This may be an oldie but goodie, known to everyone but me, but thanks to Andy Wright for keeping my atomic table up to date

Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science.  The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neuron, 25 assistant neurons, 88 deputy neurons, and 198 assistant deputy neurons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

I try not to retail gossip, though every normal person loves it.

But I succumb to asking – is it true that Atareta Poananga has offered to drop her challenge to Derek Fox’s selection as Maori Party candidate, if he will marry her?

Is this mad, or is she a cunning fox already?

The Herald reports that H Clark is to lead the fight against the loss of our “ancestral visa” privileged entry rights to Britain.

She should crawl there on bended knee, since she has spent 9 years extracting cheap praise from the trivial intellectuals who feel they look more “grown-up” when they reject their inheritance.

Strong families celebrate and foster their ties and mutual obligations. Of course they have their differences, but they focus on the rituals and celebrations that strengthen what they share.

We all know weak and troubled adults who cope with their inadequacy and insecurity by blaming their normal, even outstanding parents. Passionate denunciation of their parents’ values, interest, foibles etc is embarrassing to hear. There’s something repulsive about disloyal denunciation of an inheritance, even when its amusing.

But Clark and Co have it down to an art form. Lest we forget, we’ve weakened the emotional claims that have been the justification for our continuing “family” privileges with stunts like:

• offering studied and childish insults to the Queen. Remember H Clark wearing trousers to a state dinner, and omitting the saying of grace even though the Queen is head of a state church, and was sitting at the same table as the heads of two of NZ’s churches;
• More recent was the silence, or even quiet encouragement of media hostility over the absence of a royal representative at Sir Edmund Hillary’s funeral, when there is unrebutted rumour that the Queen was never invited.
• ending our appeal rights to the Privy Council (at vast cost to ourselves);
• excluding British Navy ships (as they also refused to confirm or deny nuclear status) and celebrating Lange’s dishonest speech in the UK (which was directly hostile the the UK position) when we tore up our ANZUS committment;

The UK government has no reason to thank us for our contribution to the pressures on Blair with our “non-aligned” foreign policy (setting aside our sensible approach to Iraq).

Shrewd governments foster inherited links, the ties of culture, shared institutions and history, the emotional obligations of previous battles fought side-by side. Ours has sought piffling political advantage by overtly and subtly devaluing them.

Will young New Zealanders to be shut out of Britain connect the dots?

“Even the most committed capitalists often prefer their cooking, conversation and sex to take place on a voluntary basis.”

The Spectator notes  the fascinating economic research into the “irrational” way we can prefer truly free goods and services, over the same benefits for a trivial charge. Cheap is step-different from free. Altruism is powerful. Selfishness can not explain economic man.

This reminds me – I must find out when the unlimited deductibility of charitable donations takes effect. When I last checked there was still uncertainty about the definition of ‘charitable’.

I expect that law change to have a quiet but eventually enormous long term effect in rebuilding civil society in New Zealand. True private patronage will supplant the State, or at least offer alternatives, in serving people, in career opportunites, in motivation. It will reinvigorate and discipline the arts, education,  welfare and charity. We’ll see a re-emergence of debate and experimentation  suppressed for decades under reactionary union, bureacratic and other groups whose hands grip the levers of the State.

It is no wonder, in that light, that they’re fighting back. The Charities Commission is one tool. It is being obliged to patrol an unjustifiable disqualification of charities that engage in political advocacy. That is exactly where New Zealand could benefit most – a hot-house political/media caste should be challenged by advocacy outside the contol of those who decide how taxes are spent.

I’ve subscribed to Barack’s daily email. It’s fascinating. His message is vacuous hope. But the technique is awesome.

Ohio and Texas were acknowledged yesterday. Now we’re moving on. Here’s today’s personal message, for example:

“Stephen —

I want to add some more news to David’s [campaign manager] note about the state of the race.

As you know, we’ve won 27 of 41 contests and have maintained our commanding lead among pledged delegates. But today I want to share another staggering number: supporters like you donated more than $55 million to this campaign in the month of February.

