2025 Taskforce: The Great Leap Backwards

It must be report day. I at least had the weekend to read the Bazley report.

I have now also read the 2025 Taskforce Report, which came out today.  And it left me depressed. Never have I felt so dismayed by an official report.

The report is fatally flawed, because its findings stand or fall entirely on the belief that if you cut taxes and government spending, the economy will be magically transformed. This is economically illiterate nonsense of the highest order. If we want to examine why we do poorly we need to go beyond arguments about tax rates and welfare. We are not a high-tax country. So clearly the taskforce authors have completely missed the point of the exercise.

There are so many things to dislike about the report. Here are my main points:

No need to increase R&D spending

We need to innovate if we want to grow our economic base. We will not catch up with Australia if we remain predominantly a commodity exporter. We don’t innovate well, in part because of a lack of investment in R&D – both privately and publicly. There are few incentives for organisations to invest in research and development.

The Taskforce rejects outright any suggestion that we need to invest more in R&D (see pg 67). But their arguments don’t make a lot of sense, and their efforts to explain why we are at the bottom of the OECD sound a bit desperate, driven solely by ideology (se pg 68).

Maybe they should have added that if you take out all the countries in the OECD list that don’t have a Z in their name, we actually are damn near the top of the pile.

No strategic focus

The report argues against implementing strategies to focus on growing specific industries (pg 71).

The authors prefer the “magic fairy” approach – just do nothing, except slash taxes and state spending, and the magic pixie-dust will transform us into a land of milk and honey.

No compulsory savings scheme

Some have argued that we should adopt a compulsory saving scheme. Some believe this is the key reason why Australia has prospered and we have not. But anything that is state-mandated is anathema to the report's authors, regardless of its merits. They are of the view that people should save at their own rates, and that if you cut taxes they’ll do so (pg 74). Evidence for this assumption is not offered to the reader.

Screw the exchange rate

Our exchange rate woes damn us (at least in the short to medium term) to poverty. But, again, the authors are wedded to the notion of a fully floating exchange rate (pg 79), and reject outright any suggestion we should consider a different model.

Here's to your ill-health

Their views on health and education are dispiriting (pgs 92 to 96). The authors argue against retaining subsidies on doctors' visits and pharmaceutical prescriptions:

We also see little justification for the significant increase in recent years in the extent of universal subsidies paid for visits to the doctor. For many people these are simply churn: they pay in taxes what they later get back in benefits.

This ignores the reality that for a significant section of the community (and not just a few poor), access to affordable medical care is a real problem. Because of lifestyle and environmental factors (e.g. poor diet, poor housing etc), the poor often need more healthcare, not less.

If you averaged things out and gave everyone back a share of what the “average” person pays in taxes to subsidise doctors visits, a large section of the community would suffer. That would have consequences later when those people ended up needing expensive interventions.

The Brash prescription is a poison pill.

Education is a commodity, not a right

The authors of the report again refers to “middle class churn” when talking about the early childcare subsidies available to parents (pg 94). They clearly have no comprehension of the enormous costs of childcare.

The authors want more competition in education. They believe competition and accountability will encourage excellence. They have no evidence to show this to be true. Indeed they have no evidence any of their crackpot theories will work.

They also want to see an end to interest-free student loans. A highly educated workforce is an essential part of any high-growth economy. But the authors do not consider the possibility making education more affordable may be beneficial to society in the long run.

Sell sell sell!

In Brash-land, the state has no business being in business (pgs 105-110). The taskforce authors want to see wholesale privatisation and asset sales, and are of the firm belief private enterprise can always do things better and more efficiently.

Brash and his cohorts are utterly bereft of imagination and can’t look beyond their narrow accountants’ focus. Could it be that some enterprises exist for reasons other than to make money? What about the public good?

Supernova NZ Super

The taskforce authors want to see the NZ Super Fund being shut down and its funds used to pay back debt (pgs 110-111). The report fails to address how we are supposed to pay for superannuation in the future in the absence of such a fund.

What climate change?

The report criticises the spending on rail infrastructure, while advocating for more roading (pgs 112, 113).

Perhaps the authors have never heard of climate change, or don’t believe in it. They make no mention of climate change as a reason for investing in rail and public transportation.

No broadband

We are also told spending in broadband should be put on hold, because it is not certain what the benefits will be (pgs 114, 115).

Presumably we should just do nothing and then commission another report in ten years that castigates us for missing this vital opportunity to invest in infrastructure.

Imaginary red tape

It is a hobbyhorse of the libertarian right that we are over-regulated. This rather ignores the fact that international surveys regularly find New Zealand to be one of the easiest places in the world to do business.

So the regulatory slash and burn the report authors argue for (pgs 116 – 119) would be at best ineffective, and most likely would be counterproductive.

The authors claim New Zealand has one of the more restrictive environments for foreign investment (pg 129). They quote OECD statistics, but inconveniently those statistics show Australia has a more restrictive environment than our own. In any case, this is a highly dubious claim. I haven’t seen the OECD report on the topic, but it is a fact that New Zealand has very little regulation on overseas investment.

Get off my land!

The report authors’ contempt for environmental issues is obvious. When writing about the Resource Management Act they put the word “sustainability” in inverted commas (pg 119). They are more interested in property rights, which they see as more important than the rights of the community to determine the type of environment we live in.

Reduce workers' rights

They are opposed to workers’ rights, are against the minimum wage, and want the youth minimum wage reinstated to the pre-1999 level (pgs 124-127).

I presume they would like New Zealand’s reputation as a low-wage economy to remain intact.

Down with this sort of thing

The report lashes out at the monopoly rights given to Zespri, and at the co-operative structure of Fonterra (pgs 131, 132). Its authors do not share with us why these are bad things. We are just supposed to believe them.


In short, this report is flaky and lightweight, and is devoid of serious analysis.

I would like to know how much Brash and his fellow taskforce members were paid to write this rubbish. Can we have our money back?

More On The Bazley Report

I have finally got around to reading the Bazley Report on legal aid.

My initial impression last week – that the media were simply picking up on one area in Bazley’s report, while ignoring the others – appears to have been borne out. There is a lot of other material in the report. Much of it appears to be good sensible stuff. But you won't read much about it in the newspapers.

Bazley's recommendation include the following:

• the Legal Services Agency should be disestablished and its functions brought into the Ministry of Justice
• legal aid application processes should be streamlined and simplified
• people need to be better informed about the system, their rights, and court processes
• the duty solicitor scheme should be extended, so that people are not meeting their lawyer for the first time on the morning of their appearance
• childcare is a serious issue for many people appearing in court, and the courts should introduce childcare facilities
• people who are high users of legal aid, or who keep changing lawyers, should be subject to a case management system
• there should be more flexibility around the way lawyers are funded to provide services. For example, groups of lawyers could be bulk funded.

Bazley’s comments on the failings of the legal profession have been widely reported, and have gained the most attention. That is a pity, because the report has much to recommend. But Bazley is partly to blame for that. She uses the word "corrupt" to describe many lawyers, and claims up to 80% of the Manukau Bar are "gaming" the system. In doing so she invites the media to indulge in the usual lawyer-bashing.

But Bazley's evidence of corruption appears to be largely based on anecdote and hearsay, and she provides little to no concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Instead she will often start an allegation with words such as “I have heard that” or “I have been told”.

It is clear Bazley feels strongly that the legal profession is blameworthy, and that a significant number of incompetent or corrupt lawyers are undermining the system. Bazley has talked to a lot of people and visited most courts around the country. But it is still frustrating to read her report. She really owes it to the legal profession to be a bit more explicit about the wrongdoing she is alleging. If she can't name names, she could at least tell us about the types of people making the allegations.  Are they other lawyers? Defendants? Police prosecutors? Court staff? Judges?

Bazley's claim up to 80% of the Manukau Bar may be “gaming” the system is especially damning. Why then does she not examine who else may be "gaming" the system? What about the police, or crown prosecutors? Are they blameless? You have to go towards the end of the report to even see an acknowledgement that prosecutorial decisions have an impact on legal aid.

