NewstalkZB reports:

Green Party member David Hay is intending to challenge Dr Russel Norman for the party’s co-leadership.

Mr Hay, who was the Green Party’s candidate for Epsom at the last election and is currently ranked number 16 on the party’s list, claims the party needs to be ‘putting its A team forward’.

“Russel has been doing a great job for the Green Party, but he has been co-leader for six years now,” he says.

“While the party has grown in stature and credibility during Russel’s tenure, we have new people in caucus, and there’s fresh new talent among the party membership.”

Mr Hay says he is putting himself forward with a plan to build the party’s base in Auckland, focus on environmental and economic sustainability and lift the party’s performance.

The statement from David Hay is here. He says:

“I think one of the Party co-leaders should be based in Auckland, be well-informed on Auckland issues, and take a hands-on role in building the party’s Auckland base.” 

“The Green Party has under-performed at winning votes in Auckland, and we need to turn that around. Only three members of the Green Party’s 14 MPs are based in Auckland. We currently lack sufficient presence here, in New Zealand’s largest city, where a third of the population live.”

The election will be at the Greens conference in June 2014.

This is the first time an incumbent co-leader has been challenged, and that is significant. There is obvious some discontent, but what is not known is how extensive it is. Is it an Auckland vs the rest issue?

What will be interesting to observe is where the MPs stand. Will they all back Norman or will they consult with their electorates and vote in accordance with their wishes?

Stuff reports:

The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting US news organisations and journalists, United States officials say.

The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been taken and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impanelled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against the Australian, who has sought asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top secret military and diplomatic documents.

The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information – such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning – with violations of the Espionage Act.

But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.

I thin that is the right analysis. It is the leaker who breaks the law, not those who receive them.

He is facing sexual assault charges in Sweden. Assange and some of his supporters have said he fears that if he goes to Sweden to face those charges, he will be extradited to the United States.

But current and former US officials have dismissed that defence.

“He is hiding out in the embassy to avoid a sexual assault charge in Sweden,” Miller said. “It has nothing to do with the US government.”

Assange should stop hiding in the embassy and allow his alleged victims to have their day in court. He may well be found not guilty, but he is not above the law and should stand trial just as anyone else would.

Stuff reports:

The standoff over deep sea drilling off the Raglan coast is threatening a split in Labour.

Labour MP Shane Jones has backed oil drilling giant Anadarko in a move which puts him at odds with other members of the caucus, including environment spokeswoman Moana Mackey who today called for a slow down in the mineral exploration programme. …

Speaking on Maori TV’s Te Kaea tonight, Jones was outspoken about attempts to stop Anadarko from deep sea drilling and said the protesters should remember that the company had a statutory right to be there.

“Protesters need to bear in mind we are buying oil out of the Gulf of Mexico and other far-flung places when we should be focusing on making an industry in our own country.”

Anadarko was spending a million dollars a day on its programme and that was good for New Zealand, Jones said.

Jones is Labour’s spokesperson on economic development and is ranked No 5, on their front bench. I hope he speaks for Labour, but does he?

But Mackey appeared to back the protesters and blamed the Government for Greenpeace’s announcement that it intends to challenge the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) decision to allow Anadarko to carry out deep sea drilling off the Raglan coast .

She said the regulatory environment under which Anadarko was permitted to drill was “deliberately permissive” and the process had been a shambles.

She also accused the Government of being desperate to expedite deep sea oil and gas exploration because it had no plan B for jobs – which also puts her at odds with Jones, who believes mining is a potential boon for jobs.

Mackey is ranked No 18 and is the Environment Spokesperson. Will the views of No 18 trump the views of No 5?

David Shearer is the Energy Spokesperson. What are his views? Maybe Labour can have three different policies on this issue, rather than just two!

Labour leader David Cunliffe was unavailable for comment.

I bet he was.

Stuff reports:

Lorde’s success comes despite the industry both here and abroad facing near-crisis as revenue streams collapse.

