Blu Blooded

Personal Responsibility

2005-09-30T15:32:00.000+12:00

Just found this site – Overlawyered.com. “Chronicling the high cost of our legal system”.

Under Personal Responsibility, they list a whole host of articles that show just how far political correctnedd (combined with the USA’s legal system) has gone, leading to people not taking any responsibility for their actions, and the consequences of these actions.

Some examples:

"'Drunken Driver's Widow Wins Court's OK To Sue Carmaker'"

"Don't rock the Coke machine"

"'Robber sues clerk who shot him during holdup'"

“Hospital rapist sues hospital”

"Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight"

"'Barbed wire might hurt burglars, pensioner warned'"

"Pitcher, hit by line drive, sues maker of baseball bat"

And of course, from New Zealand:
"Fat tax proposed in New Zealand",

However, here are my favourites:

"'Barbed wire might hurt burglars, pensioner warned'"

In Northampton, England, 94-year-old Ruby Barber has finally gotten permission from the borough council to put barbed wire on her garden walls after suffering four break-ins to her bungalow over the past year and a half. The council granted permission "as long as she uses warning signs and agrees to take full responsibility if a would-be intruder is injured". Her son Burt, who lives nearby, said: "It is bordering on the ridiculous to say that if they hurt themselves getting in here I am responsible. The Queen has got it all around Buckingham Palace and if it is good enough for her it is good enough for my mother. She is the Queen to me."

"Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight"

A Wilkes-Barre woman is suing several doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, saying the physicians did not do enough to assist her in making life changes -- including quitting smoking and losing weight -- that might have prevented a debilitating heart attack she suffered." Kathleen Ann McCormick's suit "says the physicians knew she had multiple risk factors to develop heart disease" but dismissed her symptoms as "basically normal and non-life threatening" and failed to put her on aggressive anti-cholesterol medication, as well as failing to help her with the smoking and weight issues.

It amazes me people think they don’t have to be responsible for their own lives anymore.

It's democracy, stupid

2005-09-30T15:26:00.000+12:00

One thing that is really annoying me is all the whinging from ACT supporters, about how National did not give them any life-lines in the election. It's democracy, dammit. If the NZ people don't think you should be in parliament, then you shouldn't be in the parliament - sorry.

Very similiar is the comments from Richard Prebble that MMP is flawed, because it "robbed the centre-right of a victory". No Dickie, what robbed the centre-right of victory was not getting enough votes. Now shut up and go away - you retired, remember?

Lessons for National? Not really, No

2005-09-30T15:18:00.000+12:00

Jordan Carter has done a piece on what he thinks the lessons for National from the last election are. I thought I might as well post my thoughts on his comments.

Race. The Treaty-bashing stance worked to consolidate support around National from across the centre-right, but did not shift votes off Labour. The liberal middle of NZ politics will not allow National to form a government until it moves beyond stale formulations designed to divide Kiwis against each other.

Firstly, let me say that I do not think that National was “playing the race card” as so many commentators have been saying. I believe that the actions of National would have been to actually remove the “race-card” from play. I think National’s policies were not designed to divide Kiwis against each other, but rather to bring us together. I think that maybe National did get its blurred – they should said that National did not want many different groups fighting, as is not the situation, but rather that NZ is a diverse country, we appreciate that, but race is not a fair way of funding etc.

Tax. National will need to re-think their tax policy. I would not mind betting that come the next election, there will be no $7bn budget surplus to splurge away in wasted individualised tax cuts.

I think this old old saying sums up National’s view: give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Labour is giving out a lot of fish (and they will be giving out a lot more by the truckload), and because of that, people don’t see the need to try to improve their situation. Why should they? Why bother working harder if they are just going to get taxed more? They are better off staying at home and trying to have more kids.

The fact that the left of the Australian Labor party has come out in support of tax cuts shows that it is in fact NZ Labour that must rethink their tax policy. As David Farrar says, “Australian Labor's Julia Gillard, generally regarded as being on the left of the party, has come out and endorsed tax cuts. This leaves NZ Labour as being almost the only party in the world, left or right, which doesn't support tax reduction”.

Here are some quotes from the article about Julia Gillard that NZ Labour should listen to:

“Launching a book on the Labor Party, Ms Gillard urged her party to put the national interest ahead of sectional interests to become relevant to all Australians.”

“For "those who aspire to move beyond welfare to work, a cut in tax is not just as good a way of increasing a breadwinner's take-home pay as a rise in wages, it is a better way", she said.”

Never a truer word was said.

Diversity. The election shows that the forces of progress and diversity - either representing ethnic communities, national minorities or in one case a mainstream political party home to all the hues that Kiwis are, convincingly achieved more votes than the parties which claimed to speak for a ""mainstream"" which is at least thirty years out of date. National's dalliance with white picket fences, if continued, can only lead to permanent minority status as New Zealand continues to grow and change.

Sure, NZ does continue to grow and change. I don’t see how this is the governments business, really. Labour and their supporters need to stop thinking that people are stupid and let them live their lives. NZ is going to change whether or not they try to push it along. Yes National definition of mainstream was wrong (I have said that many times), but I don’t think that you can say National has a “dalliance with white picket fences”. I think that Jordan is confusing National’s desire for everyone to achieve their best, with his party’s desire to control everything.

Detail. It was alarming how thin-on-the-ground National's policy positions were on many areas. After six years in opposition, you'd expect a party that was serious about government to have well-thought-through positions on all the major areas of policy. They didn't. Not only that, many of their MPs and candidates seemed unaware of what the policy was where it did happen to exist.

This paragraph I agree with. Hopefully now with a lot of new MPs, they can get together in little groups over the next three years and come out with something that actually says what and HOW they are going to run the country.

These are just a few thoughts – any comments?

What is wrong with New Zealand?

2005-09-30T14:39:00.000+12:00

These quotes are from Stuff, regarding the sentencing of Donna Awatere Huata (and her husband) for fraud.

I think they sum up quite nicely one of the things that are wrong with NZ today.

“During sentencing Wi Huata's transgender sibling Hira Huata stood up in the public gallery and accused the court of administering "white man's justice".
…….…
The Pipi foundation was set up by Awatere Huata in 1999 to help literacy and social skills of under-privileged Maori children and over three years received more than $840,000 in Government funding.

The Serious Fraud Office said the duo stole $82,000 from the Government funded Pipi Foundation and then tried to cover up their crime by altering the books and asking people to lie for them.

Some of the stolen money was used to pay for Awatere Huata's stomach stapling operation and some was used to pay private school fees for the couple's children. Awatere Huata, 56, entered Parliament in 1996 after years of activism for Maori causes, including the promotion of literacy and education programmes for Maori.”

Problem: some people believe that it is ok to steal money that was earmarked to help kids learn to read, because they are Maori. They believe that not ripping kids off is strictly for the white man.

Election thoughts

2005-09-29T16:42:00.000+12:00

Well the election is now over, and until now I have resisted saying anything about it. However, after some reflection today, I though I may as well post why I think National did not win the benches of power.