So it really isn’t clear to what extent a corruption or competency problem exists, because Bazley provides nothing to verify her claims. There is little doubt incompetent lawyers are involved in providing legal aid. What we don't know is whether many legal aid lawyers are corrupt.

While the problem is not clear, the recommendations she makes are at least sensible ones.  She recommends an accreditation scheme be introduced for legal aid lawyers, and that better disciplinary procedures be put in place. These are all entirely sensible recommendations, and no competent honest and lawyer has anything to fear from them. If there is even a perception of wrongdoing or incompetence, then steps should be taken to ensure standards are being adhered to.

Bazley also recommends that legal aid pay rates be increased. There isn’t much in her report about pay rates. This is a shame because, if there is a quality problem with legal aid lawyers, it is largely a product of pathetic remuneration rates. If you want the best people you have to pay them well. If you pay peanuts, then we all know what you get. I don't mean to disparage legal aid lawyers, the majority of whom are dedicated and competent. But the fact remains that most competent and talented lawyers make a decision not to go anywhere near the legal aid system. And why would they, when they can earn much more in private practice, and not have to deal with clients that one could at best call "difficult"?

The poor remuneration rates mean that, critically, most law firms won't touch legal aid work. Firms can charge their staff out at higher rates for non-legal-aid matters. The loss of firms is rightly lamented in the report. A junior within a law firm is more likely to be mentored by senior lawyers, and given feedback on his or her performance.  A profession of lowly-paid “car boot lawyers” – sole practitioners who can’t afford to run offices or have staff – may result in a reduction of standards, because nobody is critiquing their work.

Will much change if the bulk of the report's recommendations are implemented? Perhaps. But I suspect Hell would freeze over before the Government started to pay legal aid lawyers what they were actually worth.
Raising the bar for legal aid lawyers, while commendable, will probably lead to more lawyers leaving the legal aid system.  Why go through all that bother when you're paid such a pittance by comparison with those in private practice?

Why would you bother with all that regulation, only to be paid peanuts?

John Key: The Man With No Plan

John Key has been telling the media he won't go to the climate change conference in Copenhagen unless it looks like there will be a deal.

In other words, he only wants to be associated with success. He doesn't give a damn about the process of getting an agreement on climate change. Does he even believe humans are responsible for climate change? Maybe a better question would be to ask whether he even knows what he believes.

Key likes to be photographed alongside All Blacks, presidents and celebrities. Maybe he hopes that by being associated with successful or powerful people he will be able to fool us into thinking he has a plan. But his lack of substance, and the absence of any plan to deal with our nation's pressing issues, is more obvious than ever.

2025 Taskforce: Widening the Gap Between Don Brash And Reality

We should not be surprised by the recommendations of the 2025 Taskforce.

If you put Don Brash in charge of something like this, you can be reasonably confident about what he will recommend.

To close the gap with Australia we need to start by looking at what Australia's been doing, and what we've been doing. Australia is wealthier than us. There are of course many reasons for that, but it can't be pinned solely on Australia's mineral wealth. They must be doing something right. We are failing miserably.

What Australia hasn't done is:

• slash welfare
• slash spending
• slash taxes
• slash superannuation.

Did Brash consider those things for more than a nanosecond?

Still, why you would put a bunch of Ayn Rand acolytes in charge of an economic taskforce is beyond me, unless you wanted to know in advance what the outcome would be.

So why did Key appoint him?

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

I haven't yet had time to look at the full Bazley report into legal aid. So far I have read the Executive Summary.

But already I feel uneasy about the recommendations. Bazley lays into the legal profession. Much of her report focuses on bad or corrupt lawyers. And I'm not pretending those people don't exist. But Bazley doesn't get to play judge, jury and executioner. Take this quote:

Some lawyers appear to be acting corruptly, and should be disbarred.

She's clearly obsessed with bad lawyers. If she was writing more dispassionately she would have said:

There is evidence some lawyers may be acting corruptly. They should be investigated.

But I'm not trying to stick up for bad lawyers. I am uncomfortable, however, with her suggestion that up to 200 of them may be corrupt. That number doesn't sound right. And what does she mean by "corrupt"?

Bazley fails to mention, or downplays, some of the other reasons why the legal aid system is so poor. Those reasons include:

• inadequate court resources
• an inability by the system to cope with the "tough on crime" approach of the last few governments
• police over-charging, then dropping charges at the last minute
• the complete unreliability of so many clients, who won't show up for meetings or court appearances
• the fact legal aid lawyers are dreadfully remunerated, so that many are forced to work from their "car-boots", and so that many of the brightest move into other areas of legal work
• excessive paperwork.

I'll read the full report when I get time (and not on a Friday night). But this appears to be bad news for legal aid. Blaming everything on the lawyers allows the Government to do precisely nothing to fix the problems.

And if you think that I would make these arguments because I'm a lawyer, I don't do legal aid, haven't gone anywhere near the legal aid system since I was a junior in the mid-90s, and don't actually know any legal aid lawyers. I just hate to see a group of hard-working people constantly vilified.

Mike Hosking Asks The Hard Question: Does My Hair Look Good?

I'd heard Close Up would have an interview with 911 tinfoil hatter Richard Gage.

Good, I thought. Let's see the man sweat under some tough questioning.

Tough? It was Mike Hosking. Gage got lucky. Hosking asked some patsy questions, and did not appear to display an ounce of incredulity towards anything Gage said.

A conspiracy theorist was pedalling unscientific nonsense on national TV, and nobody thought to ask a tough question.

How depressing.

I Feel Ill

I haven't had time to look at the details of the Bazley Report into legal aid, but from the Herald report I feel deeply uncomfortable.

That discomfort may well turn to disgust when I read the full report. Or I may discover the Herald story's just a beat-up - like most legal aid stories the Herald runs.

Hopefully the report focuses on some other things - like legal aid agency incompetence and bureaucracy, and police over-charging of defendants.

Will any of this? No, because lawyers are always to blame.  be reported in the media.

He's Not Brash

Unless you're currently orbiting space, you're probably being deafened by the roars of indignation over a speech made by Phil Goff yesterday.

Across the media and blogosphere there are cries of "playing the race card". And my immediate impression when I heard the commentary was to think much the same thing.

Now I'm not sure. I've read the speech a couple of times and, disturbingly, I agree with much of it. Am I a racist?

Before you denounce me furiously, hear me out.

And let's also inject a bit of sanity into the debate. Goff is no Brash: let's get that clear right away. Let's not have such false equivalents being thrown about.

In his speech, Goff actually makes a number of valid points. So why the issue? Is it the overall tone? I'm not sure.

Perhaps the impression that Goff is playing "race" arises because of the efforts he goes to in order to paint a picture of two New Zealands: one where Maori and Pakeha live happily together, and one where there are deep racial divisions.

He also accuses the Maori Party of creating divisions between Maori and Pakeha. But it is at least arguable that Goff is doing no more than stating the obvious: the ETS deal, Harawira's idiocy, and the reopening of the foreshore and seabed issue, have the potential to stoke racial tensions. Well he's not actually wrong on that, is he?

Like Goff I have some serious difficulties with the deals done between the Maori Party and National.

• The reopening of Treaty settlements made in the 1990s in full and final settlement, at a time when nobody had ever heard of or contemplated an ETS, is wrong. The settlement process is supposed to resolve issues once and for all. That's what "full and final settlement" means. We now face the risk of those settlements being reopened and relitigated, each and every time the Government changes the law. The argument that this is justified because the value of the settlements is less under an ETS is a ridiculous one: everyone in the country is taking a hit under the ETS. How about I demand to pay less tax because my power and petrol bills are going to go up?
• The ETS deal favours a small number of Maori. Goff makes this point in the speech. There's very little in it for most Maori.
• The secret deals being done over the foreshore and seabed issue are a worry. I believe in open democracy, and the prospect of secret deals and trade-offs being done between the Maori Party and the Nats concerns me. I'm not pretending the current law is fine and dandy, though let's be honest: is there an easy solution? Of course not.