According to financial statements for Universal Music filed to the Companies Office between 2009 and 2012 the sales of physical CDs, the traditional cash-cow of the sector, slumped 41 per cent.

Despite digital sales in the same period more than doubling – from a low base – there’s a gaping chasm on the revenue statements of the music industry.

Let’s have a look at this near crisis. I decided to go to the Companies Office and look at the accounts for Universal Music New Zealand Ltd.

Revenue in 2011 was $20.99 million and in 2012 was $22.11 million.  That’s a healthy 5.4% increase in sales. How on earth is that a near-crisis?

Net Profit before tax increased from $432,000 to $578,000. That’s a 33.8% increase.

Hamish Ruthrford at Stuff reports:

ACC is proposing to cut levies by more than $500 million next year, in what is effectively a tax cut, but workers on average wages with older cars will reap only a few dollars a week.

It’s not a tax cut, even though it is paid through the IRD. The purpose of ACC is to have levies high enough to meet the costs of accidents. It should and must lower levies if it can do so.

All car owners will be better off through lower licensing fees – frequently referred to as registration fees – although the savings are dependent upon safety.

Under a new system, cars will be split into four risk-based categories, with licensing costs dropping from less than $10 a year for the least safe group 1 cars, to more than $92 for the most safe, group 4 cars.

Excellent. Levies should reflect risk. This is the same principle as with employer levies where a manufacturing plant will pay higher levies than a supermarket.

Despite strong lobbying from riders that they were subsidising other road users, there will be no cut in licensing levies for motorcycles, with Rebstock saying in reality car owners already heavily subsidised the cost of supporting injured motorcycle riders.

“If we charged motorcycle owners the full cost of motorcyclists’ injuries, it would make owning and riding a bike unaffordable.”

We should charge the full cost. However as you can only drive one motorcycle at a time, the levy should be per driver not per motorcycle.

Labour’s ACC spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway said people on low incomes would be penalised by the proposed regime.

“The way to improve the safety of our vehicle fleet is to make sure people have enough money to buy safe cars, not by penalising them for being poor.”

So Labour is against lower levies for safer cars. How depressing.

Workers will also take home a fraction more in wages, with the earners’ levy proposed to drop by 22 cents for every $100 earned, or $22 for every $10,000 earned.

Those earning $50,000 will get another $110 a year, while those earning $150,000 will get $330 a year.

I’m not sure this is correct. The earners’ levy is $1.70 per $100 of income but is capped at $116,089. So a 22c reduction per $100 will be a maximum reduction of $255.

UPDATE: Also worth noting that ACC reviews the levies every year, as required to by law.  It’s coincidental that it is election year next year. This is an annual event.

Stuff reports:

Six candidates have put their hands up to replace Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia at the next election.

The Te Tai Hauauru seat which covers the western parts of the North Island has been held by Turia since 2002, but with her impending retirement, the party is looking for her replacement.

The nominees are Frana Chase, Rahui Katene, James Makowharemahihi, Christopher McKenzie, Amokura Panoho and Pakake Winiata.

Maori Party vice-president Ken Mair said hundreds of party members turned out at the Whangaehu Marae in Whanganui yesterday to hear the six nominees speak and to vote for their preferred candidate.

“We have an extremely talented line up of nominees and it is great to see so many smart, spirited and passionate people put their hand up,” he said.

I would have thought a female candidate is more likely as they also need a new female co-leader.  But of course the co-leader doesn’t have to be in Parliament.

Chase has worked a range of social sector roles such as health, justice and education and is a trustee of various Maori groups. She has seven kids.

Katene is the former MP for Te Tai Tonga.

Makowharemahihi is a JP and has been involved in the Te Kohanga Reo movement> He is a business owner and has held several board roles. Previously a social worker and policy analyst.

McKenzie works for Turia as a Senior Ministerial Advisor. A former treaty claim negotiator.

