NZ

The Herald has an article asking how we can reclaim Waitangi Day.

It is then full of a whole lot of liberal guilt and anguish. But I tell you what, I’m over all the b.s. promulgated by Maori intent on looking backwards to 1840 instead of looking forwards.

So for Waitangi Day I am going to have a Brown Out. I’m not going to talk about it, blog about it or comment on the annual gnashing and wailing of teeth held at Waitangi.

The only people really interested in Waitangi are the 1%…the elites of Maori and politicians. Foreverybody else it is the first Statutroy holiday and we hope for a fine day, good surf and great company not all the racial bikering that Waitangi Day has become.

Helen Clark did the right thing is staying away after she was insulted…”The Crown” should stay away permanently and while we are at it ignore the Ratana cult too.

Ngapuhi would be better off spending the day working out solutions to their appalling child abuse statistics and awful housing situation instead of pandering to elites at Waitangi.

As far as I am concerned the Treaty of Waitangi is an interesting historical document of as much relevance as the Treaty of Versailles to modern New Zealand. Both documents were meant to bring peace and instead they promoted divsion and conflict.

It is time to consign it all to the history books and start building a modern, relevant society in New Zealand not one focused on grievance and outrage.

Image via Wikipedia

Tony Falkenstein wants a tax on sugar. He is very vociferous about it and we have discussed his position before. The MacDoctor explained the fallacy of a tax on sugar quite well too.

Still there is a clamour for such silliness and so at every opportunity such silliness must be rebutted.

There are now calls for sugar to be treated and taxed in the same way as alcohol because it is alleged that sugar is toxic. There is an article promulgating this exact premise in Nature magazine. The control freaks are out in force clamouring their support for such a tax.

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it’s unavoidable, there’s potential for abuse, it’s toxic, and it negatively impacts society. They write that sugar is added to so many processed foods that it’s everywhere, and people eat up to 500 calories per day in added sugar alone. Sugar acts on the same areas of the brain as alcohol and tobacco to encourage subsequent intake, they wrote, and it’s toxic because research shows that sugar increases disease risk from factors other than added calories, such as when it disrupts metabolism.

 

Yes sugar is a contributor to the alleged obesity epidemic, however I would argue that indolence is a bigger contributor. Andrew Carroll objects though because to simply label sugar as inherently evil goes against the basic science and nutrition facts of sugar:

Any regular reader on the blog knows of my interest in obesity, and my concern that we are failing to address the problem adequately. But this seems to go a bit too far. There are legitimate reasons that we don’t allow children to purchase and/or consume alcohol. Sugar (as glucose), on the other hand, is necessary for life. It’s in lots of food, not just processed foods. And just because something “can” be abused doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be allowed to have it.

There are data that show immediate and serious consequences of drinking. As far as I know, no such data exist for sugar, teased apart from other unhealthy nutrients. We can have a serious and evidence based discussion of how food and tax policy subtly shapes our eating habits without resorting to age limits on a substance that the brain needs in order to survive. That’s not productive, and might even drive people away. The obesity epidemic can likely only be overcome with sustained societal behavior change. We need to work, with people, not against them.

Tony Falkenstein does great work with philanthropy in other areas but make no mistake that his drive for a tax on sugar and the flip side of his thoughts, the positioning of his own water company is more about shifting his huge inventory of water coolers that is currently collecting dust in warehouses than it is about stopping sugar addiction.

I contacted Christopher Pryde, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Fiji via email. I asked about the ad that the NZ Law Society banned and the details of the position. His reply:

There is only one at this stage but it is fairly high level. I had intended to advertise some more junior posts in a few weeks. I’m still always interested in hearing from anyone who might be interested in working in the office.

This position, as with my position and all positions in the office are non-political which means we look only at whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction in court. As Director, the decision to prosecute (or withdraw charges) is mine alone and I receive no directions from any government minister and certainly not the military.

Here is the job ad the NZ Law Society banned:

The Job Ad the NZ Law Society banned

via the tipline:

Garrick Tremain at his best.

Blogging is funny…there are many days when I am writing about something or other and I read in my feeds a post that supports, enlightens or opposes what it was that I was writing about.

Today is no different. This morning I blogged about a stalker, and this afternoon I sat down to go through Mashable and they have an article about fake Facebook profiles and who typically sets them up.

I think the research is flawed. Mostly the people who set up fake profiles are creepy, bunny boiler type personalities intent on stalking. They are up to no good…they are either watching what you are up to but in a sneaky way knowing that due to their own crazy personality flaws and insane behaviour that you would never friend them if you knew who they were.

It is the same kind of behaviour that jealous and bitter ex-wives/husbands exhibit watching every move that their former partner does like they are some sort of crazed minder of their business. Then one day out the blue they just nut off blowing their cover and proving why in reality they are sad, friendless losers and have to pretend otherwise.

I had a mate who used to complain about his ex-wife’s new boyfriends, car, house etc…till I told him to get over himself, he gave her the flick and still he is thinking about her. Close the door and move on….or get back with them if you are so obsessed with their every move.

Then there are the “friends” that simply collect “friends”, the more in the news, or famous of high profile the better. Again this behaviour says more about them that it does about me.

Facebook does provide challenges though. I advise anyone who asks, especially politicians that Facebook is not a place for proselytizing your ideas. You are either talking with sychophants who agree with your every word or the enemy who are sitting waiting for our next social media screw up. Facebook for politicians should be tight, controlled and family and real friends only.