Some will say Goff is just playing to middle, white New Zealand. Perhaps he is. And yet some of his points are valid. Don Brash's Orewa speech portrayed Maori as a race as being entitled under the then-current system to more than Pakeha. Goff has not made any such claim. He has instead highlighted the benefits that a select few within Maoridom will receive under the ETS deal, and has pointed out that most Maori won't get anything from it.

And for those people thinking they'll never vote Labour again, get real. What alternative do you have?

He's not Brash.

How To Secure An Interview: File A Patent Application

The new head of the US Patent and Trade Marks Office is perhaps the most powerful person in the IP world.

The US is the most important market for most new inventions. So getting patent protection in the US is critical for most people looking to make serious money from their inventions.

Getting a patent application through the USPTO is often a challenging business. The US patent system is quite unlike any other, and this adds to the challenges faced by applicants. Worst of all, the USPTO has been struggling with a huge backlog of work. On top of that is the ongoing Bilski appeal (more on Bilski another day), which will be absorbing much of the USPTO's energy.

The new head of the USPTO, David Kappos, was brought in to clear the backlog, and he’s a busy man. And he’s clearly so busy it’s almost impossible to get a meeting with him.

So if you need to talk to The Man and can’t get access, you need to get inventive.

That’s just what ABA Journal senior writer Terry Carter has done. Carter has filed a patent application entitled “Method for a journalist to get an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos”. Below is the content of that application, as published on IP Watchdog:

Method for a journalist to get an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos

By: Terry Carter, ABA Journal

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to Method for a journalist to set up an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos.

2. Background

Currently there are a number of solutions for reaching Kappos, such as contacting the Office of Public Affairs/Press and Media Relations. Some of these solutions attempt to get phone calls and/or emails returned, but these solutions fail to meet the needs of the industry because the pendency period for such requests might exceed that for a patent. Other solutions attempt to get through the gatekeepers, but these solutions are similarly unable to meet the needs of the industry because the gate is locked. Still other solutions seek to sit by the telephone and wait, but these solutions also fail to meet industry needs because of deadlines.

It would be desirable to have a process for using humor to crack the gate at the highest levels that might gain the USPTO’s attention and facilitate scheduling an interview. Furthermore, it would also be desirable to have a process that provides a faster track for reporters than either the Office of Public Affairs or filing mock patent applications. Still further, it would be desirable to have a process for getting interviews with the director. Therefore, there currently exists a need in the industry for a process that keeps reporters somewhat in good graces with editors and news organization’s readers/viewers/listeners better understand the workings of the USPTO,

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention advantageously fills the aforementioned deficiencies by providing a Method for a journalist to get an interview with the director which provides a better news story.

The present invention is a method of setting up an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos, which consists of the following steps: getting someone in the USPTO to return a reporter’s contact attempts; make arrangements for an interview with the director and schedule it.

The present invention may also include one or more of the following steps: (1) Consulting with a patent attorney, such as Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog.com, to discuss how to prepare a patent application that would get noticed by someone in the Director’s Office as a unique and creative way to demonstrate the overwhelming desire for an interview; and (2) violate all ethical rules and offer Peter Pappas ONE DOLLAR AMERICAN to make the arrangements.

The present invention method is unique when compared with other known processes and solutions in that it: (1) might work; (2) is better than waiting for the telephone to ring; and (3) provides reporters a primer on how patent applications are prepared.

The present invention is unique in that it is different from other known processes or solutions. More specifically, the present invention owes its uniqueness to the fact that it: (1) attempts to jump in line in front of all pending applications; (2) assumes the director has a sense of humor; and (3) assumes the director has a sense of duty in helping represent the USPTO to a very large readership of lawyers, academics and judges.

Among other things, it is an objective of the present invention to provide a method for actually being able to set up an interview and speak with a political appointee at the Undersecretary level or higher, for example the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, who is otherwise known as the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property.

Further still, it is an object of the present invention to provide a solution that does not suffer from any of the problems or deficiencies associated with prior solutions.

The present invention now will be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings, which are intended to be read in conjunction with both this summary, the detailed description and any preferred and/or particular embodiments specifically discussed or otherwise disclosed. This invention may, however, be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein; rather, these embodiments are provided by way of illustration only and so that this disclosure will be thorough, complete and will fully convey the full scope of the invention to those skilled in the art.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Fig. 1 is a pictorial representation of a preferred embodiment of the present invention in the form of an electronic business telephone desk-set

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed to Method of setting up an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos.

In its most complete version, the present invention consists of the following steps: fill in a heck of a lot of blanks made that way by deleting phrases within brackets such as this one: {INSERT LIST OF ALL STEPS}. It should further be noted that this is more time consuming than anticipated, but I need the interview. That makes the technique as special as any mother’s child.

Referring now to the figures, FIG. 1 pictorially illustrates the electronic business telephone (EBT) of the present invention in the form of a desk set terminal shown generally at 10. The operator interface with the EBT is provided by handset 12, which includes a conventional microphone pick up and speaker, keyboard 14 and digital display panel 16. The handset is used in the conventional manner as an electroacoustical transducer to convert audible sounds into electronic impulses and vice versa for two-way voice message communication. This, or similar device, would be used by the present inventor to call the Director’s representative, perhaps a secretary or executive assistant (not shown) for the purpose of setting up an interview. The interview could then be conducted in person, or via a device functionally equivalent to the device shown here in FIG. 1.

While the present invention has been described above in terms of specific embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to these disclosed embodiments. Many modifications and other embodiments of the invention will come to mind of those skilled in the art to which this invention pertains, and which are intended to be and are covered by both this disclosure and the appended claims. It is indeed intended that the scope of the invention should be determined by proper interpretation and construction of the entirety of the disclosure, as understood by those of skill in the art relying upon the information contained within this specification and the attached drawings.

What is claimed is:

1. A method for a journalist to set up and conduct an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos comprising:

a. preparing what is perceived to be a humorous patent application that will get noticed by an individual with the ability to schedule an in person interview of a USPTO Director and a journalist;

b. provoking communication between said individual and said journalist to set up said interview;

c. making arrangements for said interview with said Director and scheduling said interview at a mutually convenient time;

d. conducting said interview.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said Director is David Kappos.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein said journalist is Terry Carter.

4. The method of claim 3 further comprising consulting with a patent attorney to discuss how to prepare a patent application that might get noticed by said Director and identified as a unique and creative way to demonstrate an overwhelming desire for said interview.

5. The method of claim 4 wherein said patent attorney is Gene Quinn.

6. The method of claim 5 further comprising violating all ethical rules and offering a public relations individual ONE DOLLAR AMERICAN to schedule said interview.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein said public relations individual is Peter Pappas.

ABSTRACT

The present invention relates to method of a journalist getting an interview with the USPTO director. which provides for a thorough news feature. In order to carry out this method the following core steps are followed: Fax a mock patent application to the director’s office. Core method: seek help on doing so via software mentor, patent pending. Ultimately, at the conclusion of these steps will get the in person interview, despite what the sole figure in this application implies.

The application is based on a template developed by IP Watchdog’s Gene Quinn. It looks a lot like the sort of business method patent application that is currently the subject of the Bilski litigation.

Does the invention actually work? The Legal Times Blog reports:

"I got a call back within hours from someone in Pappas' shop to work on arranging an interview, my much-shortened deadline and Kappos' schedule permitting," Carter said Thursday. "Then later Pappas himself called to discuss my humorous approach. Since persistence hadn't worked, I saw it as a better alternative than stalking."

Asked for comment, PTO spokeswoman Jennifer Rankin Byrne offered this statement: “While we regret that Terry Carter had the misfortune of having his request fall through the cracks, we were only partially amused by his unorthodox method of gaining our attention. But, in the spirit of the coming holiday season, let us respond with humor and good cheer: The application is denied for lack of subtlety. And we are working with the ABA Journal to schedule an interview."