Panoho specialises in economic development and chairs NZ Maori Tourism. She sued Trevor Mallard and John Tamihere for defamation in 2004 which led to them corecting statements they made about her.

Winiata is the academic head of Te Wananga O Raukawa.

TVNZ reports:

Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to cap the salaries of top executives at 12 times that of a company’s lowest wage, heeding warnings from industry leaders that the measure could harm the country’s economy.

The wealthy nation, which is home to some of the world’s biggest companies including food group Nestle and commodities giant Glencore Xstrata, voted 66% against imposing the limit, according to a projection from Swiss television.

The so-called “1:12 initiative for fair pay,” was brought about by the youth wing of the Social Democrats (JUSO). The idea behind the proposal was that nobody should earn more in a month than others earn in a year.

Possibly he most economically stupid idea since the 50 year trial of communism.

In a way it is a pity the referendum failed. It would have been hilarious watching the impact on Switzerland if the referendum had passed. Imagine the chaos as companies flee overseas as billion dollar companies can’t pay their chief executives more than say 200,000 euros a year.

Opponents to the proposal had warned it would harm Switzerland by restricting the ability of firms to hire skilled staff, forcing firms to decamp abroad, resulting in a shortfall in social security contributions and higher taxes.

It would have been such a disaster, it would have killed the idea ever being implemented anywhere else. Their tax base would get decimated or worse.

News.com.au reports:

IN his first interview since being released from prison, Dr. Conrad Murray has said he and Michael Jackson were so close he “held his penis every night.”

And he’s aged over 14!

“You want to know how close Michael and I were? I held his penis every night. I had to put a condom catheter on him because Michael dripped urine. He had a loss of sensation and was incontinent.”

Great to see him respecting patient confidentiality.

Scott Adams is the genius creator of the Dilbert strip. He wrote at the weekend:

I hope my father dies soon. …

My father, age 86, is on the final approach to the long dirt nap (to use his own phrase). His mind is 98% gone, and all he has left is hours or possibly months of hideous unpleasantness in a hospital bed. I’ll spare you the details, but it’s as close to a living Hell as you can get.

If my dad were a cat, we would have put him to sleep long ago. And not once would we have looked back and thought too soon.  …

I’d like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can’t make that decision. Neither can his doctors. So, for all practical purposes, the government is torturing my father until he dies.

I’m a patriotic guy by nature. I love my country. But the government? Well, we just broke up.

And let me say this next part as clearly as I can.

If you’re a politician who has ever voted against doctor-assisted suicide, or you would vote against it in the future, I hate your fucking guts and I would like you to die a long, horrible death. I would be happy to kill you personally and watch you bleed out. I won’t do that, because I fear the consequences. But I’d enjoy it, because you motherfuckers are responsible for torturing my father. Now it’s personal.

Scott’s father died a few hours after he wrote this.

While I don’t condone his anger, I empathise with it. No one should have to go through what Scott Adams and his father went through. It is inhumane.

Another great parody video from the aspiring lawyers at Auckland University.

David Garrett complained to Radio New Zealand and then the Broadcasting Standards Authority about a Nine to Noon item on 29 May 2013 regarding the three strikes law. The BSA has ruled that the item was both unbalanced and inaccurate. Their ruling is here.

David has provided Kiwiblog with a guest post about the ruling:

“Three Strikes”, Radio New Zealand and the Broadcasting Standards Authority

 On 29 May Radio New Zealand’s “Nine to Noon” featured what was supposedly a panel discussion about how the “three strikes” (3S) law  was working, almost three years after its passing.  The only problem – or at least the  most obvious one – was that the panel consisted only of Professor John  Pratt,  who had voiced his strident views against the law from well before it was passed, and the lawyer for one Elijah Whaanga,  a man with 20 odd convictions as an adult, two of them  “strikes” for aggravated robbery.