That’s a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support. No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it — more than 90% of donations were $100 or less, and more than 385,000 new donors in February pushed us past our goal of more than 1,000,000 people owning a piece of this campaign.

From the beginning, this campaign has always been funded by a movement of grassroots supporters giving whatever they can afford. And unlike Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, we have never taken money from lobbyists or PACs.

Senator Clinton has decided to use her resources to wage a negative, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink campaign. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination and is attacking us daily. But I will continue to vigorously defend my record and make the case for change that will improve the lives of all Americans.

I need your help to continue this battle on two separate fronts. Now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign.Please make a donation of $25 today:https://donate.barackobama.com/math

Thank you for your support,

Barack”

Then it goes on over David Plouffe’s signature for another 20cm with four further appeals for $25, each time with the link to click.

The $55m figure is awesome. So is 90% 0f donations under $100, so that 1m people feel they “own a piece of this campaign”.

That is powerful participatory democracy. I can say from experience that the most honest criticism comes from those who feel they’ve earned the right to tell you what they really think of you.

Generally sane enemies dont bother with advice or criticism of a sitting politician, except in public and with destructive intent. People who don’t like you just avoid you. Most of the rest are a bit unctuous when they meet politicians. They flatter. It is hard to get genuine frank and helpful criticism. Except from those who feel they’ve a stake in how you perform and the right to demand performance.

That’s why I oppose full state funding. MMP has done enough already to cut the links between ordinary voters and their MPs. The last thing we need is a cadre of greasers indifferent to their supporters because there is nothing they need from them and even more beholden to their party bosses.

New Zealand’s ever-growing cadre of judges (approximately 9 x faster than population growth over my time in the law) should be less passive. They should develop a mechanism for collective comment on problems like those highlighted by Judge Crosbie. He recently highlighted his lack of any punishment tool to deter scoff-laws who simply will not pay fines and who rightly regard community work sentences as a joke.

The self-anointed in charge of justice policy fend off pressures to reflect the will and common sense of the majority. Sadly they can rely on their critics being isolated and ineffective. Garth McVicar is changing that for victims. He is also the channel for others, but it’s time practical experienced probation officers, prison officers and judges created their own spokesperson systems.

The Police Association does it for Police, albeit with some politically correct filtering.

Constitutionally the matter is ticklish for judges. But the current situation deprives citizens, and MPs of the considered views of some of the people best equipped to comment with information. UK judges sometimes speak strongly and collectively outside their courts (viz the Lord Chancellors proposals to turn the House of Lords into a Supreme Court).

In my view, because of their special position, if they comment publicly,  judges should ensure that they reveal both sides of any argument where there is not unamity among them.

I know that judges at levels above Judge Crosbie have concerns they want to air. It is up to them to find a way to turn useless fulmination to better account.

There would not normally be much adverse reaction to a new restriction on foreign investment in politically sensitive land. Lots of countries have them, including many considered strong.  On Auckland International Airport the damage is more in its timing and motivation –  admitting  a need to make irrational policy reversals to buy political time.

The move will not repay much analysis. The claimed worry about ‘control’ only offers some semi-rational justification for a symbolic act. This was a political response to a political problem. It may be just heading off Winston Peters. Labour know that he’ll be happy to do anything that looks nationalistic. Letting him precipitate open disagreement with them would hurt them more than  National.

 There is wiggle room in the detailed wording. Officials will have developed the delicate claw-backs. Dr Cullen will not mind people using the loopholes, as long as they do not detract from his need to be seen to be a patriot.

Whether there is any identifiable long term political cost to this (for example in an increase in interest rates) may turn on such a consequence being tied to it by authoritative international commentators. Proabably they will not pay us enough attention to bother.

If no obvious downside emerges, expect more of this kind of symbolism from an MMP coalition .

International concerns about sovereign investment will mean that we are not alone in these kinds of reactions. Other countries have reacted like this, though we need to behave more intelligently than bigger countries to earn any favours.

Living beyond our earnings for 50 years must end in a loss of control to foreigners. Inevitability will not stop it becoming one of the knottiest of issues for near future NZ governments. We may be seeing the tail-end of a period of atypical ‘economic rationalism’ as the Aussies call it.