Could it be then that the USPTO has a sense of humour? That truly would be a novel claim.

A New Nation

I wrote in October about the Reverend Daniel Izzo and his Resurrection Burial Tomb.

The good Reverend has now posted a comment on that article, revealing some exciting developments. I thought I'd post his comment as a separate post.

Here it is:

Hello - the device is now Patented - in Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land Antartica, along with the newly organized US Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land ( a place that can support natural cryonics for those that wish to be preserved or medically resurrected after death )

Inventions are not money - if you want money then a erson should make money ( coins ) - a lession that caused me to lose some of the most important things I had.

Thank you for posting this, I didn't think people would ever know the rotten time I had with the US Patent Office - whose only source of funding is from inventor fees not tax dollars - about US gold clause contracts as US Dollars - they where made a Legal tender by the Act of Congress of June 5th 1933 ( US Title 31 sec 5103 ) and made exchangable for other forms of US currency by the Act of Congress of Aug 27th 1935 see the original joint resolution for US Title 31 section 5118 part B )

My holding are still secured with a mortgage with about 2000 miles of abandoned railroad tracks of the former New York Central Railroad the gold bonds where/are due from 1997-2013 but we don't want to foreclose on the mortgage because we would have to pay the taxes and liablity and our mortgage gold bonds ( legally holding the term 'United States of America' ) are money anyways see US vs Bankers Trust 1935.

I spent over $10,000 USD at the USPTO since 1996 just to secure my intellectual property rights , if any, and then found my local government suddenly bullying me over my 13 messed up rental properties , demanding a total sum over $250,000 USD for code violation fines etc, from 1996-2000 - starting two weeks after I filed my patent for the 1st invention , the Microwave Hot Water Boiler Heating System now Patented

The devices in question in the invention ( the nuclear electric generators with radioactive magnets or microwave emitting magnetron ) do not violate the laws of physics but are nuclear and radioactive ( restricted / limited use ) see Richardson's Law for Thermionic Emmissions and thorium plated cathodes )

for more information concerning:

History of the United States Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land Antarctica go to:

http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/history-of-the-united-states-trust-territory-of-marie-byrd-land-and-ellsworth-land-antarctica/7638512

" Claimed a territory of the United States in 1929 and 1935 by Antarctic explorers, Admiral Richard Evelyn Byrd and Lincoln Ellsworth, the United States Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land was organized in 2008 and 2009. It comprises of the land area in Western Antarctica that extends between 90 degrees West and 150 degrees West on the Antarctica continent, incorporating the Territory State of Marie Byrd Land and the Territory State of Ellsworth Land Antarctica in perpetual union. The area is governed by The Articles of Confederation of the United States Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land accepted on January 22nd 2008 and ratified on March 20th 2009. "

Best Wishes in the Future Dr Izzo

I was curious about the claims by Izzo that he could get patent protection in Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land. These are both areas of Antarctica. According to Wikipedia, Marie Byrd Land is unclaimed by any nation, and parts of Ellsworth Land are claimed by Chile and parts by the UK.

The good Reverend knows an opportunity when he sees one. He needs somewhere to run his cryonics business, and there's a whole pile of cold space going to waste. He has accordingly established the Articles of Confederation of the United States Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land. They look remarkably similar to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777, the first US constitution, but that's by the bye. A new nation is born. I just wish I'd thought of doing that first.

And there's some good news for Izzo and his patent application:

Reverend/Dr Izzo (which do you prefer?), I have a few questions if you're still reading:

• do you have a standing army?
• will you be sending a team to the Olympics?
• is there a tourism office? (in case I want to visit your splendid country)
• assuming you're the head of state, were you elected? Or are you taking a "divine right of kings" approach?
• do you have a currency?
• are there any plans to expand your territories?

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for improving my day.

Thanks For Screwing Us Over, Pita and Tariana

Is the Maori Party about to implode?

Is Harawira in or out? If he's out they're doomed. He may be rough around the edges, but he in many ways he represents the soul of the party - activism and a passion for social justice. If he goes a number of others will too.

The other Maori Party MPs seem to be losing touch with the people they're supposed to represent. There is no better demonstration of this than the shabby deal done over the ETS.  For most Maori, as for most New Zealanders, the ETS is bad news. It rewards polluters and ensures we'll all be paying for dirty industries in the years to come. The Labour scheme wasn't perfect, but it looked a damn sight better that this travesty. This is the ETS you put in place when you don't actually believe in climate change but want to be seen to be doing something.

A couple of months ago the Maori Party  delivered a minority report on the ETS that expressed major concerns about the proposed scheme. So why the deal now? What changed? Well it's obvious: the Nats bought their vote. Everyone, it seems, has their price. And to hell with the country.

I can only imagine how this is going to play with "mainstream" Maori Party voters. It can only be good news for Labour. They must be sensing they might now have a chance to retake some of the Maori seats in 2011.

On The Perils Of Caffeine

Trade Minister Tim Groser must have had too much coffee yesterday.

On the Zespri v Turners and Growers dispute, the Herald reports:

Trade Minister Tim Groser has fired a shot across Turners & Growers' bows as allegations surface that the company has "sought to collude with foreign powers" to undermine the New Zealand Government's trade policy.

I thought Groser was supposed to be one of the more sensible ministers. Colluding with foreign powers? It's not as if T&G has been selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans.

Next time, Tim, ask for a decaf.

Oh Chris...

Dear Chris

I know I should have moved on - I said I would.  But the therapy really isn't going well.

Every couple of days I see your mug in the paper or on the internet and I remember the old Chris - witty, intelligent, a pleasure to read.

But now I wonder if your columns are being written by a punch-drunk boxer.

Today you say Robbie Deans should be sacked as Australian rugby coach. Wasn't he the guy you told us should have been coach of the All Blacks? Wasn't Deans the best coach in the country? When Graham Henry was reappointed, weren't you loud in your condemnation of the NZRU for letting Deans go?

Chris, maybe it's time you went quietly, before you do much more damage to your reputation. It's pretty obvious your memory is going - as you appear to have forgotten why Deans was supposed to be the best rugby coach in New Zealand.  Pretty soon people are going to start asking awkward questions, such as "do you actually watch any of the games you write about?"

It will be sad to see you go. I'll miss you, and will remember the old days. But I'll move on.

We've Launched!

A week or so ago I launched a new movement: Surrealists for 911 Truth.

I promised a website. Here it is.

People, it's time to expose the shocking truth behind the events of 9 November. Join us!

National Culture In The Spotlight

It's nice to see the news media picking up on an issue I wrote about a month or so ago.

The Dom Post today reported:

We Kiwis are justifiably proud of our No8 wire mentality, but it's stopping us becoming millionaires, research shows.

Research for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise says our national traits – a frontier self-reliance, egalitarianism and a "she'll be right" attitude – don't work when it comes to taking on the world.

And our "bach, boat and BMW" mentality means we settle for the good life rather than growing our businesses to their full potential.

NZTE is basing these findings on research undertaken by Tony Smale. I wrote about this topic a month or so ago, when Tony presented to the New Zealand chapter of LESANZ on this very topic.

Smale's research is actually a bit more involved than the news reports suggest. He is not simply blaming our leisure activities on our underperformance. Because in fact we are (in terms of hours spent) some of the hardest workers in the OECD. We just aren't terribly productive.

New Zealand's economic performance is substandard, and we need to be discussing why. So it's good to see the news media picking this story up.

The Latest Fool Of The Moment

There's a new fool in town.

From the Herald:

Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons has been labelled "naive" for meeting with a group who claims that the collapse of the World Trade Centre in 2001 was an inside job.

Fitzsimons met Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, in Wellington yesterday.

Ooh, I bet she gave him a good telling off. Gage uses the same types of pseudo-science arguments that climate change deniers use: find a bit of evidence that can be interpreted in a number of ways, then build an entire theory around it. Attack anyone who disagrees. Man, I'd love to have seen her tear a strip off him.