 And of course there was the supposedly neutral  presenter, one Lyn Freeman, filling in for Kathryn Ryan, who in all fairness would probably  have done a much better job. As the recently released Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) determination on my complaint about the programme makes clear, while nominally presenting the programme – and supposedly acting as devil’s advocate :

“…the presenter appeared to largely adopt the position of the interviewees without any real challenge….[her questions] were insufficient to provide balance on the topic under discussion, especially considering the broadcast involved two people strongly opposed to  the law” (at para. [25])

The programme began with a major  inaccuracy: that persons on their third strike “had no possibility of parole”, when in  fact  the “no parole at strike three” provision  will  not apply if the Judge finds it to be “manifestly unjust” in the circumstances of a particular case. The insertion of this proviso occurred after Judith Collins took over negotiation of the contents of the 3S  law from then Justice Minister Simon Power, and the Nats stopped playing games.

It is an important qualification – and gives the lie to the oft repeated claim that the law removes judicial discretion.  ACT readily agreed to this provisio being included. Radio New Zealand simply ignored its existence in Freeman’s introduction. Things got much worse from that point on.

Throughout the discussion, Elijah Whaanga, the second strike aggravated robber whose lawyer was a panelist, was referred to constantly  as “Elijah” and “a playground bully ”, presumably because his second strike aggravated robbery was of a skateboard and a hat. What wasn’t  mentioned was that the robbery occurred  in the street not a playground; that the victim was “only” robbed of a skateboard and a hat because he had no money; and that in Whaanga’s first strike – also an aggravated robbery in the street – the victim had all his money taken, and his head  kicked in.

As the BSA puts it in its decision:

“The offender on his second strike…was referred to throughout the discussion and  used as an example of the type of people  targeted by the law , without balancing comment to challenge this…Given the participants strongly held views that the law operated in a way that was unjust and unfair, and out of proportion to the crime committed, there was a clear requirement of the broadcaster to ensure the discussion was balanced” [paras. 19 -20]

The BSA concluded that the programme was one to which the “balance” standard applied,  that  RNZ “…did not include sufficient balance on the issue”, and therefore upheld the  first limb of  my complaint.

Inaccuracies

My second complaint was about the many inaccuracies the programme contained, none of them corrected or challenged by the presenter.  I identified a lengthy list of statements – mostly by Professor Pratt  – (see para. [37] of the determination)  which were inaccurate or misleading.

The BSA found that the programme was misleading in two crucial respects: firstly by its  many completely inaccurate comparisions with California’s “three strikes” law; the second  was the way “playground bully” Elijah Whaanga was “portrayed and used as an example of the type of criminals (sic.)  targeted by the law “ (See para. [43] of the BSA decision).

The first  point  is of course indeed  crucial. From the outset, opponents of 3S have attempted to use the indisputable   excesses of the law in California as it was originally enacted   as a reason not to enact  a law with the same name here.

In 2007, Garth McVicar and I went to California specifically to find out whether the “life for stealing a chocolate bar” stories were true (we never verified  that one, although there were others which were clearly unacceptable and unjust) and if so, to work out how to draft our  3S law so  injustices like them  couldn’t happen here.

California recently modified its law to make it much more like ours: no more “technical felonies”, and much more prosecutorial and  judicial discretion. Rather than make those points, Freeman talked about California “backing away” from 3S, and rhetorically asked “What does that tell you? ” Professor Pratt obliging leapt on his soapbox and gave his version of what the changes in California meant, untroubled by any dissenting voice.

The BSA was perhaps  harshest on this point, saying:

“…comparing the legislation in this manner, without any countering views, and in particular the presenter’s unequivocal statement that California had started to ‘back away’  from the legislation, would have misled listeners as to the nature of New Zealand’s ‘three strikes’ law  and any comparison with California.” (see para. [42] )

The BSA concluded its decision on the balance and accuracy complaints thus:

“The programme omitted any alternative voice to counteract the one sided statements  made by the panelists, and the presenter failed to adequately challenge those statements. Compounding this, the panelists also made statements which created a misleading impression in the absence of any balancing comment.” (See para. [49] )

As I did on the morning  I heard this travesty of journalism unfolding, I have offered to  appear as “balance” for any future programme on 3S. Somehow I don’t think I’ll be getting a call, but at least after receiving  a spanking from the BSA like this one, they might be a bit more careful next time.