I don’t think the use of the “mainstream” phrase was the reason, as some left-wing bloggers have suggested. However, I do think that the definition that Brash gave was very sub-par. I have already posted about how I think he should have defined it, and I think that had he defined it in a way that was inclusive of all people (regardless of race) that subscribe to the National Party’s philosophy of rewarding hard work, it would have actually been an asset. Instead, Don decided to alienate anyone who wasn’t white, heterosexual, working (not that this was a problem really), and yes most likely male. It was as mistake.

I think National/Brash also made a mistake by saying that the only aspect of Maori culture that should be saved is their language. I love the Maori culture. I love everything about it – I think true Maori culture would be great for those young Maoris out there who need some direction. My belief is that we don’t want to remove anything from the Maoris – their language and culture should always be safeguarded by the NZ government.

This is where I think National got confused – under Labour, Maoris have been given special treatment (and you can’t disagree with this – Labour looked through their own legislation and found examples of it), National wanted a return to need-based funding. Ok, good – we all agree. However, that does not mean that you have to remove all aspects of Maori culture!!

Despite their best intentions to not resort to attacking the player, I think National should have made more of the mistakes etc that the Labour ministers have made in the last 6 years. Sir Humphreys compiled a list, and it is quite a long one. Helen Clark went on about credibility, and attacked Brash for not having any. He should have just started listing her little things (like signing a painting that she hadn’t painted) and she would have shut up (actually she would have laughed her maniacal little laugh, which is more effective at turning people off her in my opinion). It has been said that the painting thing etc have all been voted on before be the voting public, since we have had elections since then. However, I believe that the National party was not absolutely crap last election that they were still fair game.

The media in NZ are crap. How they can justify spending so long on the Brethrens pamphlet (where a religious group was fulfilling their democratic right), and then not even MENTION that fact that Labour had put our fake eviction notices in National’s name? These eviction notices caused one lady with intellectual disabilities to become distressed because she thought she was being evicted. When asked about it, what does Labour say? I understand how it may cause distress, but we did nothing wrong!! HOW AROGANT IS THAT? To me, this reinforced the bad shape that Labour is in philosophically. They think they are “the party of the people”, but actually Labour no longer cares about the people. They only care about their special interest groups and the rest can get stuffed. And I am sorry, but I do actually believe this.

ACT supporters really need to stop saying that National gave them no support etc. This is a democracy, and if you can’t get people to vote for your party, then it shouldn’t exist. Simple. If you need another party to bail you out every election, then you are not helping anyone. Sure, you may think that your party is the best way forward for NZ (and you are most likely right), but it is the NZ public that chose the government based on what they think. If you want to be a credible political support, don’t expect handouts. You must live or die based on your policies (it may not help that NZ has become so afraid of the “extreme” right after years of Clark saying that the only way to govern is to tax the shit out of us that they now believe). Also, why did no one ever mention in public that all the ex-Soviet states that have gone to a flat tax actually increased their tax take?

No doubt I will have more insights soon, and when I do I will post them to.

Paging Dr. Don

2005-09-13T10:33:00.000+12:00

Now I don't for a minute think that anyone from the National party is actually reading my blog (and they certainly arn't commenting!), but for the sake of procrastination I thought I would write a little bit about some of the moves I think Don should pull on Helen at the last leaders debate on Thursday.

"Mainstream New Zealand": Ok, this one is easy to spin. A mainstream NZer is someone that loves New Zealand. A mainstream NZer can be of any race, colour or creed. A mainstream NZer is someone who works hard for themselves and their family. A mainstream NZer is someone who wants to be rewarded for working hard. A mainstream NZer is someone who wants to get ahead.

The Bretherans: A little bit harder to spin since he did make a massive hash of it. However, now that he has admitted his mistake, it had become a little bit easier. Just keep saying that NZ is a democracy, and if these people want to spend their own, hard-earned money then that is their right under NZ law. Not a bad idea to say "that is their right, even if I personally do not agree with their beleifs". Would also be a good time to talk about the massive amounts of money being spent by the Unions to advertise for Labour. Also worth mentioning that the Unions receive tax payer money (according to IP) and would be unable to fund their anti-National campaign if they did not receive this tax payer money.

Tax-cut bribes: A bribe by definition is "Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct".. Point out that not taking money from people so that they can decide the best way to spend their own money is not a bribe, while taking money from them so that you can give it back if they vote for you is, by definition, a clear bribe.

Service cuts: Firstly, don't just stand there saying "John, John John". Interject - loudly, so that the camera must come back to you. Say "That is an outright lie. You know as well as I do Helen, that you have pumped billions in the health system and all you have done is increased the level of beauracracy. A National-led government will decrease waiting lists by using all the assets available to us, including private hospitals, so that New Zealanders get the healthcare they deserve". Also repeat that no doctor, nurse, policeman or teacher will lose their job under National. But don't just say it, mean it. And look like you do.

Student loan interest: Keeping our educated youth in NZ is important. However, most NZers will agree that these people should have to pay for some of their education. Afterall, when they leave Uni they will most likely be earning more than their counterparts who didn't go to Uni [apart from the arts students - they get the same from McDonalds regardless of their qualifications! (Thats a joke people - I don't expect Don to say that) - Blu], and the government already contributes a large amount of money towards their qualification. A National-led government will allow graduates to write the interst off... etc etc. (insert policy here - but in simple terms).

This debate is very important as it the time that a lot of people will make up their minds. Be firm and confident. Bring up the guy with the over-staying tiler. Point out her arrogance.

Good luck and let me know if you need anymore help ;-)

Poor Winnie Loses the Plot

2005-08-23T16:18:00.000+12:00

Winston Peters has got into a scuffle with a student a Waikato University.

To quote the article on stuff:
"NZ First leader Winston Peters shoved a rowdy student and wrestled for control of a microphone during a speech at Waikato University's campus in Hamilton."

Also:
"A brief struggle ensued, with Mr Peters saying: "No, piss off. Get away. Get away. Go and sit down. Sit down, now." He gave the man a light shove in the chest."

We all know Winston doesn't like anyone else to be in the spot light.

I hope the media picks up on this, and runs with it. Could mean goodbye Winston. Oldies don't like that sort of language.

Beaten to the punch

2005-08-23T16:15:00.000+12:00

I was going to blog about how National's new tax policy gives the most money to high income earners BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE MONEY, but I have been beaten to the punch. Rather than just repeat her (poorly) here is Anna Nuzum's explanation.

Read it. It's good.

Lock Him Up

2005-08-23T16:09:00.000+12:00

I see they have arrested the bastard that threw the 8kg concrete slab from the overpass, killing a 20year-old Taupo man. He has been remanded to a youth facility and has been charged with murder. He is 14.

I hope this boy goes to jail. I hope the courts don’t accept a claim that he didn’t know the consequences of what he was doing. He is 14. When I was 14 I had a part-time job, knew the consequences of my actions and didn’t get into trouble with the police.

Also, I hope there no one claims he had a poor upbringing. If you throw an 8kg concrete slab at a car, and you’re 14, you should know what will happen. If you do not know the consequences of that, then you should never be allowed to see the light of day again because you are a danger not just to yourself, but to everyone else.

