If the USA's government spending (which was bad under Bush and seems simply frightening just six months later) is getting you down, try this video. And if driving so fast bothers you because of the carbon emissions, think of it as public transport instead.
The Telegraph has an article buried away on page 12.
Private school students earn a third more than state pupils
That is a very large amount. I hope that the difference isn't so great in New Zealand. But it helps to explain why so many people effectively pay twice for their childrens' education. Things are particularly grim in the UK where private education is at least twice as expensive as New Zealand, and there is no state subsidy. Some mothers (or fathers) take up work solely to pay for fees.
About one-in-12 British children (eight per cent) are educated privately at independent schools.
The popularity has increased in recent years, perhaps because some of the worse state schools have finally been opened to the scorn they deserve, but partly because too many children have been watching the Harry Potter movies. More recently, the recession has had the opposite effect. At least in the UK a number of independent schools have closed or applied to join the state system. The socialists must be smiling.
"Our findings suggest that rather than family background
being the predominant factor, private school education seems to offer
something else to the equation."
What a shock that must be. Something else? Could it be the private schools themselves? How awful?
The teaching unions have always claimed that private schools are a waste of time and money. A concerted campaign against independent schools has been going on for decades. Selective schools (called grammar schools in the UK) were mostly closed in the 60s. Around where we live there are still a few and they are as popular as vice. Tony Blair was hammered within the party just for sending his son to a C of E school (a state school, but a nice one). He rightly put his son's education before left wing politics.
"Even after adjustments for qualifications gained and family background,
those in the top 10 per cent of earners who had attended independent
schools earned on average 20 per cent more than state school pupils in
the same salary band."
Perhaps it is time to hand over management of state schools to those who actually know what they are doing. Perhaps that is a bit harsh. But it is surely madness to allow the state to continue its near-monopoly of the school system. The monopoly is doing what any monopoly does: stifling innovation, creating division, wasting money and now, reducing future earnings.
What a shame.
For those who can spare the time (and I admit it might be few), travel to the other world and read Michael Moore's piece on the demise of GM. If you don't remember Michael Moore, he was a fierce critic of anything to the right of Stalin, and has created a number of movies about left causes such as socialised healthcare, gun control, George Bush, etc. Sort of like Al Gore, but with broader interests. He also wrote an entertaining book called 'Stupid White Men'.
Anyway, Mr Moore's piece about GM is priceless on so many levels. His delusions are reaching the point where he really should be his own comedy show.
Perhaps even in the USA there are a few people who are not employed by GM? Yes GM employed 250,000 people, but there are 300m in the USA. If the job can be done more cheaply elsewhere, then perhaps this is a hint from the market that 100,000 auto workers could do something more productive.
So perhaps moving those jobs to Mexico was a good think? I'm just not clear whether working for GM Is good, or bad?
Well if that's as clear as it gets, I just hope he is not allowed near a medical patient.
We are at war? Is this the war on terrorism? The war on drugs? The war on fat? The war on lame comedy?
Ahhh, the war on global warming. I should have known. In fact the whole piece boils down to this. The greenies have some responsibility for killing GM (all their whining about fuel efficiency).
So the oil companies hate us?
So the government hates us? How can it be fleecing when the oil companies work hard to sell us a gallon of petrol at a reasonable price, but good value when the government just charges us for doing nothing? Utterly clueless.
The land area of the USA is nearly 10 million km2, versus less that 0.4 million for Japan. Japan is long and thin. Japan has a small number of urban centres with large populations. Japan is more than 10x as dense in terms of population overall, and a quick look around Tokyo or Osaka (a major bullet train link runs between then) will convince most observers that the cities are in a different league to Flint, Houston or Boston in terms of density..
Few would doubt that fast trains could be very handle in particular areas, perhaps on the east cost to link up a few cities. Still, what do you do at each end? Unless you live in a large city, you are going to want to drive home from the train station.
The idea that trains will replace planes for flights between New York and LA seems far fetched at best. What doesn't Mr Moore just come out and say that he is pleased that GM died because it was interfering his precious environmental credentials? Or perhaps he did.
For a real discussion about GM's demise, you could always try The Economist.