Well done to David for getting a successful ruling, and hopefully Radio NZ will be more balanced in future on this topic.

The Herald has started its series on rest homes. We’ve all been waiting for this since Whale published their plans several weeks ago about what types of stories they were seeking, who they would get comment from etc etc.

I thought the opening paragraph was interesting:

A Herald investigation of rest homes – where a greater proportion of elderly people die than in 12 other developed countries – has found that although most care is at least adequate, some reflects major failings.

So in other words we have the 13th best rest home mortality rate in the developed (and no doubt entire) world, which puts us in the top third or so of countries. It takes considerable effort to make that seem a bad statistic.

That is not to say that there are not issues with some rest homes. But I’m not sure portraying what is a pretty good statistic as a very negative one is helpful.

The Herald reports:

Long-service leave for District Court judges has increased from 65 days every five years to 100 days, the Herald can reveal.

The entitlement took effect in September and was negotiated in 2008 – but has only just come to light.

That’s an outrageously generous provision, on three fronts.

1. Long service leave tends to be every ten (or longer) years, not every five years
2. Typically the period of long service leave might be two to four weeks – not 20 weeks.
3. Long service leave is normally to encourage reward people for staying on with the same employer. Judges are appointed for life, so the rationale for it seems lacking

It means a judge can take five consecutive months’ leave every five years, in addition to seven weeks of annual leave.

Effectively it means their annual leave provision is 11 weeks a year.

In general, District Court judges with more than five years’ service are available to sit for only 158 days of the year after deductions are made for weekends, statutory holidays, annual and long-service leave, days for writing judgments, and non-sitting activities such as attending conferences.

Days for writing judgments and training such as conferences are in a different category to leave where you are not working at all.

Sir Michael Cullen said he had little recollection of approving the long-service upgrade. But he said it would have taken account of increased stress of the job and it allowed judges to catch up on what was going on in the legal world, in the same way as academics took sabbatical leave.

I don’t think even academics get five months sabbatical every five years. Also I think they are meant to do some research activities during their sabbatical.

Most of us have probably heard at some stage a stat that NZ has the second highest imprisonment rate in the world. Well it seems that stat is massively wrong.

Stats Chat blogs that in fact NZ has only the 8th highest in the OECD and the 74th highest in the world.

Would still be nice for them to be lower – but than comes about if we have fewer serious or repeat criminals – and the recent trend is for both the violent crime rate and the imprisonment rate to be dropping.

Not sure how the myth started of NZ having the second highest rate. Maybe it once was true – but clearly isn’t today.

Gareth Morgan writes:

In my view key to progress of elite football in New Zealand is to integrate the sport from amateur elite to the sole professional team and on to the national team. This in essence is what Australia’s FFA has achieved and the game in that country has gone ahead in leaps and bounds. By comparison New Zealand has languished. To achieve this requires a lift in expertise both in the governance of the code and coaching expertise right down to the most junior elite levels.

To this end I’m prepared to invest $5m in NZ Football so long as the government invests twice that amount, with the focus being on achieving the integration and thereby ensuring our young players develop within an environment that reflects the type of football our most senior teams practice and we produce coaches steeped in that methodology. We need to jettison the almost inbred tendency from grassroots level to play kick-and-chase football that comes about because of our inability to develop players that are good enough at tap-and-go, possession-based football. This is the cultural change we are undertaking at The Phoenix and was behind the Mexican sarcasm about converted rugby players.

A requirement of my proposal is that the current leadership of NZ Football resign and a new board (still a blend of people from within the game and others who know how to build businesses and execute strategy) be appointed with this mandate clearly defined.