Lock him up for a long time. His actions led to the death of a completely innocent man. At least it will help deter others from doing the same.

Ideology

2005-08-18T16:36:00.000+12:00

With the release of Labours new policy today, I have to ask:

Why does the left feel it is ok/essential to take the well earned money from people who are well-off to give it to the people who havn't earned it? Wouldn't it be better to encourage those people who need more money to work harder/get a job etc?

Honestly, I want to know. Tell me. I have never been able to work this out.

Media bias?

2005-08-16T11:27:00.000+12:00

In election year, both sides of the political divide start crying foul about media bias. However, I have noticed some very negative National-related headlines and introductory paragraphs on stuff recently.

1) Brash eligible for GP subsidy

Don Brash would continue to receive a taxpayer subsidy for seeing his GP under National's decision to exempt the young and the elderly from its plans to means-test patients going to the doctor.

2) Brash fuels hope of $20 tax cut
National is tipped to deliver a tax cut that will put as much as $20 in the weekly pay packets of middle income earners, but may keep it under wraps for another fortnight.

3) Nats use Aussie pollster to give campaign a lift
The National Party is using a controversial Australian pollster in its election campaign as it struggles to contain a Labour resurgence in the polls.

I could be wrong. Has anyone else seen any others?

Helen has a change of heart

2005-08-16T11:22:00.000+12:00

Of Helen has pulled the plug on Sky showing her radio debate with Don Brash. And now, due to that Sky has pulled the plug on their minor party debate as well.

I can't understand why Helen would do this. She must be really really worried about Don if she is trying to limit the number of people that will see it. This confirms what I thought about the TV3 debate - Don did better than Labour thought he would after they had been making him out to be crap, and so now they are in damage limiting territory.

Wellness check

2005-08-16T11:09:00.000+12:00

So the Greens want everyone to have a "wellness check". Basically, every year everyone will get a check-up to test them for disease. Will cost approx. $200million.

From Frogblog, will include

tests for blood pressure and cholesterol
a skin check for melanoma
screening for cancers, anaemia, or STDs
a nutrition check-up
exercise and fitness advice
identification of other health needs such as depression, substance abuse, and pain management

In all honesty, I don't detest this policy. However, a yearly doctors check-up is one of those things that people should be doing anyway, and so then you get into an argument about people being sensible and people being told what to do. And I do kinda resent that.

If you are at risk of something, then you should be smart enough to watch out for it. For example, I have fair skin. There is a history of melanoma in my family. Therefore, I wear sunscreen and keep an eye out for changing moles etc. If one is suspect, I get it checked. Simple.

At some point in their life, people have to start taking some personal responsibility. Its called living.

Gain my vote

2005-08-16T10:57:00.000+12:00

Now, I am a National supporter. I was raised that way, and I have no problems with that. However, I also value making my own decisions and not following the party lines. And I believe that National has made a mistake with their defense policy (or lack of one).

Because of that, I am giving you the opportunity to tell me why your party is the best and why I should vote for them. I am open to all parties, although some of you may find it a little harder to convince me than the others.

Here is my ideal government:

Free education at primary and secondary level
Free/affordable quality healthcare (hospitals etc - not so much GP visits) and alterations to the waiting list so that it works.
A defense force that is well equipped and staffed. Not an air attack force, but troops that can do their bit in defending NZ and the Pacific
A good police force
(and this is a big one) LESS WASTAGE

In all honestly, I don't mind about high taxes. I don't mind paying a lot of taxes, as long as that money is not wasted on crap. If my taxes go to fixing our healthcare system, then fine. If they go to pay a lot of bureaucrats to sit around all day in their new offices drinking coffee, then that is not fine. Education - fine. Hip-hop tours - not fine. See that pattern.

And yes, I realise that my 5 things listed are what most NZers would/should want. However, I don't think we are being offered those at the moment.

So come on, tell me why I should give your party my vote.

History of New Zealand

2005-08-16T10:52:00.000+12:00

Can anyone out there point me to a good history of New Zealand?

I would especially love to read something that deals with politics in the 1970's to late 1990's (after that I was old enough to have some memories)

I guess what got me thinking about this was the passing of David Lange. You see, I was not old enough to know about what occurred during his Prime Ministership. I have heard of Rogernomics, Black Budget etc, but don't know a great deal about them.

Anything you can tell me would be greatly appreciated.

Small parties and the debates

2005-08-16T09:42:00.000+12:00

I see that now Destiny and Christian Heritage are expecting to get on TVNZ's party debate. This was always going to happen as soon as the judge in the TV3 case used common sense, rather than the law. I don't know why they think they deserve to be there, but it was always going to happen.

I hope that TV3 does indeed appeal. And these two parties looking to court action may convince TVNZ that it is in their best interest to help TV3 out, like they are asking.

Election Campaign

2005-08-16T09:28:00.000+12:00

Well the election campaign is now well underway. I realise that I am late in doing so, but here are my thoughts about the first leaders debate held on TV3.

Winston Peters: Frankly, he was crap. I expected a lot more from him. Hopefully will be enough to see his support plummit.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: After the debate, TV3's "expert panel" (although only one was an expert of politics - what makes an annoying reporter and an annoying ad guy experts?) called her the winner. I don't know what debate they were watching. Even the Greens supporters watching with me thought she was average. Was going ok until she pulled out the "save the albatross and the rivers". Lovely. Just a thought, but maybe poverty, healthcare, the economy, and pretty much everything else should be a priorty before worrying about the albatross and rivers. Yes, they are important, but it sounded wierd.

Rodney Hide: Did good. He impressed me a lot actually. However, the cheapshots the others got in will hurt him a lot. Should push their healthcare policy, not just their tax one.

Jim Anderton: Added nothing. Looked just like what he is: Helens bum boy. The only difference between their parties is the name and this "debate" proved it. Shouldn't have been there, and I think he knew it.

Peter Dunne: Worm charmer. They liked what he said, but didn't say anything. Will not help as much as last year.

Tariana Turia: Terrible. Good thing her party does not need the party vote.

Helen Clark: Ok, I know I am biased, but I thought she really didn't help herself at all. People are fickle creatures, and she really sounded and looked terrible. And she didn't really say anything either, she just stood there looked arrogant etc. However, she did show the years of experience that she has, and did make Don look a bit silly on occasion.

Don Brash: I was not expecting anything from Don. I actually think that all of Labours politicing here helped Don because they made him out to be crap and he wasn't. Sure, he got tripped on a few points and looked very silly, but I was expecting nothing from him and he delivered above my expectations. Even the lefties i was watching it with said that he was better than they thought he would be. But that asset sales thing was a killer.

The winner: John Campbell. By far the most speaking time. Of the politicians: Helen Clark, simply because her experience showed.

Any comments?

Labours Tertiary Education Policy

2005-07-26T14:24:00.000+12:00

So Labour is going to not charge interest on student loans.

I admit that when I first heard this, I thought "Wow, this is going to win them the election," I will also admit that for a fleeting second i considered voting for them!!

