Stuff reports:

Bermuda has been confirmed as the venue for the 2017 America’s Cup.

America’s Cup commercial commissioner Harvey Schiller made the announcement at a media conference in New York on Tuesday (Wednesday NZT), confirming it for June, 2017.

Bermuda beat Californian yachting stronghold San Diego for the rights to host the 35th edition of the regatta.

The decision casts a shadow over Team New Zealand’s involvement. …

The decision means an economic challenge for Team New Zealand.

The government has indicated Bermuda is far less attractive for their gains out of another sponsorship. They preferred San Diego’s ability to deliver to the lucrative American market, particularly the strong west coast region.

The government handed out $36m for the last campaign and have already contributed $5m to this latest effort as Grant Dalton’s syndicate hung in the balance after San Diego, unable to confirm sponsorships until more details for the next event were confirmed.

Team New Zealand had built financial cases around both potential venues, believing they could make either work.

Their challenge now will be to accommodate the quirky location of Bermuda, a sailor’s paradise but comparative commercial desert.

I wish Team New Zealand well in finding commercial sponsors but I think the choice of venue makes the case for Government sponsorship even weaker. I’m against any further Government money.

The Herald reports:

It was an accident of timing that on the very day he was signalling the party needed to modernise its cloth-cap image, he should be invited to speak at Unite, the most militant of modern unions. There were liberal references to “mate” and “brother” from Mr Little in the question session that followed.

“Will Labour outlaw zero-hour contracts?” one delegate asked directly. Getting rid of them is a new campaign for Unite.

Mr Little had already criticised zero-hour contracts in the morning speech as a disturbing trend.

“Zero-hour contracts” give employers the right to tell employees from week to week how many hours they will be working, if any at all – hence the word zero.

Mr Little answered: “The idea that you sign up and enter into an obligation to make yourself available to the employer with no reciprocal obligation for the employer to provide work, that’s not acceptable.

“If it doesn’t change, we will outlaw it,” he said to resounding applause.

That would be a huge mistake.

I share the distaste that some fast food companies use zero hour contracts, when they have regular hours and demand. I wish good luck to UNITE for negotiating an end to them in those industries.

However Little will be making a huge mistake if he follows through on his pledge to outlaw them, as there are industries and businesses where they are essential.  If an employer literally has no work available, then it is insane to say they must pay staff to turn up and do nothing.

Also many students like zero hour contracts as it gives them flexibility also, to just work the shifts they can. Making it illegal for an employer and employee to agree to a casual contract would be draconian.  It would mean a diary owner couldn’t have a relief worker on call, for example.

Yes there is a problem in the fast food industry. But do not treat all businesses and industries the same. You’ll destroy lots of jobs and employers if you do.

The Herald interviewed six people about Andrew Little’s first speech on the future of work. The six people interviewed are:

• The host who invited him
• A former Labour press secretary
• A former Labour MP
• A former Labour City Councillor
• A former Labour President
• A current Labour activist and office holder

From all accounts the speech was fine, and a solid effort. I just thought it unfortunate that five of the six people interviewed are linked to Labour. Would have been good to get reactions from some of the business people there who are not overtly political.

The Herald reports:

Inflation is the right target for monetary policy, says Reserve Bank governor Graeme Wheeler, and has served the country well over the past 25 years.

But there were a lot of things monetary policy couldn’t do, he said in a speech yesterday. They included improving the economy’s long-term growth rate, alleviating an overvalued exchange rate, lowering long-term interest rates and doing much more than buy time when the housing market gets out of balance.

Inflation was a hidden tax, he said, affecting most severely those with fixed incomes and holders of cash rather than inflation-protected assets.

Which makes the left’s desire to have more inflation, so weird. It harms those on lowest incomes the most.

In the 20 years before the Reserve Bank Act gave the bank its price stability mandate, annual economic growth averaged 2.2 per cent and inflation swung wildly around an average of 11.4 per cent. Since 1990 growth averaged 2.3 per cent and inflation 2.6 per cent.

What some call the good old days.