But then again we are only human and we fall for the trap of faux-popularity. My personal policy is to put it all out there…that way you can’t be blackmailed, can;t be accused of something you aren’t and you are never worried about what someone might say or think.

A good rule of thumb is never put anything on Facebook that you wouldn’t put on a postcard…a little dated I know but it still holds true. The point is that anyone can get what you have on Facebook, it just takes time and these days not much of that.

Fran O’Sullivan in her omnibus article in the Herald touches on a key point for me about Maori politics:

The Waitangi Treaty plays a role as the founding document for this nation. But grievances still dominate.

I agree with Shearer that we all need a break from the anger and dysfunction that has come to represent Waitangi Day.

But the Maori and Mana parties seem determined to leverage it as the fulcrum for their discontent over the Government’s plan to ensure that the partial sale of state assets is free of any encumbrance from the Treaty of Waitangi clauses in the existing state-owned enterprises legislation. That plan may already have come a cropper. But is it really the biggest debate in Maoridom?

If we gave ourselves a break from the tensions that Waitangi Day provides, we might just find Maori concentrate on the long overdue debate they need to have.

The debate about why a two-tiered Maori society has developed: The major iwi leadership groups keen to invest in the state-owned assets when they go up for sale, and the ordinary Maori who have waited for far too long for tribal aristocrats to invest a major portion of the proceeds of the settlements in developing their prospects.

Former Labour Cabinet minister John Tamihere is starting to beat a drum on this issue. He walked the Bastion Point heights and lamented the dreadful living standards many urban Maori live in while the elites build their intergenerational wealth. He wants them to fund today’s generations – not just tomorrow’s.

I’ll start listening to Maori carping about some clauses in legislation regarding asset sales when they stop killing their kids with alarming frequency. These are the issues that Maori politicians should be focussing on not featherbedding the Maori elites and bro-racracy. John Tamihere is right in focusing the issues of that are actually affecting Maori.

Maori are the top of all the wrong statistics, but we see their “leaders” focus on tiny insignificant clauses in legislation. It is bizarre that the Treaty can affect a modern construct such as Mixed Ownership Model.

The treaty has no bearing, influence or control over private companies or private citizens, it is high time we all moved on from looking backwards to 1840 and started focussing on the New Zealand we want in 2040.

Fran O’Sullivan pours scorn on the anonymous cowards at The Standard:

I experienced a bit of this myself last week when the website, thestandard.org.nz, branded me an “enemy of the people” for supporting the sale.

To my mind the deal provides much greater upside for New Zealand than many of the other farms sales which have gone to foreign interests in recent years.

The Standard is reputed to have been started by a bunch of Labour Party activists. Most posters won’t sign their names to their comments because they are frightened they will be held responsible. They are frankly cowards.

I finally branded them the “Ku Klux Klan” of the internet world on Twitter. A bunch of lily-livered word jocks who hide behind their virtual cloaks of anonymity.

But I would have engaged them directly in the argument if they had signed their names.

The website’s policy is to retain anonymity because they are frightened their commenters will be persecuted by employers or landlords – whoever – if their identities are made known.

No doubt their Grand Wizard, Lynn Prentice will burst forth with some vitriolic rant that The Standard is some code and a machine and how silly of Fran to think otherwise.

In the early 80s before the 1984 election Labour’s opposition was populated with thinkers.

Roger Douglas, David Lange, Michael Bassett, Geoffrey Palmer, Peter Tapsell, Mike Moore and Richard Prebble.

They didn’t just oppose Muldoon, they came up with some solutions to the morass the country found itself in. They showed an enormous tallent and prodigious thinking power. That powerful opposition went on to become a reforming government making dramatic lasting positive changes to the New Zealand economy crippled by Muldoon’s legacy and global economic conditions.

Even Helen Clark cut her teeth in politics at that time.

If Labour are going to challenge National seriously rather than sit back and expect to win in 2014 then they need to show the same sort of vision and ideas that those aforementioned lumnaries of Labour showed.

The problem I have is that I just don’t think there is a single one of the current Labour caucus that remotely qualifies in the same league.

There certainly isn’t a Richard Prebble and a book like “I’ve been Thinking“.

Hel me out here readers, is there anyone in the Labour caucus right now that will have such a dramatic positive effect on New Zealand like that of the 4th Labour government?

Sometimes stalkers come to my notice. Their actions give them away.

They are sitting there lurking and watching Facebook profiles. Once you know what to look for it is easy to discover them.

Phillipa Sturges…is a friend of mine on Facebook (well not now)..she is only friends with well known people…banal useless profile updates and most importantly easily discoverable photos of other people claimed as their own.

Nineteen mutual friends…Lives in Kaitaia, I think not. Funny ow none of her friends live in Kaitaia.

Take this picture (left) It also happens to be a picture of actress Krista Allen…an uncanny likeness including the same shirt, sunglasses and jewelry.

Tin Eye is such a useful tool:

Profile Picture 1: match

Profile Picture 2: match

Profile Picture 3: match

That is pretty conclusive evidence that Phillipa Sturgess is fake.

Then there is Google Image Search.

Even the photo of her with a bloke is pinched from another site. Only a truly creepy person would find photos and crop them to suit some sort of fantasy existence.

Phillipa Sturges is an inept attempt at lurker. For those people who are my friends who are also friends with this fake tart might I suggest a de-friending. It will either be some Labour tragic or a bunny-boiler psycho bitch that is just days away from making your life miserable.