This is blatant vote grabbing. No one will deny this. And for that split second, I did not care. I could feel myself beginning to doubt myself and my beloved right-wing tendencies.

Then I saw the light. Yes, everyone with a student loan is going to love this policy. Now, we can not have to worry about paying off the student loan. Who cares? Well, I care. The government is proposing the punishment of the working people. The ones without students loans. The ones who worked hard to pay their loan off quickly. The ones that our country has traditionally been built on.

All across the nation, those with student loans can be heard cheering.

All across the nation, those without student oans can be heard scraming "What the F**k about us, Helen?"

My prediction: Labour will increase quickly in the polls. Then come the Friday night before the election, all the students will go out and get pissed, and not wake up in time to vote on the Saturday. We are, afterall a lazy bunch.

Movie Review Tuesday

2005-07-26T14:09:00.000+12:00

2 movies today - both screening as part of the International Film Festival

Mad Hot Ballroom
Similar to Spellbound, children from three schools in New York are taught ballroom dancing as part of their schooling, and then the best go through to compete in compitition. There is joy when schools go through to the next round. There are tears when schools don't ("We did exactly want they wanted. Why did they not like us?" asked one clearly distraught child). The children are not only taught the dancing but also the manners and self-confidence that goes with it, and their teachers can see a big difference in changes in attitude (one girl was seeing the principal a few times a week, but after starting dancing has not been sent to her once!!).

It is a great story, and the children are very smart. One boy claims that "dancing is just one speck of sand compared to the whole world" and he was only 10!! The movie is very well made. A must see.

Rating: 8/10

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
This documentary opened my eyes a little. The dealings that went down here were shocking. For example, recording future profits as profits already earned (mark-to-market accounting anyone?). But the worst part was taped conversations of Enron Traders calling power stations in California to ask them to shut down for a few hours so that the price of electricity would go up a bit more so that Enron could then sell the electricity for increased profits!!

The Enron execs also showed their greed and lack of respect for anything other than money. To quote Ken Lay (Enron founder): "I have lost money to. My worth has decreased from around $200million to about $20million...". Try telling that to the employees who lost their retirement savings!!

The movie itself was well done with only a little bit that was hard to understand for a non-financial person like myself. And the soundtrack was awesome - each song tied in perfectly with what they were trying to show.

The theatre was packed and I swear that a lot of the people in suits were taking notes :-)

Rating (if you're interested in that sort of thing): 8/10:

National's Student Loan Policy

2005-07-22T09:30:00.000+12:00

Today National released their policy for dealing with student loans. I like it. Basically there will a tax refund on money paid towards student loans, with that money going towards paying off more of the student loan. Sounds good to me.

You know you have it right when the only thing the left can say is that higher income earners would gain more!!

This will be a huge incentive for New Zealanders to stay in New Zealand when they finish studying. At last a government wil be acknowledging that tertiary education is an investment - both for the individual and the country.

From the Stuff article:
For a student with a $30,000 loan, earning $45,000 a year, this could reduce their tax liability by up to $693 a year. That money would ensure they are able to pay their loan off faster. At the end of 10 years, the tax deduction would cut an extra $7540 from the loan principal and would reduce the time taken to repay the loan," Dr Brash said.

Well done National

Brash and Iraq

2005-07-21T06:43:00.000+12:00

Labour have decided to try to discredit the Don by pointing out that he once said that he would have sent NZ troops to Iraq. This is a bit of a non-issue as Brash didn't send troops to Iraq because he wasn't in a position to do so at the time. Also, the comments are from a long time ago. But hey, Labour is desperate!!

Anyway, last night on TV3, Don Brash was asked if he would have sent troops and he refused to answer, instead trying to point the rapid jack russel terrier that was interviewing him back to issues of TODAY. But the interviewer would not let him do that and repeated the question a number of times.

Brash's refusal to answer was painful to watch. Sure it was correct thing to do but the execution was very poor. The image people watching at home were left with was that of a bumbling fool who would have sent troops to Iraq but now was ashamed to admit it.

Learn these words Don - "No country will dictate New Zealands foreign policy". Use them over and over again (maybe paraphrase occasionally). Don't refuse to acknowledge the question like you did last night. You have to appear to the "mainstream NZ" that you are trying to impress that you are strong and have conviction. You can be the strongest person in the world with the strongest convictions, but if you can't portray them to the public you will lose (are you reading this Bill English?).

Poor tactics

2005-07-20T06:30:00.000+12:00

So far this election we have seen some poor tactics from the parties.

Firstly, Helen Clarks refusal to name the election date is simply stupid. Everyone that I talk to doesn't care when it is, but they do think that Helen is looking worse and worse be not saying anything. Everyone sees this tactic for the desperation that is is, and Labour is not winning any votes - remembe, voters are the first to abandon a desperate looking party.

But Nationals refusal to announce their tax policy is just as stupid. By not saying what it is, but continually talking about it they are building up an expectation that it will be hard for them to live up to. And if they deliver some that is not what the voters are expecting then the voters will have not problems not voting for them and their rating in the polls will plummit. national should be trying to appear assertive - especially since after the last election they were viewed as the party that couldn't make up their mind on any of their policy. Also, the Don needs more media lessons.

Meanwhile, if Act is to get back in, they will need Epsom. Therefore, Rodney should be so focused on that that electorate that he should know almost everyone by name. Take reporters everywhere you go. Ensure you get nothing but positive press. No strike that - ensure you get some press coverage apart from the reporting that Act is still at 1-2% in the polls. Rodney will do well in the television debates during the campaign and will pick up votes from them (most likely from National as voters realise the Don makes are really annoying noise when he talks - ehhh) but Epsom really must be his focus this election. Act must ensure that every voter in this electorate knows HOW to vote tactically.

If anyone needs my expertise, they only need to ask :-) (and yes that is a joke!!!)

Billboards

2005-07-20T06:16:00.001+12:00

I thought it was time I looked at the billboards being used by the two major parties this election.

National:
I will lump these all together with one word – brilliant!! The only one that is perhaps a little questionable is the Iwis/Kiwis one, but all the others are fantastic. You can take in the meaning with one simple quick glance. Therefore they get 9.5/10

Labour
The very first one of a baby being dangled with red tape was ok – until you actually thought about it. As said by Anna Nuzum, “wrapping New Zealanders in red tape since birth”. Also, you couldn’t just look at it and laugh. You actually needed to stop and read it. What is so brilliant about the National party billboards is that when driving down the road you can take them in with one quick glance and see a meaning. The Labour ones take time. However, I give this one a 7/10 for effectiveness

Then, some idiot within the party thought it wood be a good idea to start attacking National, and so what do they do – they kill the baby. That’s right – “Vote Labour or the baby gets it”. What the hell were they thinking? This gets a 2/10

Next, came the man climbing a ladder, about to be chopped down by a blue chainsaw!!! And to make matters worse, apparently they think this is a good thing, as Jordan appears happy about it (“The prints version has some text in the lower left hand corner). This one is terrible. Absolutely terrible. 1/10 and only just.