Fitzsimons said after her meeting with Gage that there were "some unexplained matters".

Huh?

"What I've found is that there are a lot of highly trained people who say [the Twin Towers] could not have collapsed the way they say it did."

Asked if she was a 9/11 sceptic, Fitzsimons said: "I would say I've got an open mind. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, I'm interested in evidence."

Jesus wept! Why would any self-respecting politician give any credence to Gage's ridiculous theories?

So how bad is this for the Greens? From an Australian 911-"truth" site:

It is with great pride that I can announce that Jeanette Fitszimmons the co-leader of the Green party in New Zealand has signed the politicians for 911 truth petition.

Although Jeanette wishes to emphasise that she signed the petition as a private citizen first and politician second it remains a fact that she is the first sitting front bench MP of any country willing to make a stand and sign a petition demanding a new investigation into the events of 911. The Green party is currently in the opposition but until November last year was part of the governing Labour government and the third biggest party of New Zealand.

Jeanette Fitszimmons has repeatedly but off record expressed her sympathy with those of us who are working towards a new investigation but until this moment declined to speak openly about her doubts with regards to the official accounts of the events of 911, however when I e-mailed her with the news of the new website and the request that perhaps she would sign the petition I was pleasantly surprised to find my request fulfilled within hours.

[emphasis added by me]

The 911 conspiracy theory is one of the looniest ever created. Think about it. As a non-scientist and non-engineer I happily confess to not understanding all the technical and scientific arguments put forward by each side. But a lot of scientists and engineers have looked at the claims made by the "truthers" and have discredited them. That shows that, at best, the technical and scientific arguments of Gage and others are highly questionable. At worst they're utter nonsense.

But what makes the theories loony is the conspiracy that must exist for them to be correct. The US military and secret services are simply too incompetent to put together something so elaborate. And why has not one person come forward to admit their involvement?

I hope Fitzsimons' party gives her a ticking off for allowing the Greens to be associated with this lunacy.

For the promotion of crackpot theories Jeanette Fitzsimons is the latest Imperator Fish Fool of the Moment.

Richard Gage On 9/11

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

So said Richard Gage to Kim Hill on Radio NZ this morning.  Gage is in New Zealand to talk about what he thinks really happened on 9/11. He claims there is irrefutable evidence that the Twin Towers and Tower 7 were brought down by a series of controlled explosions.

Gage claims the existence of nano-thermite in the rubble of the buildings proves the existence of a controlled demolition. He also claims the laws of physics prove the official story is untrue.

Despite this, there are numerous websites devoted to debunking the claims of the 911 “truth” movement, such as http://www.debunking911.com/. Just about every claim made by Gage about 9/11 has been refuted.

If you aren’t a scientist or engineer it could be quite easy for you to be taken in by his theories. But here’s the trouble: to believe the controlled-explosion theory you must also believe there was an enormous conspiracy in place to plan the attack; and that the hundreds, or even thousands, who must have been involved have all maintained a stony silence to this day.

Here are some of the things you have to admit to believing if you are prepared to give credence to Gage’s theories:

• The video footage of Osama Bin Laden admitting responsibility for the attack after 9/11 is a fake.
• The BBC and CNN announced the collapse of Building 7 20 minutes before it happened. So they had to be in on the conspiracy.
• The planes that hit the Twin Towers were remotely controlled. There were no terrorist hijackers. So all the evidence that hijackers boarded and took control of the planes is false. Presumably all of the flight records and passenger manifests have also be falsified.
• FEMA just happened to be nearby at the time, doing a drill. Hardly a coincidence. So they were in on it.
• The Twin Towers lifts were being upgraded at the time of the attack. The elevator contractors must have been laying explosive wire – so they knew. It would have been a major job too – not just one guy laying cables.
• The building security people must have been aware as well, to have allowed the explosives to be planted.
• The people who compiled the official reports of the events of 9/11 were in on the conspiracy
• Various people in the media and defence industries made huge profits following 9/11. They must have been in on it.

When asked why none of these people have ever come forward, Gage speculates that some of them may have been killed. Or that the “mainstream media” wouldn’t listen if anyone did come forward. Hill should have asked whether any of these people had gone to the “truthers” instead - but I think we already know the answer. Gage adds that the biggest media companies in the US are all under the control of people who profited from 911.

Gage won’t countenance any doubts. According to Gage, any expert who disagrees with him hasn’t looked at the evidence or is one of "Them". For example, Popular Mechanics ran a special debunking various 911 myths. Gage’s response to that: the original editorial staff of Popular Mechanics were fired and replaced with allies of the Bush administration before the report was written.

The interview is entertaining, and Kim Hill clearly thinks the whole thing is mad. For example, Gage says that 36% of Americans disbelieve the official 9/11 story. But Hill pours scorn on that statistic by also pointing out that a majority of Americans don’t believe in the theory of evolution.

Gage claims on more than one occasion that 95% of the people who go to his presentations end up agreeing with him. But that is hardly impressive. Clearly, most people who go have already made up their minds. Those who decide after hearing him are clearly too credulous for their own good.

Continuing to suggest you are no conspiracist, while all the time providing “evidence” of a massive cover-up, is true tinfoil hattery at its finest. For that achievement I hereby induct Richard Gage into the Order of the Tin Foil Hat.

Global R&D Figures Out

The IPKat blog reports on the 2009 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard.

The EU report contains some interesting data, and pretty tables and pie charts, showing some of the differences between European and US R&D spending. Like this:

The chart reveals that ICT and Pharma R&D still hugely dominate the US scene. Automotive R&D is negligible, compared with Europe.

And this table lists the top R&D spenders in the world.

What's interesting here is that Toyota, a company with a reputation for creating "boring" cars, is actually easily the top spender in R&D. As you would expect, the list is dominated by car companies, pharmaceutical companies, electronics companies, and IT companies.

The figures show that the US still dominates global R&D, with EU states a not-too-distant second, and Japan not far behind the EU. Interestingly, these figure suggest the EU is able to drive more sales off its R&D than the US, but the US is more profitable.

Where are we? We don't rate a mention. No surprises there, since we do so feebly in our R&D performance.

Binyam Mohamed Wins Yet Again

I wrote about a month ago about the case of Binyam Mohamed. According to Salon:

Mohamed is an Ethiopian citizen and British resident who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and then "rendered" by the U.S. to multiple countries (such as Morocco); held incommunicado (no access to lawyers, the International Red Cross or anyone else) and interrogated by U.S. agents until 2004; and then shipped off to Guantanamo, where he has remained ever since. Mohamed alleges -- and (as British courts have ruled) there is substantial evidence to confirm -- that he was brutally tortured during this time period, including having his genitals sliced, being severely beaten, and having guns aimed at his head and threatened with death if he did not confess.

His cause has been the subject of a number of court cases in the UK. In October the High Court ruled that certain redacted passages from an earlier ruling, detailing the torture alleged to have been inflicted against Mohamed, could be released to the public, pending an appeal.

The British government duly appealed, but its appeal has just been thrown out. The Guardian reports:

The high court today flatly rejected claims by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that releasing evidence of the CIA's inhuman and unlawful treatment of UK resident Binyam Mohamed would harm Britain's relations with the US by giving away intelligence secrets.

Evidence that the foreign secretary also wants to suppress is believed to reveal what British intelligence officers knew about Mohamed's treatment. Mohamed, 31, an Ethiopian, says he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay.

In the sixth in a string of damning rulings, the high court accused Miliband of wanting to suppress information about CIA activities even though details had already been disclosed by the Obama administration. Dismissing Miliband's claims, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones insisted they were not trying to give away "American secrets". They said: "Of itself, the treatment to which Mr Mohamed was subjected could never properly be described in a democracy as 'a secret' or an 'intelligence secret' or 'a summary of classified intelligence'."

The judges revealed that seven paragraphs in a key document Miliband insists must remain secret "relate to admissions of what officials of the US did to BM during his detention in Pakistan". They repeated their earlier finding that "what is contained in those seven redacted paragraphs gives rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".