I wind down by further loosening my already quite loose collar and inviting a couple of young Basiji militiamen to my home for an evening of board games. We start with Scrabble. The first Basiji scores 11 and the second scores 32. Then I score 11,073.
...
After all, he’s the Ayatolla Khamenei. “Kh-ahman-ay-eye,” he says.“I’m sure that’s not what you said last time,” I say.
The Supreme Leader gives a guilty chuckle. He admits he keeps changing it to confuse the BBC.
Go have a read, I suspect it's pretty close to the mark.
Timid management and coddled workers, according to this great article in the WSJ. If you are interested in this topic, read the whole thing!
The union was defending production
quotas that workers could fill in five or six hours, after which they
would get overtime pay or just, you know, go home.But the company signed generous labor deals during the 1970s,
including the right to retire after 30 years with full pension and
benefits, partly because it believed the contracts would cripple its
smaller competitors, Ford and Chrysler. Then along came Honda, Nissan
and Toyota, which didn't have to deal with labor contracts at all. That
was the beginning of the agonizing decline.
I am sad to see Pontiac go - I owed a great car call a Grand Prix in the 1990s. It's going to be interesting to see if GM can recover from this. For Chrysler, it must be very embarassing for ex-ecutives on the Grand Blanc golf course admitting they were bought for a song by a bunch of Italians...
What is wrong with supermarkets being difficult about handing out plastic bags? Well I have covered the arguments many times, but here is another one.
We purchased a joint of meat the other day and it came in a plastic box with a film lid. In case were were unsure what it would look like when cooked and sliced (and covered in gravy), the supermarket printed a colour photo on the front.
My point is that the material and cost in these outers is considerably more than a plastic bag, which is after all made from waste gas. Sainsburys (I am pleased to say) is not the villain of this piece - they happily provide plastic bags free of charge to those who want them.
The worst offender in the UK seems to be M&S, which has the most packaging of any surpermarket on the planet, and yet charges 5p for a plastic bag. Shame.
From my little surveys, most M&S staff seem to agree that it is 'silly'. I would call it a stunt, and I certainly hope that M&S shareholders are paying for this silly stunt in lose sales.
Plastic bags do not harm the environment, they are hugely convenient, and those who seek to restrict their use are just trying to make our lives more difficult.
I cannot understand why the British put up with such awful cars. They judder about on the poorly-maintained local roads, they have very little poke, and they are so small as to be uncomfortable for any more than two people. Drive out onto the M25 and you are treated with the hilarious sight of 10,000 people revving the crap out of their tiny micro-engines as they burn along at 80mph and 5000 rpms.
Even worse are the eco cars. These have all the above problem, but also cost and weigh twice as much as they should. In terms of the precious 'earths' resources' that environmentalists witter on about, they are the equivalent (in battery / Nickel terms) of about 1000 laptops. Very eco-friendly indeed.
Luckily, there is Jeremy Clarkson, who is on to this scam. His review of the Honda Insight 1.3 IMA SE Hybrid is worth reading from start to finish.
On engine noise:
And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved,
built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse
than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of
your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is,
you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.
On the environmentalists who drive them:
But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt
genes of the smug and the foolish. And that pure electric cars, such as the
G-Wiz and the Tesla, don’t work at all because they are just too
inconvenient.
The only hope I have is that there are enough fools and madmen out there who will buy an Insight to look sanctimonious outside the school gates. And that the cash this generates can be used to develop something a bit more constructive.
Looking around I think Mr Clarkson can rest easy. There are absolutely masses of fools and plenty of madmen about. With the decline of knitting and morris dancing, people urgenty need an outlet, and it seems environmentalism is it.
I thought it might be useful to mention the state of one of the environmentalists' mindless crusades over in the UK.
So far:
There are a few other supermarkets to try, but they are a bit of a distance away.
So far I have found two places which refuse to give bags:
The B&Q side is bizarre since hardware stores are one place where you often end up with lots of little bits and pieces. I will not be shopping there again, it is just too much hassle.
The M&S motorway case is even worse. Here you have a store which specialises in convenience food. Everything is packaged in plastic. It is a fairyland of packaging technologies. I dont think there is one item in the store which is not in plastic packaging. Even the fruit. Yet they charge for plastic carrier bags! This is why I describe the plastic bag fetish as mindless. The store which is most obsessed with stuffing everything in plastic containers is the one that charges for plastic bags! But worse, they put everything in little bags so you end up with 3 bags instead of 1! Almost no one leaves there with a carrier bag, but lots of little ones instead. Mindless zombies the lot of them.