The funniest thing is that a few weeks ago the Sunday Star Times had a piece asking different ad execs what they thought of the National billboards. They all agreed that no matter what you thought of National the boards were effective – all apart from this one guy who couldn’t hide his leftish leaning and said that they were overly negative and he felt that National would be punished in the long run by the electorate as New Zealanders don’t like negative advertising. Boy must his face be red now!!! Does anyone still have a copy of that article?

Other parties when I get time. If you can provide links to them that would be great.

Tuesday morning movie review - Luther

2005-07-20T05:56:00.000+12:00

In a continuation of my Tuesday morning movie review “regular”, I have also recently seen the movie Luther.

In this movie, a young German monk named Martin Luther (Joseph Feinnes) becomes disillusioned with Rome and the Vatican after seeing the corruption being undertaken by the churches hierarchy. He starts writing letters saying as much and nailing them to the door of this church – and he writes in German not Latin!! After a while, he is charged with heresy and is called on to denounce everything he has said, but he won’t because he believes them etc etc blah blah blah. Oh, and he writes the first German translation of the New Testament so that the common man can read it.

The first half of this movie was actually very good and I really enjoyed it. However the second half dragged and the influence of the Lutheran church becomes clear (they paid for it) and the movie becomes a big of a wank-fest really, meaning that they basically tell you that the church is great and was able to sway the Prince and all of the German Cardinals and so able to become great.

Not a bad movie in all. Maybe worth a 6/10

Tuesday Morning Movie Review

2005-07-20T05:39:00.000+12:00

I would like to introduce a new topic here at Blu-Blooded that if popular may become a regular feature – the Tuesday morning movie review.

I saw House of Wax yesterday, starring the increasingly irritating Paris Hilton and the beautiful Elisha Cuthbert. It is a new version of the 1953 horror, proving that Hollywood is indeed out of ideas and are instead just remaking any movie that made money in the past.

Anyway, the start of this movie was ok – scene setting. The hot girl (Cuthbert) is heading for big things, being supported by her best friend (Paris), but the boyfriend is a small town boy and doesn’t want to leave that small town to go to the big city with his girlfriend!! There is also the “evil” twin brother of Cuthbert who has just been bailed out of prison for stealing a car, his little friend, and also a guy playing Paris’s boyfriend.

So they are going on a road trip to see the biggest football game of the season but their shortcut doesn’t work and they end up camping out in the middle of no where. Waking up in the morning to find that the fan belt of one of the cars has been cut, two go with some hillbilly they have just met to find a new one, while the other four head off to the game. And that is where the hilarity begins.

You see this is not a good movie. It is the formulaic scary movie. Almost everything is predictable, so much so that I knew what the last scene was going to be about half an hour from the end. I found myself just waiting for it to end so that I could leave as the smell of the newly painted theatre was beginning to get to me (note to Hoyts Octagon – there is not point in having an obscene amount of leg room (and I never thought I would say that there was too much leg room) if you “new luxury seats” are uncomfortable).

The lady friend I was there with did find it scary, proving that if you let yourself get lost in the moment it may be kinda ok (although she did also think it was pretty average). Also a good date movie ;-)

Oh, and you get to see Paris Hilton die!!

What's in a name?

2005-07-14T10:21:00.000+12:00

Last night I was thinking about what my next post should be, and it struck me that people may think I am be conceited by naming my blog “Blu Blooded”, as some may think I am implying that I am from a high socio-economic group - a “Blue Blood” etc etc.

I want to assure you that the name “Blu Blooded” comes from both my support for the National Party of New Zealand, and also from a high school nickname (the origins of which I do not want to discuss!).

I am also aware that this name does not actually properly show my political leanings, and indeed the reference to a colour may be misleading as blue is not synonymous with the right of the political spectrum.

Therefore, I need you opinion dear reader. Does this new (and kinda obvious aye?) revelation require a name change? I will always keep my moniker of Blu as that has does in fact have some meaning to me, but could my blog name do with an overhaul?

If you think (i.e. agree) that it does, any ideas? What about “Right Blooded”? Any good?

If you think I should leave it as is, please tell me also – along with reasons.

You input would be very much appreciated during this difficult time. Thank you.

We Are Not Afraid

2005-07-13T06:06:00.000+12:00

In the wake of the bombings in London, a new website has started up to “show the world that we’re not afraid of what happened in London and that the world is a better place without fear”.

Contributors send in photos or pictures with the words “We're Not Afraid” on them.

Great site with a simple yet effective message. There are also some great photos!

And I am back

2005-07-13T06:03:00.000+12:00

Hello everyone. I am now back from a long and restful holiday. Let the (infrequent) blogging begin (again)

When the world closed its eyes, he opened his arms.

2005-06-19T09:28:00.000+12:00

I say Hotel Rwanda last night. If there ever was a movie that makes you feel guilty about being from a Western country, and also so very very lucky that you are from a Western country, then this is it.

Plot Outline: Don Cheadle stars in the true-life story of Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager who housed over a thousand Tutsis refugees during their struggle against the Hutu militia in Rwanda

Most memorable quote for me was:
Jack:[after Paul thanks him for shooting footage of the genocide] I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.

Go see it, take tissues.

Sorry about the silence

2005-06-18T09:46:00.000+12:00

Well everyone, I must apologise for my lack of input of late. You see, I have just finished my exams and in a few days I will be going on holiday were internet access is from a slow virus-infested computer. So blogging this money will be very light.

But, it you're interested, my exams did go well and I have a few days to do some blogging for you!

Power in New Zealand

2005-06-08T08:16:00.000+12:00

Read this. So true.

The Next Flu Pandemic

2005-06-07T17:28:00.000+12:00

In the comments of my "Obesity Epidemic" piece, I was reminded of the imminent threat of thenext flu pandemic.

The world has faced flu pandemics before. On average, flu pandemics occur three or four times every century, although obviously they are not easily predicted. In the 20th century, there were three major flu pandemics - the great influenza pandemic (the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918–1919), which caused an estimated 40 to 50 million deaths worldwide (more than are believed to have died in World War One itself), and other pandemics in 1957–1958 (Asian flu) and 1968–1969 (Hong Kong flu).

The asian bird flu is an infectious disease found in birds that most experts agree will be the next major pandemic to face the world. If this disease is to be the next pandemic, it is believed it will lead to approximately 50 million deaths worldwide and perhaps infect as much as one third of the world population.

The disease has already been shown to have occurred in humans and the various strains have caused at least eight deaths. Indeed, it is believed that the destruction of 1.5million birds in Hong Kong in 1997 averted the start of the pandemic at that time.

However, now the strain H5N1 has been in at least two human hosts. This is of the most concern that this particular strain mutates quickly and can acquire the genes of other viruses in the animal. This highly pathogenic strain of the flu is believed to be the likely candidate for cause of the next worldwide flu pandemic. This strain is already infecting poultry populations in Japan, China, Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia.

So what can be done to prevent this pandemic? Firstly, it is important to stop the spread of this strain in the poultry populations of Asia – no mean feat. However with today’s modern transport systems, if this disease does begin to infect a large human population, then there is little we can do to stop it spread.