A Sweet-Smelling Fragrance that is Acceptable to God (Phil 4:15-19).."My God shall Supply all your need…." pic.twitter.com/m4PyEYDGGB

— Bishop Brian Tamaki (@BishopTamaki) November 30, 2014

It’s a great business Cardinal Tamaki has decided to go into. You don’t have to provide any goods or services. You just declare yourself a prophet of God, and people give you 10% of their income.

Stuff reports:

Child poverty rates overall have declined slightly, but Maori and Pacific children are suffering disproportionately, according to the Child Poverty Monitor released today.

The second annual Child Poverty Monitor showed a slight decrease in the number of Kiwi children living in income poverty, from 27 per cent to 24 per cent. However, there was still much to address in terms of health impacts, the researchers said.

Not only is “income poverty” down (which is basically income inequality) but so is the more useful “material hardship” which has 17% of children living in a household with material hardship.

In 2008 a survey found 22% of children in material hardship.

The surveys use different methodology so one can’t compare them, but the ongoing survey does also show a decline in 2012.

So the next time someone on the left claims child poverty rates are increasing in NZ, make sure you correct them, and say they are currently dropping.

UPDATE: Contrast the reasonably factual Stuff story with this NZ Herald story that basically totally ignores the drop in child poverty, focuses on the increase in the small Asian population, and doesn’t even give any data on poverty rates. It presents what is an overall improvement in the most negative light possible. The only reference to the drop is an admission that other ethnic groups has seen a drop since 2012.

This one features John Kerry the US Secretary of State and the endless talks with Iran over their nuclear program.

Cartoon by Lisa Benson. Found at Real Clear Politics.

Dead Tragic is a hilarious mixture of tragic songs, excellent singing and joyful acting, playing in Circa 2 until 21 December.

A cast of five perform 24 songs which all have a common theme of death – suicides, accidents, murders, crashes and the like. Some of the songs include:

• Tom Jones’ ‘Delilah’
• Barry Manilow’s ‘Copacabana’
• Bobbie Gentry’s ‘Billie-Joe’
• Henry Gross’s ‘Shannon’
• Johnny Preston’s ‘Running Bear’
• Queen’s ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’
• Cher’s ‘Dark Lady’
• The Cheers’ ‘Black Denim Trousers and Motor Cycle Boots’
• The Shangri-Las’ ‘Leader of the Pack’

So many of the songs are great ones, I enjoy. The highlight for me was Bohemian Rhapsody which is one of my favourite songs of all time.

The music is performed by the sublime Michael Nicholas Williams. Emma Kinane does take over for one song, while Williams shows off his singing and acting ability also (which was a nice touch getting him out from behind the keyboard).

All four singers do a great job with both the singing, and especially the acting. Emma Kinane and Jon Pheloung especially have a magnificent ability to crack you up with their facial expressions. Lyndee-Jane Rutherford and Darren Young show off their all round skills to great effect also. The five of them take a couple of dozen songs about death and turn them into a laugh fest of outrageous acting.

The set is a simple design of a giant turntable and an old fashioned radio. But they serve as very effective props.

The lighting is also done very effectively. The five cast all have bright coloured shirts, which resonate with a an effective array of spot and other lights.

All in all a quite brilliant 100 minute show.

Plain packaging for tobacca products was introduced in Australia two years ago.

An analysis of Australia’s plain packaging was conducted by Professor Sinclair Davidson and Dr Ashton De Silva from the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT.  They conclude:

“Despite our econometric efforts, the data refused to yield any indication this policy has been successful; there is no empirical evidence to support the notion that the plain packaging policy has resulted in lower household expenditure on tobacco than there otherwise would have been. There is some faint evidence to suggest, ceteris paribus, household expenditure on tobacco increased.”

They also note:

Further clouding some commentators’ appreciation of the situation, the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey results (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014) indicated that overall tobacco consumption was down on 2010 data – but that cannot establish any efficacy of the plain packaging policy per se in addition to the long-term downward trend in tobacco consumption.

This is why I support a regional trial of plain packaging in NZ (if it is found to be legal by the WTO). That way we could get hard data on whether plain packaging has a significant impact on smoking rates, beyond the already existing downwards trend.

The researchers note:

At best, we can determine the plain packaging policy introduced in December 2012 has not reduced household expenditure of tobacco once we control for price effects, or the long-term decline of tobacco expenditure, or even the latent attributes of the data.