The really interesting question is what happens as the Chinese and others who’ve been willing to finance the Anglo countries’ long party, realise that if they try to spend their savings in our money, we won’t (can’t politically) let them buy anything much we have. In effect that will make our money useless to them. They will not want to lend more on that basis. We’ll have to learn to live within our means, and pay back what we owe, or knuckle under.

‘Offers we can’t refuse’ of that kind will be more serious for us and our children than anything Scorsese depicted.

 “The following is a summary of New Zealand government-sponsored research, clinical or otherwise, into A1 and A2 milk since July 2004:    None.”

 That’s how the Sunday Star Times started an excellent review of the state of the play on A2 milk research.

That nil research follows a study of international data, funded by Fonterra predecessor the New Zealand Dairy Board, which found that the incidence of diabetes and heart disease was correlated with consumption of A1 milk. As the SST put it “The correlation is acknowledged by scientists of all stripes to be unusually strong …[though correlation is not cause].”

There’s another strong point the SST could have made. The same government that has refused to fund research on A2 milk is right now winding up to get the power to ban the sale of foods they don’t like, even if they represent no risk in moderation. 

Part 3 of the Public Health Bill 2007 empowers the Director General to issue codes of practice and guidelines to “sectors”, to help “communities” address (including to manage or eliminate)  “risk factors”. As usual these words have purported definitions which do not define, paralleling their common use in PC discourse. Try risk factor for a sample:

“……means a thing or substance that, on its own or together with other things or substances or conditions, may, whether immediately or over time, give rise to, or increase the incidence of, noncommunicable diseases (such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes) in the general population or in communities or in sections of the general population or communities”.

Is there any food or drink (other than water) that could not be caught?

Under clause 88, in 3 years time officials must report to the Minister on whether the codes and guidelines should be made enforceable in criminal or civil proceedings.

Our diabetes and heart disease epidemic is serious. But the politicians who pretend that compassion for the ever-fattening people of Manukau is their reason for telling the rest of us what we can and can’t eat, can’t find enough genuine compassion to face down whoever is hostile to finding the truth about A1 milk.

The Public Health Bill raises testing constitutional issues. When is it justified to use the State’s power to ban things to protect people from themselves? I’ve seen no public debate on this aspect.

Labour would like to paint the new powers as their readiness to stand up to the market forces and consumerism. Their attitude to A2 research seems to me a better guide to their actual values.

The Public Health Bill seems more likely to lead to indulgence in the left’s usual vice, the sweet delight of ordering people around for their own good, in the name of fake compassion.

Disclosure of interest – I’ve punted on A2 shares on the theory that there could be something in research the establishment does not want.

The Hive notes that DPF’s Kiwiblog calculation of the effects of a swing on electorate seats does not capture the effects of new candidates in specific seats, including Wellington Central.

“Those seats with out incumbent MPs will be very interesting to watch. Not on Farrar’s list is Wellington Central. National did not have a strong candidate last time around, so Labour did better than it should have. This time around we have an impressive Labour candidate in Grant Robertson. We still don’t know the National candidate – Stephen Franks or Paul Quinn seem the most likely names. Both are likely to impact more positively than Blumsky.”
 

The seat regularly changes its representatives.

My former Parliamentary colleague Muriel Newman’s website gets better every week, with ever increasing content. She’s drawing columns from some of New Zealand’s most bold or thoughtful critics. This year’s have included David Bellamy, Tim Shadbolt, Christine Rankin, Mike Moore, Karl du Fresne, John Boscawen and international heavyweight Richard Epstein. To me, Epstein’s short piece on the “mystery” of our poor productivity hits the nail on the head.

It matches my observations as a lawyer, and employer and a company director. It’s simple. There are too many laws making it painful and risky to be an employer. We must employ but we consume our marginal energy avoiding trouble.

Anti-leftists raised on a now-abandoned Sunday church habit could feed an itch by logging in for a weekly sermon and some rousing consciousness raising on Muriel’s site. Or sign up for her weekly email reminder of the devil’s work over the previous week.