The court determined that, because CIA interrogation techniques have already been published, there is little point in maintaining the secrecy of what happened to Mohamed - because it isn't much of a secret.

This is yet another example of the awful UK government covering itself with shame, and attempting to hide the disgraceful actions of its security people.

I can only imagine how let down Labour's traditional supporters must feel by the behaviour of the current government. I remember Miliband from my days in the UK, and he always struck me as a truly repulsive figure - an oily toad that I wouldn't trust for a moment. My initial impressions appear to be borne out by his subsequent actions.

If you were a UK voter you'd be tempted to vote for the Tories just to teach Labour a lesson. What a terrible prospect.

Tomorrow

Let's Be Open Minded About Monetary Policy

The announcement by Labour's Phil Goff that he wants to look at the nation's monetary policy is good news.

But much of the reaction to his announcement has been over the top.

Labour proved during its nine years in office that it was a responsible government. It resisted calls for tax cuts until the end of its reign, conceding on cuts only because of political pressure brought to bear by the opposition. And in putting in place schemes like Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund Labour proved it had the vision to look to the long term. And Goff is a relatively conservative figure within Labour. So it is not as if he is about to rip the economics manual up and start waving the red flag.

But the obsession with keeping inflation down seems an odd one. No one doubts that reducing inflationary pressures is an important goal for the Reserve Bank. But we have a highly volatile currency that is crushing exporters, and the OCR mechanism available to the Reserve Bank governor is an extremely blunt instrument. As a result of this focus on inflation our interest rates are high, and that's good for people who want to invest in New Zealand. That's also bad for the dollar.

The current Government's response - there's nothing we can do, so bad luck - leaves me cold. I don't accept this as an answer. Of course, the reasons why we perform badly are complex, and can't all be blamed on the dollar's volatility. But the dollar is an important factor and we shouldn't accept that we are powerless to influence it.

So let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Let's see what Labour comes up with. If Labour's proposals are weak or potentially harmful to the economy, then let's all savage them like hungry wolves attacking lambs. But let's at least wait until then.

Protecting Your IP

The Stuff website today published an article from Computerworld written by lawyer Guy Burgess. The advice he gives - that software owners should separate the ownership of their IP from their business trading risks - makes good sense.  If you have valuable IP - such as a trade marks, patents, software or designs - then you should take steps to protect it.

So set your business structure up so that a separate company controls your IP. Both the trading entity and the operating entity can still be under common ownership or control.

Doing this works because of the doctrine of limited liability. The courts will only rarely lift the corporate veil and look behind the affairs of a limited liability company. If you have a company that goes bust, and you've set things up right, receivers and liquidators won't be able to get at your IP assets.

Here are some things you need to do:

• Get tax advice. If you are thinking about shifting IP assets from one entity to another, don't think you can get by on a $1 transfer. If you sell an asset for less than its true value you may find the IRD demanding you pay gift duty on the amount of the discount. You can't gift more than $27,000 a year without paying gift duty. And also be aware that transactions between associated parties have the potential to cause all sorts of tax issues for those concerned. And another thing: if you sell a patent to your IP holding company, the sale proceeds are likely to attract income tax. My best piece of advice is to get a good tax accountant. And make sure your accountant and lawyer talk to each other.
• Do it early. A lot of the tax problems I mentioned above can be solved if your business isn't yet trading. The more successful you are, the more valuable your IP becomes. The more valuable your IP becomes the harder it becomes to shift that IP around while avoiding tax difficulties. This can be a challenge for startup businesses who don't have a lot of money to spend on lawyers and accountants. But they may end up paying much much more later to get the job done.
• Get your IP chain of title sorted out. It may seem obvious that you can't put IP into a holding company if you don't own it, and yet I am frequently called upon to unravel complex and challenging ownership situations, where a client suddenly realises the IP they thought they owned is in fact held by someone else. The ownership rules are different for copyright, patent rights and designs. Often an inventor or author will end up retaining legal title to the IP he or she created, even where the contract says someone else owns it - simply because someone forgot to get an assignment of legal title.  Work out who created the IP, then make sure they assign their rights in that IP to you. If in doubt, get legal advice.
• Be realistic. Your bank isn't going to suddenly let go of its choker-hold on your life. Your IP company may end up being separated from the trading operations of your business, but if the IP is your most valuable asset, your bank will want security over it. Live with it.
• Don't mix things up. Running separate companies only works so long as you keep the two completely separate. Take steps to make sure your holding company doesn't accidently issue or pay invoices. Don't send correspondences out on the wrong company's letterhead.
• Put a licence in place. The IP holding company needs to grant to the trading company a licence to use and exploit the IP. Make sure the licence can be terminated in the event of an insolvency event occurring in relation to the trading company.
• Get your constitutions and shareholders agreements sorted out if there is more than one shareholder. I have seen many a good company completely destroyed because the shareholders couldn't agree on how to run the business. Work out how you'll deal with critical business decisions, and think about how an exit will be managed. A shareholders agreement is similar to a prenuptial - you hope you never need it, but if you do it had better be comprehensive.
• Consider a limited partnership structure. Limited partnerships give the partners all the tax benefits of a partnership, while preserving limited liability. LPs are good structures to put in place if you expect to make losses for the first few years of the business.

And now a shameless plug: I do this stuff for a living. Feel free to contact me if you think I can help your business. Here's a link to my profile in case you want to get hold of me.

By the way, this is free advice. If you want me to be liable for the advice I give, then you must pay me. That's the way the whole free advice thing works.

(How else can I justify looking at by blog during work hours, unless I occasionally post something that shamelessly promotes my job?)

In Which My Ego Gets The Better Of Me

I think I'm having a Cactus Kate moment.

Because I feel the need to crow on my blogsite about my unparalleled genius.

So please indulge me as I get this out of my system.

(ahem...)

TOLD YOU SO! TOLD YOU SO!

Yes, that does feel good.

In this case my crowing is over an entirely trivial matter - the All Blacks team.

When the selectors announced the team for the Northern Hemisphere I was dismayed to notice the absence of a third hooker in the squad. Especially when one of the two hookers selected has had a series of injury problems over his career. I made my opinion known on a sports blogsite, and then waited. And waited.... and waited...

And then this morning this.

The All Blacks insist their gamble to pick just two hookers in their rugby tour squad hasn't backfired as a Corey Flynn hamstring strain saw Aled de Malmanche rushed in from a Bali holiday for a potential bench spot against England.

Flynn was rated doubtful for Sunday's (NZT) test at Twickenham after suffering the twinge near the end of yesterday's session.

Graham Henry, next time you pick a team, please call me. I could have saved you a lot of bother.

(See, that wasn't too unbearable, was it? Wait... where are you going? Come back!)

Do It For the Kids

This Saturday you can make a difference.

Join the March for Democracy. Don't let those clowns in Wellington tell you your vote doesn't matter.

I won't be there to support all those hundreds (perhaps thousands) of heroes, but I want to do my bit.

So I've created some banners for y'all to copy, enlarge and print.

Let's give those politicians hell!

A Timely Review Of Name Suppression Laws

The Law Commission has released its report on name suppression, and a brief glance of the report suggests they may have got the balance about right.

The powers of the court to grant name suppression are set out in sections 139-141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. They are loosely framed and are open to different interpretations. The inevitable result has been a number of high profile offenders using name suppression to avoid unwanted publicity.

There is a perception that famous people are subject to different standards, and that if you're well-known you have an almost automatic right to have your details kept secret. That perception, whether or not justified, has dented public confidence in the justice system. So the report is timely.

The report recommends that the law place a greater emphasis on the principles of open justice. It also recommends that the current legislative provisions on name suppression be repealed, and that new legislation be introduced to ensure the grounds on which suppression may be granted are clearer, and to ensure that clear reasons are given for the granting of name suppression.