Most stores offer 'eco-bags' for sale in prominent positions. Most times they ask if you want a bag rather than just giving you one, unless it is obvious that you need one. Quite a lot of people turn up with these bags or some other arrangement - I would guess a third, but it is early days. I am happy enough with this arrangement and I think most people are. It is a bit obsessive, given that plastic bags are actually of no importance to the planet, but it doesn't really matter. It will blow over.
More important is the pollution from the start-stop nature of UK traffic, but more on that another time.
I have only dim memories of Margaret Thatcher. After all I was living in New Zealand at the time. I do remember her alliance with Ronald Ray-Gun (as our fourth form social studies teacher called him) and her rather steely voice. Arriving in the UK in the early 90s her work was done, and Mr Grey-tie had taken over. She was forced out over the council tax I think, but it could have been any number of things. Like Roger Douglas in New Zealand, she made a lot of enemies.
Mrs (now Lady) Thatcher became PM in a country that had lost its way and was spiraling downwards in the grip of failing industry, massive taxes and union muscle. She left a country which had regained its confidence and success.
Lady Thatcher is hated by by the left, not least the unionists and socialists who felt her glare and whose orgy of power and spending was brought to such an unexpected and brutal halt. Even the word Thatcher is enough to get many of these people spitting and changing colour in the face. Just have a read of this article in the Guardian (written by someone who was about 20 when she was elected PM) to get a feel for that. He is trying to be nice.
The result was dramatic, not only in the huge boost to inequality and the income of the well-off, but also in the US-style decline in the share of GDP going to wages and salaries – which fell from a peak of 65% in 1975 to 53% last year – as corporate profits swelled.
(clever how he brings in the words US, profits, corporate and inequality all in one sentence - this is code for "I am talking about something very bad")
Most who lived through the time have respect for what Mrs Thatcher did - here is a comment I found which covers the ground:
This is the lady that saved our country from the dustbin. Hard decisions were made,not all right, but our country was stronger and richer for her efforts. Right now a "forever young" Maggie is what we need to put right a decade or so of waste, mismanagement and failed social engineering suffered by our country by this futile Labour government.
As it is 30 years ago that her government came to power, there is quite a bit of comment in the media.
Boris Johnson (now mayor of London) writes:
She gave people the confidence to buy shares, to start their own businesses, to move on and up in society – and there was more social mobility under Margaret Thatcher than there has been since. She was a liberator, and she gave the Labour party such an intellectual thrashing that they ended up changing their name
and concludes:
Margaret Thatcher will always divide the British people, not least since we are ourselves divided. There is a part of us that will always dislike the acquisitive, appetitive instincts she seemed to espouse, and yet we also recognise that they are essential for economic success. More than any leader since Churchill, she said thought-provoking things about the relationship between the state and the individual. Some of them were unpalatable, some of them were exaggerated. But much of what she said was necessary, and it took a woman to say it.
Acres of newsprint has been expended in looking back on her legacy. Just look at the Google news search today.
But the real point of this post is how desperately Britain needs her today. This place needs a serious re-vamp. Massive amounts of cash seems to just vanish into the government with nothing appearing in return. A London council pays $30k per month (yes per month!) to house a family of 7 who can't afford their own home. Huge petrol taxes appear unable to reduce congestion on the roads and instead signs have been erected to advise of delays. Good schools are full, leaving only the private (and eye-wateringly expensive) option. Councils are as out of control as ever, full of loony money-sinking schemes. Light bulbs are to be banned. Trains are unaffordable. Even the Polish are leaving.
Perhaps the picture is not so bleak as painted in this speech in 1979 because the election:
The report from the Confederation of British Industry is that many firms are being strangled. There is a shortage of materials. They cannot move their own products. Exports are being lost. It says that secondary picketing, picketing of firms not in dispute, is very heavy all over the country. It is particularly affecting such items as packaging materials and sugar and all vital materials necessary if industry is to keep going. Lay-offs known to the CBI are at least 125,000 already, and there are expected to be 1 million by the end of the week. There are telegrams and telexes from many companies saying that their exports are not being allowed through and that they might lose the orders for ever.
