Monday, October 21, 2013

The Missing Stair Part 3 (unauthorised): A Requiem of Len

Whaleoil broke the story of the unfaithful Len Brown, touching off a political left-right slug fest.  In the crossfire an idea has died.  The idea that inequity should not be supported in relationships, as espoused by Emma Hart hardly made it a month. 

Emma Hart at Public Address wrote two Missing Stair posts: The Necessary Bastard and The Creeper and the Excuser. Go read them if you want, I liked ideas put forward. 

Mayor Len

Auckland's Mayor Len Brown is a highly successful creeper. He has a excusers all over the place. Len Brown will get away with it, probably he has got away with it before. People like him almost always get a free pass. 

What is a Creeper?

Creepers are on the lookout for someone vulnerable. They can use a number of approaches, but what they want is someone who will not say no.  Ideally they want someone who can be pressured into saying yes, repeatedly. 

The description of a creeper Emma provides details a promiscuous form of creeper, the mass mail out approach where as high as number as possible are randomly approached.
What about somewhere short of that? What about the Creepers? The ones who have a habit of touching people who don’t want to be touched? The hand on the leg, the accidental brushes, the sexual remarks that make people really uncomfortable? Would you do something about that?

That is the route of the lazy, unintelligent creeper and is not the best approach. Creepers are just one person so mass marketing is hard to carry off.  Creepers are  better served to find someone they know is vulnerable and exploit that vulnerability.  Doing a bit of research beforehand and then repeatedly targeting the same individual can induce impetus. 

What is an Excuser?
Emma provides descriptions of societal perceptions that play into the hands of creepers, implying that society is passively biases towards the creeper. 

One of the reasons women tend not to talk about this stuff is the tendency for people to minimise it. It was a joke. You misread the situation. You’re over-reacting.
I think Emma is incorrect here.  I think that society deserves more credit and is basically non-biased on the subject. 

An Excuser is someone who actively aids the creeper and will exploit vulnerabilities in the target to minimise the accusations.  Excusers will do so out of a feeling of obligation to the well being creeper or for personal gain. 

How to pattern yourself as a highly successful creeper?

Be powerful, useful to as many people as possible.  Excusers will be ready at a moments notice. 

Find a vulnerable person who you would like to utilise for your pleasure.  Approach them obliquely in a complimentary manner.  Demonstrate your power, that you can be useful to them or that you can break them.  Isolate your target away from potential support networks.  Obtain consent.  Utilise for your pleasure.  When they break your control or you get bored with them, leave them. After leaving, remind them of your power and caution them of the need to remain quiet. 


Saturday, February 11, 2012

Auckland City Planning

Auckland City is a lock for the centre left for the next 5 years, at least. The left has a strong organisation in South Auckland and West Auckland. The Greens are disproportionally popular with youth and in the suburbs. And the meta is good, the population is bound to be turning agianst the John Key Nayional government and will look to protest vote more in the next round of local body elections.

What the council should be doing is using this opportunity to make some real gains for left-wing voters. Make rents more affordable by building some more council rental accomodation. Lower land costs by moving land from lifestyle block to residential zoning. Send a clear message to the government about supporting public workers by backing the unions in the ports dispute.

So why is the Auckland Council jumping so far to the right? It has decided that its primary project focus is a $billions rail tunnel to support the property values of the CBD landlords - the richest of the rich. Restrict land borders to protect the property values of middle class suburbia - core strength National Party supporters. Back the ports company as it privitises the port operations.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Dear Mark Steyn

Dear Mark Steyn,

Climate change can be solved by small government. This may shock you, but the best solution to anything is seldom a bigger more expensive government based on over-arching socialism. Climate change should be an opportunity for small government blowhards to demonstrate the need for a small government solution.

The solution to climate change is to have every country independently operate a consumer marketplace where a high price of AGW gases is charged to private consumption. There will be no capping, trading, emissions limits, production controls, bans or restrictions - there will be no UN involvement. There will be no big government, because government retards and distorts market incentives by its existence. Our governments will exist solely to provide security and to enforce the consumer taxation on the AGW gas footprint. The smaller the government is the better the planet will be.

As the Greens have been saying for years - if the planet is to survive climate change we must make sacrifices and the best sacrifice is to relinquish our socialist spending.

