right, let alone communism and capitalism.
All that changed the day I first read The Free Radical magazine! - Ididn't really want to read it, so much as HAD to read it! You see, I was working for a design and print company that put the magazine together, and every time it arrived in the studio, all the artists would magically disappear or look like they were REALLY BUSY. Invevitably one poor artist would get lumbered with the magazine, and spend the next week or so cursing, swearing, and engaged in lengthy conversations that usually ended in tears, due to what I was told were unreasonable demands by the editor.
Eventually all the artists refused to do it, and so I thought as I was next in line, I would find out what was so unreasonable about the editor, and what the magazine was all about, so I could at least TALK to him, and understand his requirements.
So I did, and my life has not been the same since!
Not only did I agree with the sentiments within, but found that I had been living my life by the same values and philosophy as this without even knowing why!
Reading this magazine suddenly explained a lot to me about my life, and the trials and tribulations I had encountered up until that point in time - things suddenly became clear to me (apart from a few minor details like not understanding ssome of the language used - ie objectivism, capitalism, nanny state, child molesters of the mind etc etc)
Anyway, to cut a long story short, I started doing the artwork for issue 20 of The Free Radical in August 1996. 10 years later and I am just about to start assembling issue 71. - AWESOME eh?

Hy heartfelt thanks go to Lindsay Perigo and Peter Cresswell (Free Radical) and Russell Watkins (general hooligan) for being GENTLE with me while at the same time, grabbing me by the ankles, and giving me a jolly good SHAKE and rattling the last remaining brain cells that were still present in my head.

NOW The real reason for this post.

Since that fateful first day of reading the Free Radical, I have sent a barrage of letters to the editor of the local newspaper the Bay of Plenty Times, and have had a huge number of them published - this week being no different, I had 2 leetrs published so far. Well, last night I had TWO PHONE CALLS at home (people must look up my ph number in the local directory) from people agreeing with my letters, and giving me encouragement.
ALSO, my mate Russell (aka Billy Bones!) had a phonecall from the same newspaper asking for a LIBERTARIANS view on a local news topic!
It just goes to show that our ideas ARE valued, and people ARE listening to us.
Most encouraging

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Cascade of Interventions

All the links in the diagram have been proven by scientific research.
To read the diagram, start with the intervention being considered and read downwards from that point.

My wife teaches ante natal classes promoting natural childbirth.

I confess that I am NO expert in this field, although I am fairly well qualified (I have 4 children) in supplying the necessary ingredients in achieving the final goal (if you know what I mean!)

However, I have heard my wife speak of a process called the Cascade of interventions, which in brief is once the medical establishment is called upon for some particular treatment that is not necessarily life threatening, it most cases it will lead to another intervention, then another and so on and so on!

Once an expectant mother goes IN to the maternity ward there are doctors, nurses, and all kinds of machinery and equipment on standby, just waiting to be used. The medical staff, not wanting to stand around scratching their bums want to DO something because that is what they are there for - it's what they have been trained to do, so they are more than happy to "get started."

In a medical emergency, this is most welcome, but when it is NOT necessary, it is proven that it is more harmful than good.

After having been a witness at BOTH kinds of childbirth, I am inclined to agree.

My first child born IN the hospital First the gas Then the epidural then the Caesarean section Then the stitches Then the numbing pain as the drugs wear off Then the pain and discomfort as the wounds heal Then in my wifes case, the lifelong after effects of the epidural (large injection into the spine) and my Fourth child in a hot pool in the lounge of my home with candles burning, scented incense and massage oils, soothing music playing, mother and sisters providing massage and hot towels for comfort, and 2 midwives in attendance. No drugs, gas or other pain relief, which I must say was pretty heroic, but 2 hours after my son was born, my wife was hanging out the washing! (No, I didn't ask her to! - she did it because she COULD!)

Obstetric interventions can be life-saving procedures for women and babies. Technological advances, improved surgical techniques and better anesthetics have ensured that the small percentage of women who need this kind of help receive the best possible care.

Once the natural process of labor and birth has been disturbed, especially if there is no actual medical emergency, there is a significant risk that the unwelcome side effects of the treatment will make further intervention necessary to remedy the problem. This phenomenon is known as the cascade of intervention and is illustrated in the diagram above.

ANYWAY - the reason for this unusual post is that I intend to write a post comparing the Cascade of interventions by GOVERNMENT, or COUNCIL in our lives - it seems to me there is a direct relation to these things.

A Chardonnay Socialist and a thief

Russell Watkins - a Libertarian friend of mine - just called some ex Tauranga City Councillor a pompous chardonnay socialist,
a lobbyist (I dont know what that means!) and a thief in a letter to the Local newspaper the BOP Times.
The old bint replied saying "take care sir - I dont like being called a thief (chardonnay socialist and pompouse is OK then?) and Im sure my mates at the Mt RSA womens section and the folk in the decorative artists guild wont like it either." (was that a threat?)

Watch out Russell - have you seen the size of some of them bloody knitting needles? - boy are YOU in for it!

Here is my letter in reply

Grandad used to say “Son - when you are at the bottom of a hole it’s good advice to stop digging!” Shame Joye Adams grandfather didn't give her similar advice! Joye has made it quite clear that she’s happy to have a museum at any cost, even if it comes at the expense those who do "not." She does not care a tuppeny tart (her words) about their rights, as long as she gets her way. In regards to not like being called a thief, it’s simple! If you take somebody elses property, or ask somebody else to take it on your behalf, it’s worthy of the title thief.
These are perfect examples of the title chardonnay socialist, and I say (in the words of Bob Marley!) "who the cap fit, let them wear it!"
Democracy can also be a very bad thing! - ask the sheep what "he" thinks of democracy after he and two wolves have had a vote on what to have for dinner!
What would she think of democracy if enough paedophiles got together and voted whether to allow it?
Hitler also had a majority! - Was what he did right?
Democracy is the counting of heads - and NOT their content!
Just because the majority vote for something does not make them right!
Joye Adams is at the bottom of a deep well - somebody please pass her a very long ladder.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Breakup songs

Songs to feel miserable and commit suicide to:

My list of breakup songs (in reference to the post below)

This from NotPC and Rick Giles
For once, Rick Giles has an idea worth borrowing (who would have thunk it?). He's posted a short-list of breakup songs. I think we can do better, after all popular music has a breakup song for every mood, so here's a longer list, which still only scratches the surface:

I got a Bad liver, and a broken heart: TOM WAITS
I got a Bad liver, and a broken heart I drank me a river since you tore me apart I dont have a drinking problem except when I cant get a drink

I wanna stop:
(purchase this CD - it is a brilliant piece of work by one of the most under-rated New Zealand artists ever) I wanna stop, Ive had enough, this aint going anywhere - but nowhere

Gone for good:
MORPHINE Morphine are a little unusual in that the band has no GUITARS. 2 string SLIDE BASS guitar. Drums, and Sax. Now, I really like my guitars, but you dont even m iss it in thiss band - One of my favourite bands.
I'm never gonna dig out your picture, Im never gonna look you up someday
Life is very short. You dont love me anymore Your gone - your gone for good.

I was once sitting on top of the world - really had things in my hands, but something whent wrong and im not sure what - and now Im sitting here at home alone. People always want to give you free advice - well its something that ive always tried, but you get what you pay for thats what I say, and now Im paying and paying and paying. I lost everything I had - starting over from scratch.

No more shall we part: NICK CAVE
All the hatchets have been burried now . . ., . . . and no more shall I say, dear beautiful heart - I'm alone, and she has left me