Chris Christie’s top 10 quotes:
2. “First off it’s none of your business. I don’t ask you where you send your kids to school. Don’t bother me about where I send mine.” – June 17, 2011, on not wanting to discuss where he sends his kids to school.
8. “Well, you know what then, you don’t have to do it.”— May 25, 2010, in response to a New Jersey teacher who said she should be paid more.
UK Labour seems to be channeling Phil Goff‘s failed campaign and reign and Labour leader. While there is the constant speculation over the leadership of Ed Miliband there is also the inept leadership considering following in Phil Goff’s campaign footsteps:
A new ritual has been initiated in the bars of Westminster. Whenever a Tory and a Liberal Democrat meet for a drink, they start by saying what is now called “the Coalition prayer”. Closing their eyes and clutching their glasses, they say in unison: “Lord, protect and keep Ed Miliband – as leader of the Labour Party.” It is uttered in all seriousness, even by atheists. The Opposition ought to be miles ahead in the opinion polls, punishing the Government for its failure to grow the economy; instead, it is divided and disorientated, its residual strengths eclipsed by the near-comic shortcomings of a wonkish leader. His enemies just can’t believe their luck.
Even if they do change the leader it appears that they will channel our Labour party:
At the next election, Labour will be able to ask the Ronald Reagan question: are you better off than you were five years ago? The answer for most Brits may well be “no”, and this ought to be devastating for the Government. It would take a monumentally inept Labour leader not to capitalise on this. And this is why the “Coalition prayer” is being offered in Westminster bars: because Labour has found just the chap. Without him, the party would have all to play for.
A good lesson for politicians. Don’t root around on your missus or it will bite you on the arse.
Chris Huhne has become the first Cabinet minister in living memory to be charged with a serious criminal offence after the fall-out from his acrimonious divorce left him facing court, a potential jail sentence and the end of his political career.
The Energy Secretary was forced to resign within minutes of the announcement by the Crown Prosecution Service that he had been charged with perverting the course of justice. The senior Liberal Democrat will make his first court appearance in less than a fortnight.
Mr Huhne and his ex-wife, Vicky Pryce, have both been charged with the same offence after it was alleged that she agreed to accept speeding points on behalf of her then husband.
The charges carry a maximum life sentence although legal precedent suggests that a guilty verdict in such a case would probably lead to a prison sentence of fewer than two years.
Mr Huhne now faces the prospect of a court showdown with his wife, whose allegations about the incident prompted the police investigation that resulted in yesterday’s announcement.
The claims first emerged last year at the height of a bitter divorce after Mr Huhne left Miss Pryce for one of his aides. The speeding charge dates back to 2003 and the CPS decided to charge Mr Huhne after police seized emails between his ex-wife and a journalist.
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 Law Society is now censoring recruitment advertisements in Law Talk. The Fiji of Directorate of Public Prosecutions wanted to advertise for qualified New Zealand lawyers for positions they have available. This would of course been a good thing with New Zealand qualified lawyers able to impart their knowledge and belief on the Fijian legal profession.
Instead the Law Society has banned the adverts essentially wanting to censor the advertising of jobs in Fiji.
Christopher Pryde, the Director of Public prosecutions says:
An email to the Office of the DPP this morning (3.2.12), said “The New Zealand Law Society Board has decided unanimously that the NZLS will not accept advertisements for legal positions in Fiji under the current interim military regime”.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Christopher Pryde, said it was unfortunate that the NZLS was involving itself in politics and preventing New Zealand lawyers from hearing about job vacancies in Fiji.
“It is unfortunate that New Zealand lawyers are being denied the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they wish to take up legal positions in Fiji. By refusing to allow us the right to advertise, the NZLS is effectively censoring what New Zealand lawyers know about Fiji.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in an independent office and the Director of Public Prosecutions has the sole responsibility for criminal prosecutions in Fiji. This is without recourse to any Government minister, including the Attorney-General. The Office in that regard is non-political.
This is the bizarre part of the Law Society’s action. They think that this is a “smart sanction”. In fact it is highly dumb.
What shall we do with people charged with rape or robbery or murder? Send them to New Zealand?” he said.
Mr Pryde said he remains concerned that the NZLS continue to have an inaccurate picture of the Fijian situation, in particular of the judiciary and the courts.
“My invitation to the NZLS still stands. They are welcome to visit Fiji and meet and talk to anyone without restriction so that they can obtain for themselves a first-hand appraisal of things in Fiji. In the meantime, we would appreciate the NZLS allowing lawyers to decide things for themselves and allow us the right to advertise” he said.
Oh..so the Law Society has acted based on the inane drivel published by Barbara Dreaver and Michael Field, both of whom haven’t been in Fiji for some years and they also haven’t haven’t bothered to go anf find out for themselves the situation in Fiji.
Actions like this are stupid and hardly contribute to enabling Fiji to return to democracy. in point of fact they hinder the path to democracy by allowing the impression that independent bodies such as the Directorate of Public Prosecutions to be maligned as political corrupt.
One thing the Law Society has done though, by dabbling in foreign politics, is opened themselves up to a challenge for whatever status they enjoy with the Charities Commission.
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.