The report proposes that where suppression is sought for a person accused or convicted of an offence, the court would only be entitled to grant a suppression order in the following circumstances: (from the report summary)

Applying suppression in only those circumstances would appear to narrow considerably the wide discretion the courts currently have.

The report discusses the application of name suppression in relation to victims and other persons, and recommends a number of changes be made to existing laws.

The report also makes a number of interesting recommendations touching on the media and the internet. These include:

• the media should have standing to appeal against suppression orders
• a national register of suppression orders should be made a priority
• it should be an offence for ISPs or content hosts, upon becoming aware of material published in breach of an order, to fail to remove or block access to that material.

I suspect most people will be in favour of the changes, though to be honest I have only skimmed the report and summary, and there's a lot of detail in the report.

Sunday Twits

If anyone ought to stay quiet over the tedious Harawira affair, it would be Paul Holmes. But the legendary short man can't resist a jab. His accusation of double standards is particularly surprising considering the reaction to his appalling "Cheeky Darky" comments was not remotely as savage as that directed towards Harawira. Double standards indeed.

******

That other sunday paper twit is no stranger to racism. His hatred of Maori is visceral and infests almost everything he writes. This week is no exception.

I got only a few lines in before almost throwing up in disgust. I have no idea what the rest of his article says.

******

It was good to see little New Zealand shaking up the football world this weekend

Although I thought the All Blacks didn't make the most of their historic appearance at the San Siro football stadium in Milan.

"Historic" is probably the most overused word in sport. Of course, the real shake-up was the marvelous effort of the All Whites to reach the World Cup finals. But historic? Why? We've been there before - in 1982 of course. How many times do you get to go before it stops becoming "historic"?

Surrealists for 911 Truth

Following a series of tedious and depressing exchanges on The Standard yesterday, I have come to realise I can't beat these damn 911 "truthers". They won't be convinced no matter how much hard evidence people put in front of them.

So if I can't beat them I'm joining them. Today I'm announcing the creation of a new political movement. And you can join it.

We will call ourselves "Surrealists for 911 Truth". Our aim will be to force governments to take seriously the evidence that the official story about what happened on 9/11 is in fact untrue.

Here are just a few of the startling discoveries we have made:

• A sandwich interrogation spatula would have been of little use in bringing down the Twin Towers. So why was this not mentioned in the official report?
• This picture clearly shows that on 9/11 the Twin Towers were horizontal. And yet the official record shows they were sitting vertically. Has someone been doctoring the records? What have they to hide?








• Yoda was eating turnips when the Queen of Tarts discovered exercise was to her liking. Coincidence? Or something more sinister?
• Why was no mention made in the official report that some people like cheese? Did officials not want to get offside with Big Cheese? Is this the smoking gun?
• Look at this shocking image. It exposes the official version of events as a pack of lies:

This is just the beginning. Soon we'll have a website and an army of killer robots. Then they won't laugh at us!

Mass Birther Demonstration Shuts Down Imaginary City

You might recall that I posted a story about Orly Taitz planning a mass protest against Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. The protest was timed for Veterans Day, 11 November and was to be held outside the studios of Fox News.

So how did that go for her? You decide. Below is a picture of the protest gathering:

Wait, where are they? You can't see them? Try this blowup:

Wow there are so many of them! That's like six or seven people! I bet big Bill was quaking in his shoes.

Here they are showing defiance, anger and outrage. Hope there won't be a riot! (anyone for a cup of tea?)

(photos from ohforgoodnesssake.com and gawker.com)

Dog-Whistling Up Some Votes

The Dom Post reports:

Maori Party policies are racially divisive and will turn New Zealand into the Zimbabwe of the South Pacific, NZ First leader Winston Peters has claimed.

Mr Peters used a speech to Wanganui Grey Power to launch a stinging attack on the party, targeting renegade MP Hone Harawira's "white motherf.....s" email and the looming repeal of the foreshore and seabed law.

"We should beware of any ethnic or religious group that seeks power.

In his prime Winston Peters was like a crocodile in the mud, waiting for some poor animal to venture into the water. Many a politician fell victim to his sharp tongue and muck throwing.

But that was a few years ago. Now he just comes across as desperately opportunistic. He sees a brown man being widely attacked for racism, and hopes some of the anger directed against Harawira will translate into votes for NZ First.

But it's not enough to attack Maori. There are other non-whites to slam:

But while accusing Mr Harawira of sowing racial division, he also launched into the growing Asian population, which he said was projected to hit 400,000 in Auckland in seven years.

He said increased Asian immigration and a growing trend towards multiculturalism was a "force for disintegration".

He referred to studies he claimed showed many people born under China's one child policy who now lived here were using immigration policies to bring in their parents and grandparents, turning New Zealand into a rest home for Asian pensioners.

I've yet to hear a compelling reason why the small number of immigration we permit from Asia is a bad thing. Are Asians "bad people"? They talk funny and look funny. So? They drive badly. Wait, there is actually no evidence to back that up.  They drive up house prices. So do UK immigrants.

Most Asian immigrants are hard workers and contribute enormously to the country. We need more immigration, not less.

We've heard this dog-whistle before. Thankfully most people recognise it for what it is - a desperate attempt by a cynic to return to power.

Winston's luck ran out last election. I wouldn't completely discount a return to Parliament, but nor do I expect it. He would need to lose some of the arrogance and swagger that so disgusted the electorate in 2008.

Who Is The Real Racist?

The Hone show rolls on and on.

The Harawira apology that wasn't really an apology didn't help to calm the anxieties of the public. It was probably a time best used for reflection, rather for than launching a tirade aimed at Phil Goff.

But all that aside, why do we care about this man and what he has said and done? He bunked off when he was supposed to be working. So give him a telling-off. Big deal. He used some "colourful" language in an email to a former supporter (a private email, might I add). So we have established that he's an idiot. But is he really a racist villain?

I smell a double standard.  If we want to castigate our politicians for using racist language, let's start with Michael Laws, mayor of Wanganui. The things he has said, both in print and on radio, are far more inciting than anything Harawira said in his (again, private) email.

And the newspapers and media networks that continue to whip this story up include Fairfax, for whom Laws writes a weekly column, and Mediaworks, the owner of RadioLive (which employs Laws to spew hate and racism across the airwaves) and TV3. So those media outlets are clearly quite happy for a racist to go about his work. But when it's someone else's racist, it's a different story.

Here's another double standard. When Paul Holmes made his "cheeky darky" comments on live radio in 2003 there were a large number of complaints to the Race Relations Commissioner. The number of complaints re3ceived by the Race Relations Commissioner about Harawira is well in excess of that number, and complaints are still being received.

Why? I'm not convinced Harawira's comments were any worse than Holmes'. Both were offensive, perhaps even grossly offensive. And remember (and I'm sorry to keep labouring this) Harawira's words were contained in a private email. Holmes was live on air and intended to be heard. So why the record number of complaints about Harawira? To quote Ali G:

Is it cos I is black?

That is not to excuse the comments, but the reaction indicates that when a brown person makes a racist comment we take it more seriously. And that it's not as bad when the racist is a white man.

Isn't that racism?

A Thousand Apologies

Dear readers

There have been a lot of apologies in the news recently. Certain public figures have been caught out spending money that they now regret spending, and taking diversions from trips when they should have been working.

And while I am not a public figure*, I have decided to examine my own behaviour. And, readers, I must confess I have been less than perfect!

I feel a terrible sense of shame in admitting this to you, but I have to get this off my chest. I have systematically and consistently been cheating the system – taking time off work when I should be slaving, and enjoying the benefits of my employer’s generosity when I should have been walking the streets in sacking or eating stale bread.

My indiscretions are too numerous to recall. Turning up to work a couple of minutes after the official start time can never be excused. I’m paid to work the full day. I’m simply ripping off the people of New Zealand. Why am I rorting the taxpayers and not just my employer? Because if I was at my desk at the right time maybe I would be just that tiny bit more productive, would earn more income for my employer, and would lead my employer to pay slightly more tax.