There are messages from firms such as Marks and Spencer which last week lost 20 per cent. of its food production, approximately £2 million. Unless secondary pickets are removed this week the estimate is of a 30 per cent. loss. Over last week and this week and this week, unless there is a change, the company says that it will not shift 50 per cent. of its exports.
But it is bleak.
And I'm sorry, but David Cameron (not that I have seen him on TV yet, er actually perhaps I should start watching TV) appears more interested in traipsing around after silly environmentalist causes than laying down the law.
Come back Margaret Thatcher, all is forgiven.
Professor Ian Spellerberg blathers on in The Press about the urgent need to ban plastic bags. It quite simply amazes me that environmentalists such as the lonely Prof. think that this is in any way a priority. I have commented many times on plastic bags, and no doubt this won't be the last.
If I were to act on the advice of many letters and articles to The Press, I should not be wasting my time writing this article; I should have better things to do than write about plastic shopping bags.
The luxury of being an academic is that you do have better things to do, but can choose not to do them, and someone else pays. If only the real world could be so forgiving! Prof Spellerberg seems to acknowledge his own lunacy but is unable to take the next step and stop it.
The Prof tries to state both sides of the argument:
The arguments supporting plastic shopping bags in New Zealand appear to be the following:
* They are a valuable product of innovative industrial design
Certainly compared to paper bags, handle-less bags, no bags, eco bags (which have many times the material and are generally plastic) and hand bags.
* They are a cost-effective way of carrying purchases
That would explain why our glorious capitalist system has invented them. In fact, being a by-product, the raw material is almost free.
* Customers demand them
Demand is a bit strong. There is 'demand'. Customers 'prefer' them would be better.
* Plastic shopping bags can be put to multiple uses
True. If only they could silence this silly debate.
* Disposal of organic waste from the kitchen is not possible without plastic shopping bags
Have you not heard of a waste disposal unit or a rubbish bin? I don't understand this one.
* By weight and by volume plastic bags amount to a very small part of the material going to landfill
Yes about 0.2%, not even worth thinking about.
* The number of bags contributing to litter is very small
Tiny. A lot of the desire to control plastic bags probably comes from seeing them blowing about in third world countries. They don't do that in New Zealand.
* Not all plastic bags are created equal, as some are biodegradable
Not that it matters, since the bags are made from a by-product which would be burnt / dumped anyway, and 0.2% of a landfill isn't worth worrying about. Might as well make some use out of the material.
* To introduce a ban would be another gain for the "Nanny State"
And its helpful friend, the dopy academic. Let us not forget that the Nanny State aka previous government was run by academics.
But the Prof has missed a few:
Then the Prof. says:
Looking at the bigger picture, plastic shopping bags are not an issue. We have much more important environmental issues than plastic shopping bags to worry about.
I couldn't agree more.
But then the Prof. contradicts himself and goes off into the weeds. Let's go through these points one by one:
The arguments against plastic shopping bags in New Zealand seem to be as follows:
* They contribute to litter in cities and the countryside
In such as tiny way as to be unmeasurable. In their ability to hold rubbish (e.g. from a picnic in the park) I think on balance they are much more likely to reduce litter.
* Plastic shopping bags are a source of pollution
This is a vague statement. What sort of pollution? In fact they reduce polution by creating a market for poly-ethylene gas which would otherwise just be burnt: THAT would be pollution. So I think this statement is probably just false.
* They cause harm to both terrestrial and aquatic animals
This is rubbish. Perhaps extra-terrestrial animals in the Prof's dreams. In any case, one wonders how a terrestrial or acquatic (that means land / sea for us mortals) animal would come into contact with a plastic bag? Litter? There has been lots of noise about this but anyone who has looked at it has found essentially no effect.
* Their production is an unnecessary waste of petroleum resources
Which would otherwise be burnt. Er, the only word to describe this statement is 'wrong'.