I presume Gareth thinks that the successful record of strategy and governance he has brought to the Phoenix should be extended to the NZ Football team.

In the last season the Phoenix played 27 games. They won seven, drew six and lost 14. This placed them 10th out of 10.

I of course expect the Government to hand over ten million dollars tomorrow to implement Gareth’s plan.

The Herald reports:

A pilot has been forced to make a hasty landing after colliding with a cow at a rural airstrip this morning.

Police said emergency services were put on standby at an airfield in Feilding, after a top-dressing plane had hit a cow during take-off from an airstrip in Pahiatua – about 40 minutes away by road.

This must only happen in New Zealand I reckon!

Legendary French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson coined a phrase – Le moment decisif / The decisive moment – which I loved from  the moment I heard it. I have carried it with me in all my photographic travels as it encapsulates all the elements that come together in the moment when you press the shutter to capture a photograph. This was particularly the case with Cartier-Bresson’s amazing people photography.

For me all the elements of the decisive moment came together in the extraordinary ancient Indian city of Varanasi where I captured this photograph ‘Sacred Waters’. It was an experience I will never forget as I sat by the River Ganges at sun rise and watched as these incredibly devoted worshippers made their way to the Ghats and into the sacred waters of the river. As an outsider it was an incredible scene to witness and I felt extra privileged to be able to capture a little of the essence of this timeless ritual on film.

This photograph was captured in a single frame with a half second exposure on Fuji Velvia 50 ASA film at f32.

Free Wallpaper – Desktop or iPad

I hope you enjoy this photograph – you can download it as a free Desktop Wallpaper HERE and please share with your friends.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

The Herald reports:

Dr Paul Hutchison, chairman of the health committee which this week made a raft of recommendations around early intervention health programmes, told TVNZ’s Q + A the Government needed to reprioritise the health budget to better address the needs of many young New Zealanders.

“This dollar spent very early on, not only improves the health outcome of the younger, it gives them the chance to be productive and lead highly functional contributory lives.”

I agree. For the same reasons I would spend more on early childhood education than tertiary education – you do the most good when young.

They key recommendations from the select committee chaired by Dr Hutchison are:

*Research the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes from pre-conception to three years within 12 months.

*Set a national health target for all women to have an antenatal assessment within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

*Make sexual education mandatory in all schools and increase access to long-acting contraceptives.

*Develop an action plan with NGOs and private sector for evidence-based nutrition programmes.

*Develop an action plan to combat fetal alcohol syndrome, introduce warning labels on alcohol products, and consider higher taxes on alcohol.

*Consider expansion of early childhood education services in poor areas.

*Prime Minister to take on a formal leadership role in developing a cross-agency plan for children’s health.

*Invest in a nationwide oral health campaign and transfer responsibility for fluoride additives to Ministry of Health and DHBs.

*Give support to funding for research on children’s health, and match it to international benchmarks.

 All looks pretty sensible and worthwhile.

Sean Plunket writes:

According to his online CV, lawyer James Rapley specialises in criminal defence litigation and has appeared as counsel in the District and High Courts on numerous high-profile trials involving serious fraud, drug, murder, sexual crimes and other crimes of violence. In May 2004, he began practice as a barrister after working as a senior prosecutor for the Serious Fraud Office and Crown Solicitor’s Office for nearly 10 years. …

He reckons Mika should get a 10 per cent reduction in his manslaughter sentence because he is a Maori.

Most New Zealanders, including most Maori, probably think that is complete bullshit.

I am sure most Maori would.

The High Court judge who sentenced Mika appeared to do so, for while he acknowledged Mika’s personal circumstances, he rejected Mr Rapley’s plea for leniency with these words: “in my view, however, the law in this country is clear that no special discount for race, culture, or ethnicity matters alone is appropriate”.

Sometimes judges can be really sensible.