I know we are talking about small amounts, but it's the principle, isn't it?

And before anyone should mistakenly attempt to defend my disgraceful behaviour, let me be very clear about one thing. The fact that I’m at work almost every other day before 8am is no excuse. Rules are rules, and I have broken them. 
And then there are the benefits I’m permitted to enjoy – wasteful indulgences. Such as after work drinks, team coffees, staff lunches, work social functions and employee benefits. What kind of disgraceful message does my indulging in such luxuries send to the community? Some people have barely enough to eat, and here am I living the high life. Mea culpa! I’m so ashamed!

So I’ve decided to pay it all back**. I’ve sat down and calculated the total cost to the taxpayer of all the outrageous rorts committed by me, and the total loss of taxpayer revenues resulting from my sins. And I’m paying it back**.

I promise never to do any of these things again, until the next time I feel inclined to do them. And that's a promise I intend to stand by.

*  Not yet. My monstrous clone army is not yet ready to be unleashed on the world. Soon, my children, soon…

** I am also a disgraceful liar. I’m not proud of that either.

US Hate Politics

It seems the opposition to Barack Obama has moved from the hysterical to the outright offensive.

Here is a picture of a sign seen at a Republican Party anti-healthcare rally last week.

From thinkprogress.org

In case you can't tell (the photo isn't as clear as it could be), it's a photo of Holocaust victims piled up. The sign reads "National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945”.

That's right - Obama's plans are now being openly compared to the Holocaust. The irony is that some of the people using horror images of the Holocaust to make a point are marching alongside hardcore anti-Semites.
I wonder how you reason with people who truly believe such comparisons are reasonable ones to make. Should anyone bother?

Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel has said of such signs: "This kind of political hatred is indecent and disgusting". For his troubles he attracted the ire of the Teabaggers. Read some of the comments on this Politico article, some of which are so hateful you can only laugh (because the only other reaction appropriate for the situation would be to weep inconsolably). Like this one:

What is wrong with Nazis and swasticas? That is exactly what this country needs right now.

At least this one was genuinely funny (unintentionally):

Elie is a whiner. She should stop her whining. You didn't not complane when the libs were calling Bush Hitler.

It is abundantly clear that the Teabaggers have within their movement some very unpleasant people. Not to mention stupid.

Some Fabulous New Books In Time For Christmas

Books One and Two of the "Dark Storm" trilogy are out now!*

Book One:

Book Two:

*Book Three, entitled "Supercity of Fear" is due for release in October next year.

Is Your Child High On Fruit Jubes?

I never expected to post an item about Dr. Phil, and yet something has so shocked and appalled me that I can no longer stay silent.

Is your child smoking candy?

In case you may be wondering, I don't generally watch Dr. Phil. The only reason I became aware of this truly shocking story was because it was on the TV screen at my gym at lunchtime today.

But, people, what I saw on that TV screen will live with me forever. Even if the volume on the TV was down and I couldn't hear a thing. I didn't need ears to recognise a human tragedy.

Sam is 14. He's addicted to smoking candy, and he snorts drink powder. Can you imagine how awful it must be for his parents? Every parent has hopes and aspirations for their kids. But could they have ever imagined this? It would have been okay if he'd just got messed up on crack or meth, like all the other screwed up kids. Why couldn't he have been a pothead like all the other teens? What kind of freak smokes candy?

As I said, I didn't have sound, but I've reconstructed the interview between Dr. Phil and Sam based on what must have been discussed:

DR. PHIL: Now, Sam, tell me how you started smoking candy.

SAM: I was just twelve and, you know, the other kids, the popular kids, they were like, "why don't you try this stuff?" So I, like, tried it. They had jellybeans, winegums and jubes and were, like, totally burning them up.

DR. PHIL: But you knew it was wrong, didn't you? Didn't they teach you that at school?

SAM: Yeah, but... [tears begin to appear] I just thought... just one jellybean.

DR. PHIL: And then what happened?

SAM: It was a black one.

[Collective groan from audience]

DR. PHIL: So you just dived straight in at the deep end, didn't you Sam? The black ones. And did it make you feel good?

SAM: Um, kinda. At least at first it did. But... then I wanted another. And pretty soon I was stealing lollies to feed my habit. I did everything: jellybeans, licorice, marshmallows, even chocolate. White, milk and dark. The dark was like totally the best.

DR. PHIL: And when did you start snorting powdered drinks?

SAM: I tried to snort M&Ms, but that went badly wrong, and I ended up in hospital. The doctors said if I take another line of candy I could lose all sense of smell. So I started sniffing juice. And that got me high for a while, but it was never enough. Then I tried the concentrate, and that was pretty good. But then I discovered powdered drinks are the best.

DR. PHIL: And where do you get your powder from?

SAM: I know a guy. He gets me cartons of the stuff.

DR. PHIL: Sam, you know what you're doing is wrong don't you? And that it hurts your parents?

SAM: [tearful] Yes sir.

DR. PHIL: You don't need to take this stuff to feel good about yourself. It's not normal what you're doing and we have to stop it. You have to take responsibility for your actions.

SAM [crying] Yes...

DR. PHIL: Okay Sam. [turns to the camera] After the break we'll be talking to Sam's parents. But first, here are a few things you can do to make sure your kids are free from the temptation of candy and powdered drinks. The thing to remember, folks, is that kids will follow the example you set for them. They won't smoke jellybeans or chocolate once you show them how truly ratfaced they can get on marijuana. And once they've had a line of coke they won't touch the drink sachets again. Sure, your kid will still be messed up, but at least it'll give you something to discuss at your dinner parties. Would you rather tell them your weird son smokes lollies?

Brian Tamaki's Newest Disciple?

I live in Waitakere City. Bob Harvey's the mayor. I've never met him, but he seems an affable sort of guy. I don't really follow local body politics to the extent I should, so I couldn't tell you whether he's actually any good at his job. But the rates where I live aren't astronomical and we don't have much crime in my area. Of course, that doesn't mean Bob's doing a great job. But when we're content with our local environment we don't tend to grumble about our local politicians.

But Harvey's been vocal on a couple of issues recently, in circumstances where I'd rather he had just stayed silent. It is always bad news when a mayor expresses an opinion in public, unless it relates to a matter affecting his or her constituency. For example, the tirades against Maori, women and anyone of the left by the idiot Michael Laws, mayor of W(h)anganui, must be an embarrassment to any sane person living in that town (though, perversely, it may be this notoriety that keeps Laws installed as mayor).

The pledge by 700 Destiny Church members to Brian Tamaki is not a matter that touches directly on Waitakere City.I suspect the majority of the 700 were from South Auckland, where the church's support is strongest. So I was alarmed to learn Mayor Harvey had written to the Herald in support of Tamaki.

In the Herald today:

In a letter to the New Zealand Herald this week Bob Harvey compares the Destiny Church leader to the founders of the Salvation Army and Martin Luther, spearhead of the Protestant Reformation.

Harvey said he does "anything to cheer on people who are turning people's lives around".

"People are trashing, shaking and beating children at unprecedented rates," he told the Herald on Sunday.

"This guy [Tamaki] is saying 'well I've turned around 700 men'. It isn't bloody women that are doing this. It's men. It's my brothers, brown, black or whatever. That's who's doing this. I didn't see too many women standing up in the Destiny Church with their hands on their breasts saying 'I won't do it', 'cause they ain't doing it.

"I'll be sleeping easier in my bed now that 700 robbers have sworn they'll never do it again."

How do we know these people were all robbers? Or that all of them have been "turned around"? Or that Tamaki was responsible? Or that he didn't just brainwash a group of vulnerable people who were searching desperately for something to bring meaning to their lives?

Harvey clearly hasn't thought this through. Maybe he should have just kept his thoughts to himself. As a resident of Waitakere City I resent my elected officials giving any kind of support to a cult leader.

Bob Harvey may sleep easier, but so will the good Bishop. Because he's bigger than Jesus. Christ had only 12 disciples - Tamaki has 700.