What is being done in New Zealand to prevent the spread of this flu here? Well, the Ministry of Health (MoH) information page does not shed much of a light on what they are doing. New Zealand does not import any live poultry from any of these countries, and the poultry products that do contain meat from these countries is highly processed and therefore should not contain much of a threat. There are, however, live bird imports from other countries, meaning that we must keep a close watch on the spread of this flu to other, non-Asian, countries.

The Asian bird flu has been made a notifiable disease by the MoH (meaning the MoH must be notified if a hospital or clinic sees a case of it) and “The Ministry is also informing and working with health sector personnel, working closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and will continue to inform and update New Zealanders”. There is also an Influenza Pandemic Action Plan in place, in the event that it does reach our shores.

So now all we can do is wait.

Check your facts Winston

2005-06-07T07:13:00.000+12:00

It would now appear that the source of Winston Peters' claims against two Iragi immigrants is a person with a grudge them.

If this is indeed true, then it is a shame that Winston will have cover of Parliamentary Privilage. For an MP to make the claims that he has made, you would hope for damn sure that he had the facts straight before he went public.

Hopefuly the electorate will punish Winston for this mistake

Radiotherapy Treatment for Cancer

2005-06-02T16:27:00.000+12:00

If this is true, then that is excellent news!. If it political spin, then King should be ashamed.

Still, 8 weeks still seems like a long time to wait for treatment.

Winston the Xenophobe

2005-06-02T16:23:00.001+12:00

Winston Peters continues to name Iraqi immigrants to New Zealand. In his latest move, he has name an Iraqi who has been here for 9 years!

Mr Peters is playing up to the fact that last month he found some Iraqi’s who had actual ties to the old regime of Saddam Hussein, and in doing so revealed some serious flaws in New Zealand immigration services.

However, I now think that since that time, he has gone far too far. He has stopped naming actual threats to New Zealand and has started naming Iraqis – any Iraqis it would appear. And to make matters worse, he is refusing the give the Associate Immigration Minister Damian O’Conner the details, saying that he doesn’t see the point! If this doesn’t show that he is not naming names for the good of New Zealand but rather for his own political gain then nothing does.

Winston is trying to appear strong on immigration so that people will think that he is the one who will remove the threats to New Zealand. In fact, all Peters is doing is stoking the fires of racial hatred in New Zealand – and god knows there are some groups out there that do not need much stoking.

Peters is the master of the comeback. Every election I think maybe this time Winston will finally be gone and every election he makes promises to certain groups (often the elderly it has to be said, and apparently this time the National Front as well) that ensure he manages to get back in. And to make matters worse, he appears to be heading the position of King-Maker again this election.

I only hope that common sense prevails and people see Winston’s promises for what they are – not in the best interests of this country of ours.

Winston the Xenophobe

2005-06-02T16:23:00.000+12:00

Winston Peters continues to name Iraqi immigrants to New Zealand. In his latest move, he has name an Iraqi who has been here for 9 years!

I only hope that common sense prevails and people see Winston’s promises for what they are – not in the best interests of this country of ours.

Another wheel falls off...

2005-05-31T13:20:00.000+12:00

The National Bank has just published their Business Outlook survey for May. This showed that almost 62% of companies expect conditions to get worse in the next year. Only 5.2% expect it to improve.

Money quote:

"The New Zealand dollar has become overvalued, export performance has waned, and the cost of capital has increased until finally business confidence was crushed. Economic growth will be curtailed as a result and unemployment will rise (actually that has already started to happen).”

The Labour government has now overseen a drop on business confidence to the lowest level in 17 years (and 17 years ago it was after the stock market crashed in October 1987!!).

The Personality Defect Test

2005-05-27T14:24:00.000+12:00

Hat tip to DPF for the link.

Turns out I am a "Haughty Intellectual": 57% Rational, 14% Extroverted, 42% Brutal, and 71% Arrogant.

"You are a very rational person, emphasizing logic over emotion, and you are also rather arrogant and self-aggrandizing".
Fair enough I can accept that.

" You probably think of yourself as an intellectual, and you would like everyone to know it."
Well, you know how it is - if you got it, flaunt it!

" Not only that, but you also tend to look down on others, thinking yourself better than them."
Not everyone - just those that I am better than.

" You could possibly have an unhealthy obsession with yourself as well, thus causing everyone to hate you for being such an elitist twat."
Oh now thats just mean. Besides not everyone hates me. Only those that know me.

" On top of all that, you are also introverted and gentle. This means that you are just a quiet thinker who wants fame and recognition, in all likelihood. Rather lacking in emotion, introspective, gentle, and arrogant, you are most certainly a Haughty Intellectual!"
Well I am a blogger...

"And, most likely, you will never achieve the recognition or fame you so desire! Sweet!"
Just give me time, give me time.

note - comments are very tongue in cheek. I think.

Interesting Holmes piece

2005-05-27T07:32:00.000+12:00

Interesting piece on the Paul Holmes show on Newstalk ZB this morning where he asked people to ring up and say who they were going to vote for.

The vast majority said they were going to vote National. But the interesting thing was the number who said they either were a habitual Labour voter or had voted Labour last time, but were voting National this time. Most said it was because they felt if was time for a change.

As Paul said, "There is a shift happening in the electorate. I can feel it".

I do however, feel a little sorry for the poor guy who said he was voting for New Zealand First, because "they are honest"!

Obesity

2005-05-27T07:20:00.000+12:00

It may be common sense, but it has now been shown that the fizzy drinks sold in schools have a link to making kids fat.

This is important. In New Zealand (and indeed a large proportion of the world) we are facing an obesity epidemic. More than half of all New Zealand adults are now overweight or obese! It is believed that 1 in every 5 New Zealand adults is obese. Even worse, the 2002 Children's Nutrition Survey showed approximately one third of children in New Zealand aged 5-14 years were either overweight or obese!!!

According to the Ministry of Health website, the economic cost of obesity is made up of three main components:

“1) direct costs to the individual and the service provider associated with treating obesity

2) opportunity costs to the individual, ie the social and personal loss associated with obesity, generally arising from premature death or attributable morbidity

3) indirect costs, usually measured as lost production due to absenteeism from work and premature death.”

It also states:

“According to the World Health Organization report on obesity the economic costs of obesity as assessed in several developed countries are in the range of 2 to 7 percent of total health care costs.”

Now bear in mind that this estimate is said to be “conservative” and that the cost of health care in New Zealand is currently around one billion dollars. Also remember that the prevalence of obesity is increasing!!

I am all for freedom of choice. However, if removing the fizzy drinks from school is going to help reduce the incidence of obesity and prevent a large amount of disease in people, then I am all for it.

Update Thurday 12:07pm

Did anyone see the piece on Campbell Live about the sugar in drinks? 7 teaspoons in a small botle of coke and was it 14 in a bottle of G-force? That is a lot of sugar to be putting into a small body. Also, there was about 7 teaspoons in one small bottle of Chalie's orange juice, although I think it will be a much better option to be giving kids. I would like to have seen examples of the amount of sugar, fat and sodium that was in fast foods as well.