But the Court of Appeal, which in legal terms is more important than, and senior to the High Court, was convinced by Mr Rapley to rehear his argument for a reduction in Mika’s sentence.

Three Court of Appeal judges considered that appeal this week and rather than reject it as bullshit as most people would, they have reserved their decision.

This may not be significant. I think almost all their decisions are reserved. My worry would be if it goes to the Supreme Court and what Dame Sian might try and convince her peers to find!

I am fairly certain that Mika wasn’t thinking about post-colonial oppression when he boosted a car and left his fatally injured passenger to die on the side of the road back in February and I’m pretty sure he was unaware of the disproportionate number of Maori in prison when he admitted his crimes in the High Court.

We can also safely assume that a 10 per cent reduction in his sentence will do nothing to reduce his chance of reoffending or encourage him to live a less antisocial life.

A 10% reduction in his sentence will I am sure be a 10% reduction in the time taken until he reoffends!

The Washington Post reports:

Iran and six major powers agreed early Sunday on a historic deal that freezes key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions.

The agreement, sealed at a 3 a.m. signing ceremony in Geneva’s Palace of Nations, requires Iran to halt or scale back parts of its nuclear infrastructure, the first such pause in more than a decade.

This is a very good thing. A failure to get a deal would have probably meant that sooner or later either the US or Israel would strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, and that would cause even greater regional instability.

This isn’t a deal to solve all issues between the US and Iran, or even the nuclear issue. But it is a good step in the right direction.

It is also a victory for the sanctions. They hurt Iran enough, that they were willing to do a deal.

The deal, intended as a first step toward a more comprehensive nuclear pact to be completed in six months, freezes or reverses progress at all of Iran’s major nuclear facilities, according to Western officials familiar with the details. It halts the installation of new centrifuges used to enrich uranium and caps the amount and type of enriched uranium that Iran is allowed to produce.

Iran also agreed to halt work on key components of a heavy-water reactor that could someday provide Iran with a source of plutonium. In addition, Iran accepted a dramatic increase in oversight, including daily monitoring by international nuclear inspectors, the officials said.

The last part may be the most important.

The concessions not only halt Iran’s nuclear advances but also make it virtually impossible for Tehran to build a nuclear weapon without being detected, the officials said. In return, Iran will receive modest relief of trade sanctions and access to some of its frozen currency accounts overseas, concessions said to be valued at less than $7 billion over the six-month term of the deal. The sanctions would be reinstated if Iran violates the agreement’s terms.

Again, this is a good deal and a win-win. The new Iranian President gets sanctions relaxed and makes it harder for the hardliners to undermine him. And Obama gets a foreign policy victory when he really needs some good news.

The Herald reports:

Eradicating hunger in Africa by 2025 is achievable if Africa’s leaders champion it and promote improved crop production and healthy eating, the head of the U.N. food and agriculture agency said Friday.

Jose Graziano da Silva went even further in an interview with The Associated Press, saying the Food and Agriculture Organization believes that hunger can be eradicated around the globe “in a generation, in our lifetime” if there is a political commitment by world leaders to ensure that all their citizens get access to nutritious food.

“We are not talking about sending a man to the moon or something that complicated,” he said. “We have the technology. We have the expertise. We have the things that we need to do it.”

Graziano said the World Food Programme looked at how the 62 countries that have achieved the first U.N. Millennium Development Goal of reducing extreme poverty by half did it before the target date of the end of 2015, and it found three key factors.

That’s good news that 62 countries have managed it. The famines of the 1980s are not gone, not far less common.

First, he said, was “political will” and leadership, because improving food security involves improvements not only in agriculture but in nutrition, health, water supplies and storage facilities, to name a few.

“If the president doesn’t take the lead, or the prime minister … it doesn’t work,” he said.

Probably, the most important.

Second, Graziano said, is improving agricultural performance and access to food. …

Third, Graziano said, is improving the nutritional value of the food people eat.

Which GE food can do.