May 2009

I always wonder about the people who get into cages with wild animals with sharp teeth and sharp claws, their mental state anyway.

A senior zookeeper was today mauled to death by a white tiger at the park as horrified tourists looked on.

Northland Police District spokeswoman Sarah Kennett  confirmed that around 11am this morning two keepers went in to clean the white tiger enclosure when it attacked one of the keepers.

The keeper suffered injuries to the abdomen and lower leg which involved “tearing” by a big cat.

Ms Kennett said despite the best efforts of the other keeper the tiger wouldn’t let go. The man died at the scene before the ambulance arrived at the park.

The tiger has since been shot dead.

I fail to see why the Tiger was shot, it was just being a tiger and the silly man-beast walked in just before lunch.

Anyway this will take the heat off the Super City, the Budget and Mt Albert.

Minister questioned over Rankin appointment – The Government was challenged in Parliament today to say whether it would remove Christine Rankin from the Families Commission if it turned out she had been lying about rumours swirling around her private life. [Stuff Politics]

Labour should be very, very careful in going down the path they are heading with Christine Rankin.

It is clear that they have decided that flinging poo is the way forward and dragging peoples bedroom behaviour into th parliament is a good look.

I would caution then against doing so because then they will be open season.

Annette King herself should be very careful given she herself is twice married and her husband could hardly be called the pinnacle of discretion. Likewise Trevor Mallard.

There are too many skeletons in too many closets for Labour to want those busted wide open. But then again they still think smear and innuendo would work at the election.

Brian Rudman: National steels itself to squirm – Almost since the day they were elected into office, National’s leadership has been softening us up to the likelihood they’ll renege on their key election promise – a $4 billion, three-year programme of personal tax cuts. Tomorrow,… [NZ Herald Politics]

Brian Rudman looks at the prospect of National reneging on its tax cut promises tomorrow in the budget.

I find myself in agreement with him.

I wonder why it is that it is deemed acceptable to renege on tax cut promises yet steadfastly adhere to the “no cutting of so-called entitlements” promises?

Perhaps Bill English could explain to the ever patient taxpayer why they should not get a tax cut and they should continue to pay for Working for Families, or Universal Superannuation, both totally daft ideas completely without logic or merit in these hard economic times.

Shane “Visa” Jones and Chris Finlayson had a battle of wits in the parliament today. Unfortunately the Attorney General was fighting with an unarmed man.

Hon Shane Jones: How is it a matter of good faith not to have sought advice about such an important Treaty principle as partnership?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The issues are tolerably clear, as a result of all the reports on partnership that have been given by the Waitangi Tribunal over the years, including the 2007 report, which castigated that member’s Government for the sloppy way in which it had approached negotiations with Auckland iwi.

Hon Shane Jones: In terms of local government reform and the application of the Treaty of Waitangi, where does the change in Auckland governance derive its legitimacy from—constitutional law or democracy?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That is virtually a non-question. The answer is that the legitimacy of local government comes from this House, in that the Local Government Act was passed by this House.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the question. The question was in terms of the application of the principles of the Treaty to local government reform. Invite the Attorney-General to skite again and give us a decent answer!

Mr SPEAKER: Points of order should not be made in that way. I believe that the Minister did answer the question.

Labour’s Orange Guy, little Darren Hughes must have caught an early flight back from campaigning for the Labour candidate what’s-his-name in order to rise in the house and ask a question of “Crusher” Collins.

Hon Darren Hughes: What guarantee can the Minister give the House that this new legislation will lead to any more boy racers losing their cars than do so currently, considering that although courts can already confiscate on a first offence, this happens in less than 2 percent of cases?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that when the member reads the bills he will see that there are very strong provisions; it is very difficult to sell or race a car that has been crushed.

Poor little Dazza, crushed by Judith Collins. Sit down and stop glowing….oops, I meant glowering.

We hear constantly usually from leftists that National is going to cut “entitlements”. National of course says that they won’t but I am getting mighty sick of hearing about things like welfare, and that include Superannuation, described as entitlements.

Times are tough. There is no such thing as an “entitlement”. Use of such a word to describe the largesse of the taxpayer is profodly misleading.

Wikipedia describes “Entitlements” thus;

Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law. It also refers, in a more casual sense to someone’s belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit.^[1] It is often used as a pejorative term in popular parlance (i.e. a ‘sense of entitlement’).