To the contrary, we are able to find a suggestion that household expenditure of tobacco has, ceteris paribus, increased. In our forecasting exercise the actual data come close to breaking through the 80 per cent confidence interval. While we do not want to over-emphasise these results, we do conclude that any evidence to suggest that the plain packaging policy has reduced household expenditure on tobacco is simply lacking.

Also even Otago University seems very doubtful on whether plain packaging will reduce smoking rates. In a blog post here, four researchers put plain packaging in a category of “Uncertain but possible” impact for achieving the NZ smokefree goal.

I’m not against plain packaging if there is proof it will have a significant impact on smoking rates. But as it is basically a quite draconian precedent in terms of state confiscation of intellectual property, the evidence needs to be very strong that it will be effective. So far there is no such evidence.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown is locking future ratepayers into paying at least $90 million a year for operational costs once trains begin using the City Rail Link some time from 2021. …

Council figures show the net operating and repayment costs to ratepayers will be $90 million a year if the CRL is opened in 2021, or $112 million a year if it is opened in 2023.

I think it is wrong for this to be funded by rates, which is basically homeowners. That means someone who owns an expensive home (such as a retired pensioner) will pay more towards the CRL than someone is a less expensive home, despite the latter commuting to work every day and gaining the benefits of it.

Transport projects should be funded by transport charges – petrol taxes, vehicle registrations, toll charges, user charges, congestion charges etc. You shouldn’t have someone who may be on a low income and only uses the transport system once a week having to pay more than someone who uses it 10 – 12 times a week.

SCOTUS is going to be hearing Elonis v U.S. This case will require the justices to define what the limits of freedom of speech are when using the internet in the USA.

The Wall Street Journal explains the details of the case in question.

The court said it would consider an appeal from a Pennsylvania man convicted of making threats on Facebook against his estranged wife, law enforcement and local elementary schools.

After his wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order, defendant Anthony Elonis took to Facebook and wrote on his page, “Fold up your PFA and put it in your pocket Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”

In another post, Mr. Elonis wrote, “Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined.” And after an FBI agent visited his residence, Mr. Elonis said that law-enforcement officers should bring an explosives expert on their next visit, “Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’ a bomb.”

Note that under US Federal law companies such as Facebook aren’t liable for comments posted by users. Facebook according to the Wall Street Journal though is naturally following the case closely.

However, in its published “community standards,” Facebook says that “we remove content and may escalate to law enforcement when we perceive a genuine risk of physical harm or a direct threat to public safety. You may not credibly threaten others, or organize acts of real-world violence.”

At the very least the statements posted on Facebook by Elonis were extremely foolish. SCOTUS is expected to rule on the case in June 2015.

[UPDATE 12.59pm] There is additional reporting on the background of the case here that gives also gives background about the issue of what is known as a ‘true threat’.

The last time the high court scrutinized the “true threat” doctrine was in 2003, when it found that a Virginia law banning cross burning was unconstitutional because a “true threat” requires the speaker to communicate an intent to commit violence. (Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.) In that case, the court defined true threats as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

So the key question may well be for SCOTUS is what is the relationship between a ‘true threat’ and modern technology (ie. the internet)?

The Press reports:

The path to asset sales is likely to be cleared this week as the Christchurch City Council takes steps to raise money for the rebuild.

Councillors are expected to hold a special meeting on Friday to adopt a financial strategy that deals with the potential $900 million funding shortfall the council is facing over the next few years.

Details of the strategy have yet to be made public but Mayor Lianne Dalziel said it would include a range of options to release capital from city-owned assets.

That could sit uneasily with the seven People’s Choice councillors, who all signed a pre-election pledge that promised all significant public assets would be kept in public ownership and control.

Dalziel had studied the pledge and believed councillors would not be breaking their word if they went down the route proposed.

She reasoned that if the council was to sell some of its Orion shares to the neighbouring Selwyn District Council (SDC), which already had an 11 per cent stake in the company, that pledge would still have been honoured.

Likewise, she saw no problem with inviting a strategic partner to buy a stake in Christchurch Airport or Lyttelton Port (LPC), provided the council retained its control.

You mean a mixed ownership model? Have the Council keep say 51%? Use the proceeds to reduce the need to borrow for other assets?