Regards u-c

Climate Change Summarised

Climate change is a global crisis caused by over consumption of Earth's resources. This crisis demands a rapid and effective response. Cap and Trade is a negative unworkable response, it is a big government initiative. Small government offers the only effective positive response to the climate change crisis.

Western capitalist societies dominate the worlds economy and are consumer driven, not production driven. Positive solutions harness the consumer economy to combat climate change, negative solutions attempt to control production.

We are consumer driven democracies, we must empower consumer growth in enviromentally sustainable pathways - we must give consumers more access to wealth and tax pollution literally off the planet. We should not engage in production controls, there should be no limits set.

The pollution taxation should be as high as we can possibly make it, as high as our local economy can stand. This taxation rate should be higher than the anemic costs suggested under a global Cap'n'Trade, but differ in positive ways. Taxation should be in the form of a Value Added Tax (VAT) for a sales cummulative of all pollution ultimately charged to the domestic consumer. Equivalent pollution tax to be charged on local and imported goods, but not charged on exports. Thus our productive economy is unharmed and able to adapt quickly to changed demand, whilst our consumers are directly aware of any saving to be made by reducing the amount of pollution their purchases create.

This taxation regime couples consumer driven change to saving the planet, therefore to be most effective requires maximising the amount of consumer involvement. We must reduce the size of the state, because the state is not a consumer driven entity. A states funding mechanisms (taxation and borrowing) are immune to the effect of consumer taxation, because they are the recipient of that taxation. This means a paradigm shift is required not only for our present taxation policy, but also our state spending - it must be reduced. We need to motivate as much of the economy as quickly as possible to reduce pollution, by doing what co. Getting rid of all non-essential state enterprises and moving state employees to the private sector will be amongst our highest priorities should we wish to save the planet.

Welfare is socially required. Welfare programs (pensions, unemployment relief, healthcare) should be increased to cope with the additional demand pollution taxation places on the poor, but these programs must be stringently asset tested and privately administered.

Labels:

Thursday, April 01, 2010

The Flawed Economics of Emission Trading

Does 0 << x = 0 ever make sense?

Under any climate change  x is the probability of a catastrophic climatic event occuring.

We assume x >> 0 to justify the neccessity of tackling climate change and joining up to the Kyoto Protocols.

x = 0 to select an Emissions Trading Scheme as the lowest cost methodology capable of meeting the Kyoto Protocols.

This seems a little flawed to me, but hey what would I know.

An ETS is useful only in meeting Kyoto requirements. To be effective at combatting climate change an ETS would need to be global and that is unlikely. By eliminating any consideration of climate change from the economic equation an ETS has been selected by our government.

0 < x = 0

We get taxed to save the planet by getting taxed to kill the planet...

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Kyoto to Copenhagen by Analogy

There is a Global Obesity Crisis (GOC), something must be done.

A summit is convened at Kyoto to find a solution. The EU takes the lead and a set of Kyoto Protocols are defined. The developed countries become committed to capping food production.

After Kyoto the rate of GOC increases.

The world decides to meet in Copenhagen, the EU again taking the lead. The world is told it must adopt a cap on global food production, with a market price set for the rights to produce food. But the US Senate is still not ready and some developing world nations object to starving their people.

The USA is blamed for the failure of Copenhagen and blamed for GOC.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The Skeptics - An Appeal

All climate change deniers pay attention, you are fast becoming the “dilettante intelligensia” of our time, the useless twits who let the Commies takeover Russia. You are basically all bright, intelligent people who are able to engage in a scientific debate about climate change. You might even be right*, but even if you are it doesn’t matter as scientific argument always takes place outside of the public sphere. Scientific debate is too esoteric and complicated to sway the electorate. The electorate has already taken flight from climate change, judging by the $millions more in tax we are about to be charged the electorate is freakin airborne. Its too late, give it up.

The time has come to fight the socialist model of greenery, in the way such policy is always fought. We offer low taxes, small government approach and they propose a world holding hands, bureaucratic montrosity that relies on everyone singing in harmony to work. All we have to do is put in a carbon consumption tax that is 5x higher than any ETS costed surcharge and we are by 5x the most enviromentally friendly nation on the face of the planet. Obviously to pay for this ambition to be incredibly green (and maximise its effectiveness) we will have to eliminate income and company taxes, slash&burn social spending, sell all our schools & hospitals and institute a new era of small government.

If we do not confront this effectively we risk losing out to a dawning era of global socialist government.


* obviously not on this planet, but in some alternate universe.