* There are alternatives (durable, long-lasting, environmentally friendly shopping bags)
Which cost a lot more, use a lot more material, are too heavy when filled and are often made of the same material. They get dirty, lost, and don't have many of the advantages described above. If they were a full replacement for plastic bags and better in every way, then we would already be using them exclusively. Just as plastic bags have taken over from paper.
* Banning them would be a gesture of good environmental stewardship
A gesture which would inconvenience 4 million innocent humans for no purpose and no measurable environmental improvement.
* A growing number of retail outlets have agreed to discontinue the provision of plastic shopping bags
While there is consumer choice we non-environmentalists can at least shop elsewhere. In any case this is not a reason to ban plastic bags.
* A growing number of people are using the alternatives
10,000 environmentalists can't be wrong! Global Warmist Unite! This is also not a reason to ban plastic bags.
* A growing number of countries overseas have already banned plastic shopping bags
Mostly Nanny State ones with no respect for individual freedoms. Yet another non-reason.
And there you have it. The lonely Prof's sum total of argument. Once would expect him to then state that we should make even more of them and ban the eco-bags. But, no, the Prof is not VP of the Environment Institute for nothing.
Plastic bags are just one of the many poorly designed, environmentally unfriendly products. Other examples include non-refillable plastic pens, non-reusable plastic fast- food containers, outdoor heaters, leaf blowers, and electric carving knives. Why is it not mandatory for all products to be designed so that their manufacture, use and disposal has minimum impact on the environment?
It probably hasn't occured to this bloke that refillable pens cost more (i.e. consume more resources) that non-refillable, so have their place in the market. Why would anyone want to re-use a smelly old fast food container? How else to heat the patio than with a patio heater? What is wrong with blowing leaves around? My wife swears by her electric carving knife and that was the first purchase when we arrived here and couldn't track down our old one.
People accuse environmentalists of trying to bomb us back into the stone age and they are right.
Minimum impact on the environment mandates minimal functionality. Patio heaters, electric knives and fast food would simply be banned by environmentalists, given half a chance. They have no interest in the benefits and only consider the costs. That is why we call them environmentalists.
Dealing with plastic shopping bags at the end of their life is not addressing the issue. It is simply dealing with a problem caused by poor product design.
Lack of regulation probably doesn't help either.
I think we have already discovered that plastic bags are the best (current) design for the problem, and eco-bags have all sorts of problems in replacing them. In fact the only way it would happen would be if plastic bags were banned. Which oddly enough is what is being proposed. This is simpily forcing everyone to use the second-best solution. Crazy.
So why have I bothered to write this article?
Is that a trick question? Because you are an environmentalists and we all know that environmentalists love wasting newsprint telling us about their mad views.
The reason is simple. The plastic shopping bag debate is an indicator of a much bigger and more serious challenge facing all of us. That is, the unsustainable use of nature and the environment. However, just one small step at a time can do a lot to help reduce the human ecological footprint.
There is no such unsustainable use. Next they will claim that we have to move away from the sun because it is running out of Hydrogen. It is, but at such a slow rate that mankind will be dead and buried long before we have to worry. Likewise we will lose interest in oil as an energy source long before we run out of it.
This business of ecological footprint is similarly nonsence. The best way to reduce your 'footprint' (other than wearing shoes a size too small) is to go back to the third world (where we all were in 1700), eat no meat, walk everywhere and live in a hole. Perhaps environmentalists might consider that human progress is generally focussed in moving in the other direction.
In any case, if plastic bags are an indicator of a serious challenge, why ban the indicator? It is like banning thermometers to combat global warming. Actually, maybe that does have merit...
Therefore, it is very important that New Zealand does ban plastic shopping bags. We can do without them, they are a drain on resources and they do have an impact on nature and the environment.
There is no need to ban these wonderful inventions. We cannot do without them (as people would otherwise have to buy plastic bags), they are produced from a by-product and 'drain resources' less that the alternatives. They have essentially no impact on nature and the environment (what is the difference?). In fact the impact is probably positive.
Say no to plastic shopping bags and show that you care.
Say yes to plastic bags to show that are capable of critical and independent thinking.
It is shocking to think that this person is a highly trained academic employed in a New Zealand public-funded university. How can he hold his head up again after writing such a load of mindless gibberish. It doesn't even meet the basic standard of justifying its arguments.
Must try harder, Nanny State. Go plastic.