And now I see that Coca-Cola is no longer going to be sponsering the Rockquest, with it being replaced by sole sponsership from the Smokefree brand. Somehow, I don't think that this will have too big a dent on the Coca-Cola company!

Now if we could just do something bout the fast food companies.

Ruining the visual landscape!!

2005-05-26T12:04:00.000+12:00

I agree that we should try to protect parts of New Zealand and stop them from becoming visual eyesores. After all, we do have a clean-green image to keep up.

However, I do think that this is going too far. Shania Twain owns this land. It is hers. And it is a farm. As long as she is not harming anyone/anything she should be allowed to do what she wants with it.

As the article says:

“The development would be near- invisible as it could be seen only by members of the public from about 2km away from a 200m stretch of the end of Motatapu Road, a no-exit road that provides access to Motatapu Station”

Therefore, the only people that are actually going to see this house are those going to the house, who are likely to have business there and so should not really have time to admire the view, those there to spy on the famous singer (and I don’t think she will care much about them will she), or people with really good eyesight:

"Any views, if any, from the lake are at a distance of some 5km to 8km and therefore will be barely perceptible, if at all," Parker said

So what is the problem? Oh I know:

“Since buying the 25,000ha properties, [Shania’s husband] had initiated intensive conservation work on the farms, above the requirements of the Overseas Investment Commission”

Oh wait, that’s a good thing right?

Message to the Queenstown Planners – you have had your 15 minutes of fame. Admittedly you have made yourselves look very stupid and petty, but that was your choice. Now let the woman get on with building her house.

Angry...

2005-05-25T09:00:00.000+12:00

I am engraged. The veins are starting to pop on my forehead and I am shaking a lot. Yes, that's right, I have just read this.

These people should be hunted down and forced to pay every cent - including the collection fee. Conversely, they shouldn't be allowed to leave the country.

Actually, that is an interesting point - how easy is it for a non-SIS group (e.g. district health boards) to stop a person leaving the country? Is there a process to go through that will prevent them leaving, or do they need to have people manning the airports and shipping ports with shovels?

Act's tax cuts etc

2005-05-25T08:51:00.000+12:00

Fresh from my lie down, Stuff has an article on the tax policy of the Act party.

Sounds good to me. I have long been a fan of the flat tax system (although I do like the adjustments that Act seems to be making). Less tax has got to be better for the country - I like spending what little money I have, not seeing it taken away from me for sex change operations.

However, can anyone tell me why tax breaks do not happen much in New Zealand? I think this would be a great way to get people to save for retirement - money put into a longterm saving account is taxed at a lower/non-existant rate. Tax breaks could also extend to keeping essential workers in New Zealand.

I am not an economist - is there a good reason why they don't happen in NZ?

And my ego is born...

2005-05-25T08:41:00.000+12:00

For the last couple of weeks I have been agonising over the best way to get by blog noticed by the people I want to read it (and by that I mean anyone).

Then, I post one small comment on Sir Humphrey's and all of a sudden I have a comment!! That's right, someone has actually read what I have said!!

However, dear reader, I am now feeling some pressure. You see before anyone was actually reading what I was saying, I had no problem posting rambles. Now, I feel the need to think about what I am saying (and to proofread!!!!), and then what if what I say is no good and you stop reading? What if you don't like me?

This is too much - I think I need a lie down

Tim Groser

2005-05-25T08:03:00.000+12:00

A few things to say:

1) I would like to say that this is a major coup for the National Party. Tim Groser is a man with an excellent reputation and is an exciting addition to the future government. The financial arm of National is now exceptionally strong - Don Brash, John Key and now Tim Groser. What has Labour got?

2) If anyone is unsure of how good Groser is at his job and how much he is respected, you don't need to look any further than how far Jim Sutton spat the dummy when he found out. If you could get a better endorsement for a candidate, I don't know it.

3) He has done the right thing by stepping down from his ambassador to the WTO job. Personally, I see no problem with him staying the agricultural chairmen at the WTO. The man is unlikely to want to/be able to do anything that will "bring the government down" in the short time between now and when his chairmanship ends at the end of the year.

4) Brash and Groser immediately took the higher ground on this issue - Groser saying he wanted to continue at the WTO and would pay for the time there himself because he thought it was that important, and also saying that he will not "double-dip" by claiming both his MP salary and WTO salary. Brash said that they did not want to play party politics with such an important area and therefore Groser would not be campaigning for the party.

Helen on the other hand has played party politics from the beginning. She has put her party ahead of the country by sacking Groser and has made herself look very very stupid by attacking a man that everyone knows is very valuable and respected internationally.

5) The coverage of this has been a clear victory for the National Party. Helen is making herself look worse by the day, and yet fails to see this.

Budget

2005-05-19T12:25:00.000+12:00

Earlier today , the media and a number of blogs raised the possibility of tax cuts to reduce the top tax bracket back to what Labour had originally promised - i.e. to only cover the top 5% of earners. However, it now appears as though this is not going to happen.

However, Cullen has found the money to spend $1.2million on a Treaty of Waitangi exhibition to be seen by 250,000 people, or just over 6% of the population!!!!

I am thinking that it is getting too late for Mickey and Helen to yell "SURPRISE" and tell us they have only been joking for the last 6 years, and then give us a break. But maybe I will keep my fingers crossed just a bit longer.

Budget

2005-05-18T17:18:00.000+12:00

Lazy students

2005-05-18T12:25:00.000+12:00

Anna Nazum has a very interesting post on the protesting students in Wellington. I couldn't agree more with what she has said.

I would just like to add what I think about the universal student allowance petitions that the student assocations seem to take great pleasure in handing around. I will admit that in my younger days I have signed these. Why wouldn't I? I mean after all, it would level the playing field with a lot of my friends.

I do not get an allowance. My father has his own business, and doens't agree with creative accounting to lower his income status (which has been done by others trust me). I would't have it any other way. At the end of my time of study I will end up owing significantly more that other students who have done the same as me, just because my parents were better off. This does not mean that I am better off when I am in Dunedin.

This may sound as though I am a fan of a universal student allowance. In fact, I think the student allowance system is a joke and should be done away with. Loans are fine. Allowance just punishes those of us whose parents have actually done something with their life.

Student Loans

2005-05-18T12:06:00.000+12:00

Ok i am going to level with you. I am a student. This is my 5th year of study. During this time, I have run up a rather large student loan - not a fact I am proud of, but essential regardless. Without the student loan system, I would not have been able to attend Uni without my parents taking a huge loan etc.

Anyway, so I have to say, without reservation that when I read in the ODT that Don Brash is against the writing off of interest while a person is still studying as he believes it encourages people to borrow more, I have to say something. I believe that is utter crap. Simple

My loan is approaching $50,000. This is huge. I know this. I will pay all of this back. I know this. I will pay it back quickly. I know this also. However, the interest rates of student loans are crippling. At the end of this year, I am likely going to be moving overseas to continue my studies (you know, I have to - I have most of the science degrees Otago offers now) and the interest is going to cause my loan to esculate impressively. I accept this - it is all part of borrowing.

However, no one can say that I have borrowed more than I have to. $150 a week is not enough to live on. Especially when the average rental prices for a room in Dunedin for a student is now approximately $100. I need that $150 every week. I also need the $1000 dollars course related costs for books etc. Most students are in this boat.

Therefore, I say this Don: if you do get in, and you do decide to scrap the interest write offs, you will become a very very unpopular person - even with me.

I only hope you hear me.

Am I missing something?

2005-05-14T10:48:00.000+12:00

I have just read the opinion piece by Chris Trotter on Stuff about the governments actions towards Te Wananga O Aotearoa. This is a quote from his article:

What are we witnessing here? What is taking place before our eyes that we have been trained all of our (Pakeha) lives not to see?

The answer, I'm afraid, is the legal dissolution of a politically autonomous Maori institution by the executive branch of the Government – a process set in motion to facilitate the liquidation of millions of dollars' worth of Maori property.

What we are seeing is a raupatu: confiscation 21st-century style.

I am sorry, but i tend to be a little slow these days, but is he really i his article that the government should have left Te Wananga alone and continued to let them spend millions of dollars of tax payer money to better the lives of theirs and their families?

Can someone please explain this to me. Please tell me he was only joking.

Update

And then he goes and does this

Please explain (hat tip Sir Humphrey's)

United Right

2005-05-14T10:36:00.000+12:00

Ok, so this blog is called Blu Blooded, and yes I am a national supporter. But I do have to admit that I am developing a bit of a soft spot for dear Rodney Hide.

Yes, during the period where Act was choosing a new leader, I was not a fan of Rodney. However, since then, I have seen the error of my ways and am an avid reader of his blog.

Dearest Rodney - I am looking forward to polling day where your party will buck of those poll results and come through with significant numbers (although not at the expense of National of course).

Ah the leftish academic

2005-05-13T14:19:00.000+12:00

Yesterday a younger friend of mine came to me with a smile. You see, she is a Greens supporter and fail to understand how I cannot see the error of my ways and join her in the eternal happiness of the Greens party. Yesterday she thought she had a new weapon in her battle to convert me to the "superior left".

You see, she had just had a lecture about racisim. Included in this lecture (I believe it was a very large part of the lecture in fact) was why the Professor giving the lecture would never vote for the Naitional Party, and more specifically for Don Brash. The reason for this was Brash's policy on not funding things by race. The professor showed the class statistics of unemployment and said that it was a clear indication for the need of race-based policy, and why he disliked Dr Brash.

Fine. That is his opinion.

However, this was a class of first-year students. Many of them are going to be voting for the very first time this election (although given it was an arts paper, a large proportion may forget). Given that students hold their professors in some high degree of regard, I feel that this was inappropriate. He doens't like National. Fine. But he is not being paid by the University to advertise for the party that he does like.

Anyway, back to my friend. She told me her account of the lecture and then asked with a big smile how I could still support National. My response was simple. "What extra right goes an unemployed Maori person have over an unemployed Pakeha person? Why should one of them receive extra help just because they are a Maori? Is the unemployed Pakeha still not unemployed and so has just the same need for a job as the Maori? Why should the Pakeha not be given help finding a job just because he is Pakeha?

I am afraid that my friend had not answer to this

Update

I have just attended a talk given by the Chief Medical Officer for the Otago region about Meningococal Disease. In this talk he gave these statistics:

Between 1997 and 2004, in the children aged under 1 year of age, there were 500 cases of meningococal disease per 100,000 Pacific Islanders, 100/100,000 in Maori and 50/100,000 in Pakeha.

This is actually a good example of where race-based policy is important. The rate of this disease in Pacific Islanders is huge - 5 times the rate in Maori and 10 times the rate in Pakeha. This is not good. This suggests that the Pacific Islanders should be targeted for the vaccine that is now available for this disease.

However, targeting of the Pacific Islanders is ok. But putting so many resources towards the treatment of this population that all other populations miss out is not. I am happy to report that I believe that this is not the case with the vaccine, as in the Counties-Manakau region where the vaccine was started, 90% of eligible Pacific Islanders are now vaccinated, with only smaller percentages for Maori and Pakeha.

Tax Cuts - but not for us

2005-05-12T13:15:00.000+12:00

As I am sure you know, this week the Australian government announced its budget. A large focus of this was tax cuts. This ofcourse led for critics to pull out the old argument that they were taking from the poor to give to the rich. Unfortunately, this over-used criticism does not hold as much water as the Australian opposition would like the ordinary punter to believe.

According to what I saw on the Channel 9 breakfast show this morning on Prime, a family with one parent working and two children earning $50 000 a year would be better off by approximately 10% under these tax cuts while if earning %100 000 they would only be better off by a margin of 2-3% (I forget actual figures). This clearly shows that the so-called "middle-classes" are better off under the new budget.

In New Zealand, our government is sitting on a huge surplus. They are also taxing us at every turn. You can bet that in this years budget, Michel Cullen will pull out a large number of election-year "treats" designed to get them back into power so they can continue to tax us for everything they can think of. The difference between the tax cuts in Australia and any (if any) that Cullen decides to offer us is that Australia has just had their election. Therefore, any tax cuts there are because it is what the government thinks is best. Here, we are stuck with this government that will do anything to stay in power (including lying aye Helen!).

If there was ever a reason to join the brain drain and move across the ditch, I think this explains it perfectly.

Till next time

Blu

Welcome

2005-05-11T17:17:00.000+12:00

Well hello!!!. After much planning and delaying, I have finally decided to enter the world of the web-log. While I do not expect this to be read by anyone, I now at least have somewhere I can go to read what I want to hear :-)

Firstly, a little bit about myself. I am male. I am a national supporter, and so politics are what this blog will be mostly about (although it is likely to also include other things that I get a little too excited about).

Secondly, here are my views of some of the "scandals" doing the rounds on other blogs at the moment:

Doonegate:
Clearly Helen was in the wrong and has been lying to us for a long time. She should come clean and admit this (although she won't).

Te Wananga
The government stuffed up - simple. And for them to say that they have had concerns for a long time shows their general incompetance. Simple. As for paying 20mill to get it afloat - I would rather see the money go towards, oh I don't know - operations, education, police, pretty much anything

NCEA
Stupid idea right from the start. I have never been a supporter of this. All it does is hide the lack of intelligence of some, and hide the intelligence of others. Because its bad for people to be good you know!!!

Student loans etc.
Student loans are a bitch!!! (please excuse my language). However, I believe they are a necessary evil. It would be nice if the government would write some of it off for those jobs that we need people more in (nurses, teachers, doctors etc.) for every year they stayed in New Zealand. However, I don't agree with paying an allowance to someone because their parents earn below a certain amount. Just because a person's parents earn above a certain threshold doesn't mean the student gets any of it. Also the student allowance scheme does is punish those students whose parents have actually been a success as they end up owing the government a lot more.

This government of ours
Not good I am afraid. I beleive that after so long of having a young inexperience opposition and having that tefon coated surface, they have become very very arrogant and now we are paying the price for it as New Zealanders.

Well that is all for this first post. Please comment and let me know if you want to know anything else about me.

Cheers for Now

Blu