It sounds a very sensible idea. Of course it is the same idea National had in 2011, which Lianne campaigned against. If the Christchurch Council does agree to this policy, I expect Labour to of course condemn them and campaign against their decision!

Taranaki Daily News reports:

A monumental decision made by the new guard of New Plymouth’s council has been revealed as an embarrassing botch-up.

Last week the New Plymouth District Council narrowly voted to allow legally binding citizen initiated referenda to happen under its watch.

The proposal was suggested on the spot by first-term councillor Len Houwers and was quickly passed by fellow first-term councillors Keith Allum, Murray Chong, Grant Coward, Richard Handley, Richard Jordan and returning councillor Shaun Biesiek.

However, the Taranaki Daily News has investigated the decision and can reveal the council move is a major blunder.

The Department of Internal Affairs, which oversees local government in New Zealand, has said the council had passed a policy that was impossible to enact.

“According to the department, legally-binding citizens initiated referenda are not possible under the current legislation except in relation to reorganisation proposals, electoral systems and Maori wards,” a spokesperson from internal affairs said.

Yep.

Mayor Andrew Judd, who voted against the proposal, said this outcome highlighted why making policy “on the hoof” was not the way to do things.

Indeed. Didn’t anyone say hey shouldn’t we check if this is legal?

Stuff reported:

She might be the new minister for women but don’t call Louise Upston a feminist.

The Taupo MP is under fire for singing the praises of beauty pageants, which she says give contestants confidence.

Upston became a fan of pageants at a Miss Tokoroa contest after being impressed by the talent and self-possession of the contestants.

“The confidence that these girls had at the end of it – you literally had to see it to believe it,” Upston said.

“What are the things that make a difference to young girls, and setting their sights high? It’s about confidence, it’s about having belief in their ability.

“And for those 20 young girls I saw, if it was participating in that programme that gave them that, then absolutely.”

If people want to take part in beauty contests, then that’s up to them – likewise if people want to watch them.

Upston said she did not want to be seen as having a feminist agenda in future roles.

“I’ve never called myself a feminist. I’m not interested in being a flag-waver,” she said.

“I’m not interested in having colleagues who get there because they’re a woman, and they’re the token one. That diminishes our contribution, and I don’t ever want anyone to look at me and say ‘she’s there because she’s a female’.”

Upston was a fan of old-fashioned chivalry, such as men opening doors for women, she said. “I’m quite comfortable with it, and I think that’s probably why a real feminist wouldn’t call me a feminist.”

It depends on what you define as feminism.

Generally a feminist is defined as someone who supports the rights or equality of women. Using that definition I regard myself as a feminist.

Within that overall belief in equality, there will be a huge variety of views on individual issues. Some feminists probably regard anyone who doesn’t agree with them on every issue as not a true feminist, but I don’t accept that. I believe if you support women having equal rights, you are a feminist.

UPDATE: A good piece from Femonomics:

I am not a capitalist because I think the interests of business should come before the interests of women.  Far from it. I have seen big government oppress women, and business and free markets help them.  I believe systematic oppression is every bit as entrenched in government forces as it is in market ones, and that both can be tools to either rectify or reinforce the hierarchies of the past.  I believe there is a role for government in correcting inequalities, but I also believe that government helped to put them there in the first place, both in the US and the world over.  In places where governments continue to oppress, I have seen the remarkable effect of freedom, both market and personal, in improving the quality of life for people in need.

Well said.

Stuff reports:

The Green Party has attacked the Government’s charter school policy after one school’s roll dropped by a quarter this year – but Vanguard Military School says that’s because its students have qualified and moved on to other courses.

The North Shore charter school, which starts every day with a military parade, had 79 students attending in October this year – 25 per cent below the 108 it was funded to teach, Green Party education spokeswoman Catherine Delahunty said. …

But Vanguard Milliary School chief executive Nick Hyde said roll numbers had dropped because students had already passed their qualifications and had moved on to other courses, including some in the military or, in a few cases, at other schools.

“The reality is these kids have gained the qualification they signed up for, and we should be celebrating that, not throwing stones at them.”

He said 41 out of 45 students sitting NCEA level 2 this year had already passed the course, and 84 per cent of students had passed level 1.

So this is what the Greens are against – a 90% pass rate for NECA Level 2 among students who traditionally have very low pass rates.

Delahunty said she disputed that education was about getting children over the line and then moving them on.

“It doesn’t stop because they’ve had one assessment.

Vanguard is only set up for NCEA Level 1 and 2. But Catherine will be pleased a solution is in sight.

However, Hyde said taxpayers were getting “good value for money” with charter schools, which were “making an impression” on the 20 per cent of students who were not succeeding in other schools.

“If they’ve got their level 2 qualification and don’t want to do level 3, then why should we make them stick around until the end of the year when they could be going on to do other things?”

Next year the school roll would increase to 144 students, when the school expanded to include NCEA level 3.

Excellent.

Exit poll data

Chris Cillizza over at the Washington Post has been crunching the nationwide exit poll data post the 2014 midterm elections. He’s come up with nine numbers that were important in the mid-terms. The underlying issues may also influence what happens in the 2016 presidential race.

Four. That’s the margin by which Democrats beat Republicans among women nationwide in the vote for the House. That’s a significant decline from President Obama’s winning margins among women (11 in 2012, 13 in 2008), though it’s an improvement from the 2010 midterms, when Democrats lost the women’s vote by a point. Still, the massive focus of Democratic candidates across the country on the Republican Party’s supposed “war on women” clearly didn’t persuade large numbers of female voters to abandon the GOP.

The GOP picked candidates such as Joni Ernst in the Iowa Senate race to appeal more to women voters. But if Hillary Clinton is the nominee this is a tough demographic for the Republicans. The ‘war on women’ is go nowhere issue now though, its been done to death.

Sixty-two. That’s the percentage of the vote for Democrats among those who said they “never” attend any sort of religious services; Republicans won just 36 percent among that group. Compare that with the 18-point edge Republicans enjoyed over Democrats among those who go to some sort of religious service weekly and you see that one’s religiosity continues to be among the most reliable predictors of how they will vote.

No surprises here with a clear divide on how Democrats and Republicans vote.

Fifty-four.  A majority of Americans who went to the polls Nov. 4 believe that the “government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals,” while just 41 percent think “the government should do more to solve problems.”

This is a big change from early in the Obama presidency. Republicans will be licking their lips looking ahead of the 2016 election. But can they find a presidential nominee savvy enough to sell this to the voters?

Seventy-eight. How people feel about their government is this number, which represents the percentage of people who say you can only “sometimes” (60 percent) or “never” (18 percent) trust Washington “to do what is right.” That’s stunning. The number is partly attributable to a Republican-flavored electorate and the natural suspicion among many within the GOP of the federal government — particularly when it’s run by a Democratic president.  

This is consistent with the previous statistic.

Forty-eight. That’s the percentage of people who said same-sex marriage should be legal in their state, the same number that said it should be illegal.

Same-sex marriage may well be an influence on some races state-by-state in 2016.

Seventy-five. Three-quarters of the 2014 electorate was white (and they voted for Republicans by 22 points) on Nov. 4. That might seem like great news for Republicans. It’s not. Whites made up 77 percent of the 2010 electorate — and the decline in whites as a percentage of the overall electorate is happening in presidential cycles, too.

The Democrats and Republicans will want to do better with this demographic in 2016.

Thirty-eight. The percentage of the white vote that Democratic candidates won nationwide. That’s the same percentage Democrats got among white voters in the 2010 midterms and virtually equal to the 39 percent Obama won in the 2012 election. That’s a trend — and a downward one for Democrats.

Thirty-six. That’s the percentage of the Hispanic vote that Republicans won Nov. 4, an improvement on the 34 percent they won in 2010 and a major step up from the 27 percent that Mitt Romney took in 2012. It was the strongest showing for Republicans among Hispanic voters since Bush won 44 percent of the Latino vote in the 2004 election.

The Democrats will be a bit concerned how well they relating to the white vote. The Hispanic vote is an interesting one with the immigration debate currently going on. If the GOP want to continue to make ground with this important demographic they will need to frame their policy options carefully and not alienate the Hispanic voters.

Fifty-three. A majority of voters who identified as “moderates” (four in every 10 voters) cast ballots for Democrats. Republicans got 45 percent of the moderate vote. That’s a good reminder that a) “moderate” does not equal “independent” (Republicans won “independents” by 12 points) and b) this election was not decided by “the middle.” It was decided by the Republican base or, put another way, the no-show of the Democratic base.

It is a no-brainer getting moderates and independents motivated to vote. Republicans got the vote out better than Democrats in 2014. The other key demographic not mentioned here are the millennials, this was covered in a previous post.

Quinnipiac presidential election poll

Quinnipiac conducted a poll that assumes Hillary Clinton is the nominee for the Democrats and matched her up against possible GOP contenders.

Romney 45 (%) – Clinton 44.

Clinton 43 – Christie 42

Clinton 46 – Paul 41

Clinton 46 – Huckabee 41

Clinton 46 – Jeb Bush 41

Clinton 46 – Ryan 42

Clinton 48 – Cruz 37.

It is very early days so these numbers will change.

38 years after Episode 4!

The NZ Herald reports:

Former Act leader John Banks’ conviction for electoral fraud has been overturned and a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The retrial will hear the evidence from two new witnesses who were at a lunch with Banks and Kim Dotcom.

It seems their evidence is contradictory to the evidence of Mr Dotcom. Also as far as I know they have no vested interest in the outcome.

Mr Banks was convicted in the High Court after failing to disclose donations from Kim Dotcom to his Auckland Mayoralty campaign in 2010.

Mr Banks had appealed and introduced affidavits from two US-based businessmen who had been at the same lunch at which Mr Dotcom claimed donations were discussed.

The pair – David Schaeffer and Jeffery Karnes – both said donations were not discussed at that lunch.

In a statement, the Court of Appeal said it had decided to admit the evidence.

“Although it was not fresh evidence, the Court was satisfied that if the evidence has been before [High Court judge] Justice Wylie the outcome may have been different.

The two businessmen have no vested interest in the case. The fact both of them are adamant no donations were discussed is rather persuasive.

In the retrial (if it happens) Mr Dotcom’s evidence may be less persuasive after his month of truth fiasco where he released an obviously forged e-mail.

Stats NZ reports:

The latest Household Economic Survey (Income) shows average annual household income rose 9.1 percent in the two years to June 2014, from $81,227 to $88,579.

That’s a big increase. Inflation over those two years was 2.3% so average household incomes have risen 6.6% in real terms.

Median household incomes also up strongly – 7.8% over two years.

In the same period, average household weekly spending on housing costs rose 11.1 percent, from $256 to $284.

So incomes went up $7,352 on average and housing costs up $1,460.

“The increase in housing costs was largely due to higher mortgage and rent payments, as well as an increase in property rates,” labour market and household manager Diane Ramsay said.

“A really interesting shift we’ve seen is that a bigger proportion of mortgage spending is going on repaying the principal than on covering the interest payments.”

Paying off more of the principal is a good thing.

Some other interesting stats:

• 27% of households in the bottom income quintile say their income is inadequate to meet their needs, as do 5% of households in the top quintile
• Age has a significant factor in income. Under 20s have a median income of below $1,000, 20 to 24s a median income of $28,000 approx, 25s to 29s are $37,000 approx, and 30s to 60s are $47,000

Stuff reports:

A study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal today estimates that, even with steep tobacco tax rises and the introduction of plain packaging, tens of thousands of Kiwis will still be smoking by 2025.

One of the study authors, Otago University professor Tony Blakely, said the Government needed to start thinking about more “radical solutions” if it was committed to the goal.

Those included requiring smokers to have a tobacco licence, forcing tobacco firms to phase out nicotine, restricting tobacco sales to pharmacies, or subsidising less harmful alternatives such as e-cigarettes.

Blakely said it was too early to endorse any of those options, but a business-as-usual approach would not work. “We are going to need one of these extra radical things that hasn’t been tried anywhere else,” he said.

“Even a packet of cigarettes costing $40 will not be enough.”

The idea of licensing smokers sounds totalitarian.

The idea of restricting sales to pharmacies, recognising it is a drug, is worth debating.

Also worth considering is what role e-cigarettes can play, as they are exponentially less harmful.