This is of course a complete fallacy that any social security programme is an entitlement. In the true sense of the word. With this usage what we are looking at the full emergence of a Culture of Entitlement. Again from Wikipedia we can see that, indeed New Zealand has a fully developed culture of Entitlement;

A Culture of entitlement is an expression meant to encapsulate the social norm whereby a society comes to expect government entitlement programs to correct inequalities in employment opportunities, access to adequate health care, or any other inequity caused by bias in access to things that are perceived by the common public as basic human right.

This is where this country is deeply and almost irreparably broken. We simply cannot continue to say that peoples “entitlements” are protected. It is farcical to suggest than even a fraction of our “entitlements can even be paid for. They are therefore hardly entitlements more like liabilities that is mortgaging our future against the ne’er-do-wells of today. This is unsustainable.

This country needs to cut its cloth according to its income lest become the Iceland of the South Pacific.

To me “entitlements” should be about things like the freedom to conduct business, the environment that rewards endeavour, safe and secure society. Let us hear no more about “entitlements” being the gifting of other peoples money to the undeserving.

PM moves to ban P-makers’ vital cold pills – Prime Minister John Key is proposing to combat the drug P by banning its main ingredient, pseudoephedrine, from use in over-the-counter cold and flu tablets. Mr Key’s first task for his chief science adviser, Professor Peter Gluckman,… [NZ Herald Politics]

Uhmmm…much and all as I am against ‘P’, the PM is looking in the wrong place for the source of meth cooks ingredients.

He would be better to crack down on dodgy car importers and Russian land owners and taking a close look around some coastal Auckland property.

That would be far more effective in halting the P-trade.

Cold and flu tablets would account for just the tip of the iceberg of the problem. Far better would be proper scanning of containers of goods coming into the country. The gangs are direct importing and have buyers permanently on the payroll in China. They can’t be botherered with small timers scabbing a box of Codral from the pharmacy.

Boy racers’ cars to be seized, destroyed – Car owners with overdue traffic fines will be caught up in the crackdown on boy racers, with the Government announcing legislation that would allow their cars to be seized and sold. [Stuff Politics]

Judith “Crusher” Collins has delivered with the Government announcing the introduction of car crushing legislation.

Under the legislation:

* A new penalty for illegal street racing would allow vehicles to be seized and destroyed;

* Vehicles used by people with overdue traffic fines can be seized and sold to pay those fines;

* Local authorities will be able to create bylaws prevent vehicles repeatedly “cruising” city streets;

* Vehicles involved in illegal street racing will be impounded;

* Demerit points will be given for noise offences, licence breaches and registration plate officers. Repeat offenders will lose their licences rather than just accrue fines.

Good job, but I think we can also make a bit on the side to offset costs and reducing government debt by auctioning off the right to wreck cars. You could even create a franchise situation kind of like the reverse of VTNZ. It would be ideal for stag parties, taking out day to day frustrations etc.

Govt cuts off cash to obesity coalition – The Government has lopped another limb off Labour’s “bureaucratic” public health tree, ending state funding for the Obesity Action Coalition. The coalition, created under Labour in 2003 to promote measures to reduce obesity, confirmed… [NZ Herald Politics]

Good job, they are a political lobby group anyway.

There is a cure for obesity and it isn’t in banning advertising, or types of food or forcing us into mass medication programmes.

Obesity is caused by one single factor. The propensity of an individual to stuuf endless amounts of crap into their gob and at the same time refusing to exercise to consume the calories they just stuffed into the aforesaid gob.

No amount of money funding lobby groups will stop an individual from CHOOSING to be a fatty.

With the news that John Key is looking at extending Government Funding of political parties it is timely to look at this video I nicked from Guido’s blog.

While I am railing against public funding of political parties it occured to me that Labour’s cynical manipulation of the Electoral process with the Electoral Finance Act was just step one in their ultimate aim and that was to shift focus of the public to donations and transpereny in a bid to get public funding of political parties. It lloks like they may well have been successful.

You see if you move to ban or limit donations then you need to then provide a mechanism for political parties to fund themselves. This ultimately leads to public funding of political parties and the further removing of democracy from New Zealand. There actually is then no longer a need for organisations, members and party fundraising and the political parties become creatures of their executive rather than parties for their members.

Labour are already essentially operating in this manner after troughing from the public for nine long years.

I will fight public funding of political parties with vigour and attack any party that supports it. If anything we should be looking at removing the public funding of advertising for political parties entirely unless they aren’t in parliament. That would be much more in the interests of demcracy than the current funding rorts. At the same time remove the law that prevents political parties buying their own time for advertising and using their own money.

The troughing by parties must end.