Tuesday, April 10, 2007

State funded politics

RH, as usual, is in front of the pack when it comes to sniffing out the bad smells. This has been mooted for months and I commented on it a while back. It stinks in every way but fortunately is less than likely to come into being. It stinks for the reasons Mr. RH highlights but also because it further distances the politicians from the population. Politicians are supposed to be wasting their time in Wellington on a mandate from us, the great unwashed. They are supposed to be responsible to us. If they have to raise their funds from us that at least gives them a small incentive to be reponsible in the policies they espouse. If we no likey the ideas we no givey the dosh. Central funding removes this last vestige of answerability to the electorate. If the money is coming from a central cesspit why should they give a toss what we think about their behaviour. It is also but a short step from central funding for political parties to central funding for approved political parties. The totalitarian state is only just around the corner. Chip, chip, chip - they are forever inching their way to a place where I would find it impossible to live. I wonder how Mrs O would feel about living on a 30 foot express boat.

That it is unlikely to get into law in its present form is a silver lining. This government is a minority effort and needs the bit players to keep it afloat. Can you see United Future sanctioning free cash for the Legalise Cannabis Party?

NIWA's Jim Salinger is going to stand up in front of a sycophantic press corp sometime today and sell his soul for thirty pieces of IPCC silver. He will present the regional version of that worthless body's latest report. There will be lots of handwringing to emphasis the graphics of tidal bores sweeping down Takapuna shopping centre. There will be that 'we know best' look to accompany the 'artist's impression' of the Canterbury plains as they will look as a dust bowl. As an aside, there was something over the weekend that said that the dustbowls of the midwest USA of the 1930's could return. The 1930's? We hadn't started wrecking the planet then surely, so how could we have dust bowl conditions? Well it was all our fault of course ('our' being generic here) as 'we' were pursuing poor farming practices. So let's get this straight. We have no industrialisation and an isolated pocket of piss weak farmers turn the wheat belt into a desert by poor work practices. They improve and then cause the same condtions because they are producing too much carbon dioxide. Who in their right mind can believe any of this? Just remember it is all nonsense. It is all done on projections none of which, I'll say it again, none of which has ever been born out by actually happening.

Sandra Coney is barking. She writes (more handwringing) a piece about how we should preserve a piece of the Manukau Harbour's shoreline that hardly anyone ever goes to from the scourge of human development. Why should this happen? So that we can preserve evidence of previous human development in the form of stone settlements or some such bollocks.

Man's (or in the case of Coney, woman's) progress if it happened a long time ago has to be worshipped (especially if it is by an ethnic minority or and 'indigenous' people) but is to be condemned out of hand if it is happening now. We must preserve inefficient ways of doing anything whilst pouring scorn on the modern, easier, cheaper way of doing the same thing. As I said, East Ham.

No comments: