Winston's Technologies

Now we all know what the typical demographic of the New Zealand First supporter is.

Nevertheless the news over the weekend that Winston has new technologies at hand to help relaunch the party, will excite even the most elderly of New Zealand First's supporters. And when you consider that most of these folk haven't felt excited since that nice young Mr Holmes was on the telly every night, you realise what a defining moment for the party this is.

Now the party will be able send communications to members and the media more efficiently.


Party faithful will be able to listen to Winston from their own living rooms.


New transportation devices will ensure Winston and his team can travel around the country faster.
And wherever he goes Winston will be in constant contact.

These changes will bring NZ First back into the 20th century.

On Neville Key and Obamadinejad

Who said this?

Not since the capture of Saddam Hussein has America had as much reason to celebrate as it has over the death of the evil Senator Edward Kennedy... Senator Kennedy was a two-timer, a hypocrite, a murderer and a communist. His death should occasion nothing but exultation. It should spell the end of Sovietized health care of the type he and Obama have been trying to sneak and rush through the legislative process...

And who spoke thus about the recent referendum result?

The 90% 'No' response to the referendum question, "Should a smack as part of good parental discipline be a criminal offence in NZ?" is a triumph for common sense over politically correct left-fascist Nanny Statism...  Now the country has spoken. Gutlesss, politically correct Prime Minister Neville Key will ignore the voice of the people for sure—and thus, thankfully, trigger the beginning of his own demise. As time goes on, the National Socialists are proving to be no different from Helen Clark's Labour Socialists. The challenge to freedom-lovers is to ensure that all statists get consigned to what Ronald Reagan called 'the ashcan of history,'

And who refers to the US president as "Obamadinejad?"

Our very own Lindsay Perigo.

I always knew Perigo had some strange views, but not until I visited his website did I realise how truly, deeply batshit crazy he and his followers are. I use the term "followers" deliberately. There is something quasi-religious about his deification of Ayn Rand and her absurd Objectivist theories. Perigo clearly thinks of himself as something of a guru. I can't imagine the type of person who goes along with this garbage.

Perigo and his followers abviously have a lot of anger towards the world. How else can the viciousness of their commentary be explained? I mean, Neville Key? Left-fascism?

Go on, take a look. Just don't expect to leave with a sense of calm and serenity.

There's a drinking game to be had here: a drink for every time you see the word "fascist" and two for "communist". In Perigo-Land you can apparently be both a communist and fascist at the same time.

Who knew?

Did Israel's Army Steal The Organs Of Palestinian Dead?

It sounds preposterous, and yet that is exactly what Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet has alleged.

According to that newspaper, Israeli defence forces have been returning the bodies of dead Palestinians to relatives, minus vital organs.

The evidence offered looks flimsy at best, and consists largely of interviews with Palestinian families. No reliable documentary evidence has been provided. So it seems unlikely, based on this evidence, that Israel's army has been harvesting organs.

It is difficult to know whether this is careless journalism, or something else. Anti-semitic and anti-Israeli feelings run deep in some parts of Europe. That does not mean any criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-semitic. Supporters of Israel have long argued that the two go hand in hand, but that is simply untrue. By any objective assessment the Israeli army has been the perpetrator of many crimes over the last several years.

Israelis have always argued they have a right to defend themselves against terrorism and extremism. But on too many occasions the Israeli response to violence has been disproportionate. The killing of civilians (whether careless or deliberate) has at times merely inflamed the violence.

With this is mind, some people will find it easy to believe the paper's claims. Which is part of the problem. The debate around Israel and to what extent it is entitled to use force against its neighbours, is already overheated. Stories like the one in Aftonbladet have the potential to do immense damage. This newspaper owed a duty to make sure it had concrete facts before publishing.

Predictably, Israel has expressed outrage over the story. A spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry has called the article "made in Sweden hate pornography". Others have compared the article to past blood libels against Jews. Swedish politicians have denounced the story, but there is little else they can do. Press freedom means that articles such as these, however repulsive, cannot be suppressed.

Our Own Rush Limbaugh?

If there was a competition for vilest columnist in the country, Michael Laws would win it in a canter.

In Laws-ville anyone who doesn't share his view is a moron. This week Laws Godwins himself by calling John Key a fascist.

Key, secretly, thinks parents should be banned from lightly disciplining their children. Key is, we now discover, actually one the state's nannies. A petty fascist.

Laws' racist blatherings against Maori are also becoming tedious. There's no doubt why he thinks he should have the right to smack - he clearly believes family violence is a brown problem.

People like Laws are too lazy to consider the real causes of family violence: social dislocation, poverty, poor education, and drug and alcohol dependency. It just happens that those things are more prevalent among the Maori community. The reasons why are complex and historical.

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with Maori. The fact Laws believes it is a problem of race exposes him as a mean racist.

MacDiarmid Awards - Imperator Fish Leaves Empty Handed

On Thursday night I was lucky enough to be able to attend the MacDiarmid Young Scientist of the Year Awards.

This is an annual event celebrating the achievements of some of the younger members of the science community. It is well attended, and the Minister of Research Science and Technology usually gives a speech.

I have heard Wayne Mapp speak a couple of times now on science. He says all the things people want to hear and makes all the right noises, but it is clearly spin. It would be an overstatement to say the sciences are being completely ignored by the current government, but it would not be inaccurate to state that the current government has placed no major emphasis on scientific achievement. Innovation, science and technology are the only ways we'll ever "close the gap" with Australia (to borrow a phrase everyone keeps using), but nobody in government wants to acknowledge that fact.

Still, these events are about the young scientists, not the politicians, nor the university and funding agency bigwigs. And the speeches of the good and the great did at times seem interminable. But the highlight was seeing the work of the award winners, and hearing them talk with passion about their research.

I met one of the award winners and had a chance to talk to him about his work. He is Matthew Gerrie, and he was featured in today's Herald. He has been using scientific techniques to prove how truly unreliable eyewitness testimony can be in criminal proceedings. It's likely that false eyewitness testimony has led to a large number of people in this country being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Matthew has been working with the New Zealand chapter of the Innocence Network, a group of organisations around the world that seek to expose miscarriages of justice.

We all know that a person's prejudices can influence their impressions of an event. But it's clear from the science that what people think they see is often frighteningly different from what is actually before them. However, the testimony of an eyewitness is still some of the most powerful evidence to put before a jury.

Matthew's work involves providing better training for police and others involved in dealing with crime, so that the psychological factors influencing false identification can be minimised. He told me that the police are very receptive to this training, because they want to make sure they get the right person and avoid legal challenges. However, he said that some crown prosecution lawyers didn't want to have anything to do with his work. It is to be hoped they are only a small number.

Hopefully I get to go next year. And I can always hope by next year there's a new minister...

Nessie Is Real And Is Going To Eat Us All

This image can be seen on Google Earth. It is a mysterious object on the Loch Ness in Scotland.



Is it:

A. Nessie?

B. Jesus?

C. A boat?

D. It's a boat, stupid.

******

Over at Kiwipolitico they are having a fascinating conversation about blogsite moderation.

I've strong views on the topic. I don't understand why some people think treating an open forum like a sewer makes it more interesting and edgy. Maybe people should just grow up, stop shouting at each other, and start listening.

Libertarians will of course claim freedom of speech must always be paramount. Which is all very well, except than the unrestricted ability to say what one wants inevitably has the effect of stifling the speech of others. Who would be brave enough to post a comment on Kiwiblog, for example? If you do so you should expect to be roundly attacked and personally insulted. So the people with the most noxious opinions and personalities get the most attention.

I don't have any problems with this site, because my traffic is fairly light and I don't usually post anything too polarising (although my seemingly innocuous posts on the Birthers and 911 Truthers got a couple of anonymous loonies frothing). And not being a toady for one of the main political parties means I don't have to play the them-bad-us-good game so beloved of popular sites like Kiwiblog, Red Alert, The Standard and Frog Blog.

If that makes me less edgy, then so be it. If it's a shouting match you want you'll find plenty of them elsewhere.

How To Write A Legal Letter

It has become obvious to me that many of my colleagues in the legal profession have a real problem with the way they write.

And it's getting worse.

If you've read a letter from a lawyer lately you probably felt some disappointment about the wordsmanship. Where have all the "notwithstandings" and "hereinafters" gone? Is there no room anymore for the humble "thereof"?

This move towards plain English threatens the thing we hold dear in our legal system: that the system remain a bafflingly impenetrable place where nobody but a highly paid expert can make sense of what is going on.

In light of these disturbing trends, I have compiled a short lesson for young lawyers on bringing legalese back into their work.

Take this example of a legal letter. It's perfectly clear what the author is taking about, isn't it?

Dear Sir

I act for John Smith. I understand that you act for Bob Black.

Our clients have been discussing a proposed widget supply arrangement.

I have drafted an agreement based on my client's instructions about what has been agreed. The draft agreement is attached. If the attached draft is acceptable to your client, please arrange for your client to sign it and return it to my client.

Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter.

Yours faithfully

So where did our author go wrong?

The opening

"Dear Sir" shows no imagination at all. If you want to draw the reader in to your web of deceit and lies, you need to offer something more colourful.

Like this:

To my esteemed fellow colleague: a joy it is to acquaint myself with you. Salutations and solicitations, learned brethren.

Now isn't that much nicer?

The introductions

Now is where the hard work begins. Don't go charging in there, people. A legal correspondence is a finely tuned instrument. Treat it carefully and respect it.

If you were planning to romance a beautiful and sophisticated heiress in her boudoir, would you blunder in and state your intended business? Of course not! So why this?

I act for John Smith. I understand that you act for Bob Black.

You've just struck out and are going home alone.

Why not try a little sweet-talking?

Whereas it is my humble pleasure to represent Mr. John Smith, a good and honest man whose legal affairs the said author has been entrusted with for a number of years. Insofar as you are duly appointed with full plenipotentiary powers in respect of a certain Mr Bob Black, The said author has been given full authority and capacity to treat with you on behalf of the said Smith, so as to ensure appropriate communication is established to the mutual benefit of both your client (the said Black) and the author's client (the said Smith).

That will have her heart pounding.

The main part

The trouble of course is that eventually you have to lift the veil. What is it that you want? You have to be ready to tell all.

If you get this part of your letter wrong you do a grave disservice to your client. So be careful.

I'm sure you already see how lacking in sparkle this is:

Our clients have been discussing a proposed widget supply arrangement.

Try this instead:

It now behoves the said author to establish the circumstances behind this communication. In particular, the said Smith and the said Black did on occasions numbering more than once enter into verbal discussions with respect to a matter pertaining to widgets and the supply thereof.

And now you have to get to the real meat of the letter. This is just weak, and it reveals a practitioner who is not on top of his game:

I have drafted an agreement based on my client's instructions about what has been agreed. The draft agreement is attached. If the attached draft is acceptable to your client, please arrange for your client to sign it and return it to my client.

Let me suggest an alternative:

To that end, and with due consideration being given to the instructions presented to the said author following discussions and correspondences between the said author and the said Smith, the said author has composed a document that purports to represent the position taken by the said Smith in respect of the said widget negotiations, so as to provide an appropriate legal mechanism in respect of binding in a legal manner the said Smith and the said Black into a contractual instrument to the mutual benefit of both of the said parties, notwithstanding that the said contractual instrument thus presented for your perusal and consideration, and the perusal and consideration of your client, being the said Smith, represents an initial draft only and may be subject to further elaboration and consideration should such further elaboration and consideration be required by either your client (the said Black) or the author's client (the said Smith), and without prejudice to the foregoing, and save and except that the contractual instrument enclosed for your perusal is an initial draft, the author entreats you to consider, after due deliberation and appropriate consultation with your client, whether execution of the said contractual instrument by your client is a matter your client is prepared to consider undertaking; and if so it would gratify the author if your client, being the said Black, could appropriately execute the said contractual instrument by customary means and then dispatch the said contractual instrument to the author's client (being the said Smith), in order to establish the means for the said Smith to execute the said contractual instrument and thus complete the legal formalities necessary to establish legal relations between our respective clients.

The closing

This is critical. Don't ruin it now. You need to finish with a flourish.

This is just poor:

Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter.

Yours faithfully

Here's a stronger ending that will leave the reader spellbound:

In circumstances such that the matters hereinbefore expressed in this legal correspondence should give rise to questions, concerns, or other matters worthy of communication, you may rest assured that the said author would be humbled to receive your enquiries. The author entreats you to initiate appropriate communications with the author's said self, should any matters trouble either your good selves or your client, being the said Black.

I am, as ever, your humble and respectful colleague.

If that doesn't close the deal I'll swallow my monocle!

Next week

Next week we'll be learning how to talk to the media. Bring your Latin book!

Imperator Fish Blog Rankings Out Now!

It's rankings time.

And guess who's on top again!

Our Methodology

The Imperator Fish Rankings are calculated using the following methodology:

1. Take the overall page hits for the blogsite and add them to the total number of postings made.
2. Add flour and eggs and beat until the mixture is soft and fluffy.
3. Place the mixture in a metallic bowl and microwave for two minutes.
4. Have your local soothsayer or village crone examine the wreckage for signs.
5. Divide the result by nine. You now have your blog ranking.

The Top Ten

Here are the top ten blogsites in New Zealand (previous month's rankings in brackets):

1. Imperator Fish (1)
2. Kiwibog (2)
3. The Substandard (4)
4. Pubic Address (3)
5. Red Panic (9)
6. Rictus Kate (22)
7. Whalemeat (-6)
8. Tumekulosis (42)
9. Panned-it (3.74)
10. No Wrong Terns (:-()

Click here to view the top 100 blogsites.

Buffoon?

Someone should remind the Minister for Local Government that his party got less than one vote for every 25 cast in the last election.

If the Nats had put a serious candidate up against Rodney Hide in Epsom last election he would now be doing the reality-show circuit.

Hide's attempt to bully the Nats may succeed in the short term, but as a long-term option it has failure written all over it.

So we may yet see the return of Roger Douglas to his coffin, stake through his heart. And David Garrett may yet return to his oil-rig mates to joke about sheilas and homos.

Where You Can Stick Your Direct Democracy

The just-completed referendum provides ample evidence that direct democracy is generally a dumb idea.

Citizens Initiated Referenda don't generally achieve anything, other than confusion, debate and wasted expenditure. The yes/no format allows no scope for alternatives or subtleties, and the questions seem more often that not to be daft or confusing ones. The questions are almost always loaded ones.

Take the most recent referendum. What actually do people expect the Government to do with the result? What do the results tell us? If police already won't generally prosecute trivial offences (see section 59(4) of the Crimes Act), then what needs to change?

Even if we assume the referendum result provides a mandate for a change to the law, what exactly is this change? Many have called for the 2007 law change to simply be reversed. But if we reversed the 2007 law change, wouldn't we go beyond the mandate given?

The 2007 law change outlawed the defence of "reasonable force" for the purposes of correction. There is no reference anywhere in the legislation to "smacking". The news media is very much to blame for much of the hysteria generated by this issue. The very label "anti-smacking law" is misleading. So if we allow "smacking", what other forms of "reasonable" force do we outlaw? Or is it all in again? For example, can we use paddles and riding crops?

There may be occasions where an issue can be reasonably determined by a referendum, and where a simple yes/no will suffice to provide clear guidance to legislators. But I don't trust interest groups like Family First or Focus on the Family to make those calls. Especially when some of those groups appear to be funded by overseas evangelical groups. Do we really want US conservative Christians framing our political decisions?

Politicians are hardly saints, but there is much more transparency about the activities of political parties than about the organisations run by Baldock and McCoskrie. We may frequently be infuriated by self-serving politicians, but we also get the chance to boot them out every three years. Larry Baldock was a miserable failure as a one-term MP, but now he's accountable to nobody. And there's little we can do to counter the deliberate untruths he has been spreading. Was it about the right to smack? Apparently not. He favours the use of implements against kids:

"I'm not opposed to the wooden spoon or ruler because you can control things with that better than you can with an open hand."

So why didn't he refer to implements in his referendum question? I think you know why.

Let's not bother with any more such referenda. And if John Key feels the need to promise to consult with police and welfare agencies to make sure the child discipline law's working, that's just fine. But let's not pretend the recent referendum provides clear guidance on anything.

As a taxpayer I want my $9 million back. Maybe Baldock's US mates can throw a few dollars towards this wasted expense.

Hero Key Clinches Bledisloe Cup

SYDNEY- Prime Minister John Key was a hero on Saturday night, kicking the winning goal to secure Bledisloe Cup victory for the All Blacks against Australia.

Hero John Key Celebrates with his teammates

With two minutes to go in the game and with Australia ahead by two points, things were looking grim for the New Zealand team. But a Wallabies transgression gave the All Blacks a much-needed penalty within kicking distance.

But joy turned to tragedy, as regular kicker Daniel Carter pulled up injured. With the other kicker in the team, Luke McAllister, sidelined, it appeared no-one was left to take the crucial kick.

That's when Key got the call.

"I could see there was a problem," said Mr Key, who was sideline enjoying official Australian government hospitality. "Dan was down and it looked pretty bad. Ted [Graham Henry] yelled out to me 'got your boots?'"

Mr Key was quick to act. "My country needed me. I was a bit rusty from my footy days at Burnside High School, but I knew if I just struck it right I had a good chance."

Key changed hastily, then went on in place of Carter. He took the penalty kick and, to the astonishment of most of the crowd, the ball went between the goalposts.

Moments later the game ended. Key's goal secured a desperately needed win for New Zealand.

The PM's appearance caused some surprise among the players of both teams, and Australian management expressed concern afterwards about the irregular nature of Carter's substitution. But coach Robbie Deans said "that's just rugby. You can't change what happened on the field. We just have to go away and work on our game, and not worry what the officials do."

All Blacks captain Richie McCaw was surprised, but also delighted by Key's effort. "It was a big call, bringing Key on. But he did the business."

This is not the first time a New Zealand PM has stepped in during a crisis. In 1985 league fan David Lange stunned the rugby league world by turning out for the Kiwis, and then running eighty metres to score a sensational try to secure a win against Great Britain.

And only a few seasons ago Helen Clark opened for the Black Caps in a test during their Indian tour, when the bulk of the team were sidelined with a stomach virus. Clark scored a gritty 67 not out in her second innings, helping to secure a creditable draw.

Key would not be drawn on whether he would turn out again for the All Blacks. "I'll consider it" he said, "but I can't commit to anything definite."

Your Views: Should Prime Ministers be allowed to represent New Zealand in sport? Click Here to have your say

US Blogger Exposed And Now Suing

I wrote a couple of months ago about the UK blogger Night Jack. He was a copper who wrote online under anonymity about his job. Some of what he wrote was critical about the establishment.

A UK paper threatened to reveal his identity, so he sought an order suppressing details of his name, on the grounds that he had an expectation of privacy. The judge declined, for entirely sensible reasons. In his words:

blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity

And yet people continue to think they can post all sorts of inciteful or even defamatory material online, and still expect to avoid having their name revealed.

Such is the case of the author of US blogsite "Skanks in NYC", whose identity was revealed by Google following a court order. The blogsite was largely a vehicle to trash and defame fashion model Liskula Cohen.

The blogger, fashion student Rosemary Port, is now suing Cohen for US$15 million.

This may never go to court, and may all be a giant publicity stunt by an egocentric New York fashionista desperate for attention. But I'm sure many people in the blogging world will be watching this case with interest.

Dingo BBQ Time

Right now it must really suck to be Australian.

1. The All Blacks pile on the Blediswoe with a 78th minute penalty kick by Dan Carter. I watched the game in a bar at Wairakei Resort. I was down there on a work team-bonding thing. I can report that there were no group hug sessions; nor were there any falling-down trust exercises. Would anyone really trust a fellow lawyer to catch them?

After the game I sought out Australian company. I knew they were hurting and needed consolation.

Sadly there were very Australians in the vicinity to go "na-na-na-na-na" at.

2. Then they lose the Ashes. This one is well deserved. as there has been an unjustifiable arrogance about the Australian outfit for some time.

Arrogance will get you far when you're Shane Warne or Glenn McGrath.

But the current lot have a shortage of world-class players. Ponting is perhaps not the wrecker of bowling attacks he was a couple of seasons ago, and the other batsmen are no more than useful. Their bowling attack is decidedly average. And Pointing has never appealed to me as a good captain.

The Australian team would still wipe the floor with the New Zealand team. Of course, only the most foolhardy Black Caps supporter would ever claim our team was anything other than mediocre. But it's hard to accept mediocrity when you're used to something better. Which is why the Australian sporting public must be hurting right now.

But if you're an Australia supporter and all of that made you feel ill, can I suggest you don't check in to this hospital?

Coming Soon To A Nightmare Near You

The brave crew of the USS Enterprise are back for another thrilling instalment. And this you won't want to miss this!

The story begins with Captain Picard and his crew chasing a Zargatian battlecruiser after a raid on a Federation outpost.

Captain Picard

But for the crew of the Enterprise, life's about to get a whole lot more interesting.

Just as it seems they've cornered their foe a dangerous rift opens up in the time-space continuum, sucking both ships back in time, and they find themselves on early 21st century Earth!

It turns out that the Zargatians have been messing with the fabric of time, and Picard and his crew have to act fast to repair the damage. The Zargatians have infiltrated the top leadership of a small country. Once they've brought that country to it's knees all of Earth will be in peril!

This is as much a political thriller as an all-out action film. Picard and his crew have to use all their wits to foil their enemy, disguising themselves as a bizarre fringe political group. In this way they keep close to the Zargatians while planning their next move.

Captain Picard in full disguise

But things don't go to plan. Just as they're ready to outmanoeuvre their enemies, the Zargatians strike! The leaders of the small country are away visiting their neighbours. A seemingly mild-mannered minister is left holding the reigns...

The Zargatian leader undercover

Now the villains strike, revealing themselves. And that's where the real action begins!

The Zargatian leader reveals his true identity

What follows is a rollercoaster ride, packed with high drama, action, and a little romance on the way.

You'll see all your favourite characters like you've never seen them before! And you'll meet some new ones too. Like Lieutenant Commander Garrett, a hellraising bad boy who takes no prisoners, but has a heart of gold, and knows how to break a few (look out Counsellor Troy!)

Bad-boy and ladies man, Lt. Cmdr Garrett

This is simply the best movie you'll see all year. If you liked Captain Worth's Mandolin, or enjoyed Carry on Beehive, then you'll love this!

Killer Keller In The Dock

Now we all know Barack Obama is an evil Kenyan Muslim commie who hates America and eats good Christian children for his dinner.

But how evil is he really? As evil as this woman?

An inmate on death row who tried to file a last-minute appeal against his execution in Texas was told: “We close at five.” Too late to plead, Michael Wayne Richard was put to death by lethal injection.

The Judge, Sharon Keller, was too busy at her home with a repairman to consider the appeal. (Maybe her wall of skulls was in need of maintenance?)

The Herald describes those fateful last hours:

On the day of Richard's execution, the US Supreme Court had agreed to review the constitutionality of death by lethal injection. The sudden decision gave his lawyers a small window of opportunity to appeal for a stay.

But a faulty email system made them 20 minutes late delivering appeal papers, and Keller refused to return to work and read them.

I don't know whether Richard's conviction was sound - that isn't the point. A man's life was in the balance and a judge couldn't be bothered to consider his appeal.

But she has past form for this kind of ruthlessness. Back to the Times:

Judge Keller, a former prosecutor, earned her nickname in 1998 when she rejected a new trial for Roy Criner, a man with learning disabilities who was convicted of rape, even though new DNA tests showed that the semen in the victim was not his.

“We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent,” she later told a television interviewer. “We would have no finality in the criminal justice system and finality is important.” Mr Criner was eventually pardoned by the then Texas Governor George W. Bush.

 Finality may be important, but what of justice? What if this guy had been another Roy Criner? Was it so much to ask the judge to at least consider the merits of the appeal?

Happily this "hanging judge" may be about to be punished herself. She is now facing a misconduct hearing.

Understating The Obvious

From this article about an HR letter written to an IRD employee who snapped:

"Information has come to my attention which indicates that you may have intentionally driven a car through Inland Revenue's Christchurch building ... I am concerned that your conduct may be inconsistent with the Code of Conduct."

I take my hat off to the author of this masterpiece of understatement.

Tweedledum

The Herald says National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is under investigation for his alleged involvement in an immigration scam.

That brings to three the number of National MPs either caught out or under investigation this year. Let's remind ourselves of the other two:

• Finance Minister Bill English got caught rorting the taxpayer, claiming for expenses that, while legally justified, were morally dubious, and he was effectively forced to repay some of the money.
• Richard Worth was dumped as a minister and forced to resign from Parliament after a series of scandals and stuff-ups.

During the last election the media were fond of publishing lists of Labour ministers and MPs who were caught out or dumped for various transgressions: such as Dover Samuels, David Benson- Pope, Philip Field, Lianne Dalziel, etc, etc. The perception that Labour were less than honest with the public and couldn't be trusted no doubt helped the Nats to win power.

I wonder if by the end of Key's reign he'll have a similar number of transgressors.

He's had three so far. Although English's offence is fairly minor, so we'll discount his. If Key has three terms, as Clark did, two scandals a year would be 18 MPs either investigated or disgraced by the end of the third term.

Which would make Key's government about as sleazy as Clark's was alleged to be.

Of course, this is mere speculation. But isn't it assuring to know that in at least one respect our two main parties appear to be as bad as each other? Did you vote for change? Did you vote for a new beginning? Honesty? Transparency? No more culture of spin?

How are you feeling right now?

No More Mushy Bananas

Is this the most essential item of 2009?





From Lakeland UK:

Transport your mid-morning snack to work or school without it looking as if it's gone five rounds in a boxing ring!

Bruised and battered bananas will become a thing of the past when slipped into this purpose-built protective case.

Designed to accommodate virtually every shape and size of banana, it's especially useful for slipping in a rucksack when hiking on the fells – after all, a bit of extra energy will always be welcome.

This really needs a Suzanne Paul voiceover.

******

A question:

When Bill English talks about closing loopholes to ensure people setting up trusts and other structures cannot raid the public purse, is he:

a) talking about the need to ensure people with multiple properties cannot claim Working For Families allowances?

b) punishing himself for claiming additional accommodation allowances from the taxpayer via a trust structure?

c) taking the piss?

******

Having a Bad Week:

1. The voice of Bob the Builder (a beloved institution in my household), Neil Morrissey is in deep financial trouble. He owes millions after his property investments went bad. He says he is planning to repay all of his creditors. Don't we hear that one a lot these days?

And I feel the need to mention Suzanne Paul at this point (twice in one blog post!). Because Morrissey's story reminds me of that irritating woman and her constant vows to repay her creditors. They are about as convincing as O J Simpson's vows to track down the killer of his ex-wife.

I swear if I read another thing about her plans to make good with her creditors, I'll go on a rampage. I'm sure none of the people she owed money to believe the pretence, so why should we?

2. The former coach of the Harlequins rugby team, former England rugby great Dean Richards has been banned from coaching for three years. He helped to stage a fake blood injury to player Tom Williams towards the end of a tightly contested rugby game, paving the way for goalkicker and former All Black Nick Evans to come on.

Williams has alleged his mouth was cut in the changing sheds after the game, so the team could show evidence of a wound if challenged.

I remember Richards as a player (now I'm showing my age). He was a tough relentless forward who always lived on the edge of the rulebook.

This time he went too far, and I suspect his career is over.

3. Auckland Grammar Headmaster John Morris. I've caught a few soundbites of him this week, and he's come across as being in a state of denial about the disgraceful way his school's rugby team and its supporters behaved at the weekend. Kelston Boys' principal has now at least taken action to suspend those Kelston boys to blame, even if he also engaged earlier this week in blame games.

Being a proud Westie, it puzzles me so why people would pay top dollar to be in the "Grammar Zone". If the behaviour of the Grammar headmaster is an indication of the values the school strives for, I'll just send my kids to a dirty poxy Westie school, thanks.

But maybe not Kelston...

Having a Good Week

1. Valerie Vili. A true champion, and with an attitude to boot.

2. Usain Bolt, for smashing the men's 100 metre world record. The man is a freak.

3. David Farrar. Relaxing in Hawaii while his guest "DPB" poster has the rabid pack straining at their leashes. He must be enjoying the show. I am.

Speech By The Chairperson Of The DPB Revolutionary Congress During Annual Plenary Session

... as imagined by a Kiwiblog reader

Comrades!

I told you this day would come. We are now at war. The Government of the day has taken aim at us, and we must fight back.

They say we are lazy, no good bludgers. Talkback land has never been more hateful towards us. The internet is dripping with bile, all because we took what we wanted.

They've rumbled us! But let us not be down. For, comrades, it is time for us to take even more!

Here is my three-point action plan to win the war.

1. Breed

We've long known we are all just good for nothing breeding machines. But our secret's out. We can beat ourselves up over being exposed like this, or we can turn this into a strength. So go forth and multiply, ladies! If we make enough baby beneficiaries then the sheer number of little bludgers will bring this system to its knees.

2. Stop all effort

Some of you, I know, have been doing part-time work on the sly. Our organisation has turned a blind eye to this disgraceful behaviour until now. But this has to stop now!

If you've time to work you've time to sit on your arse watching Oprah and Dr Phil. That's an order!

3. Spend

You can do your bit by bankrupting the State. Spend every penny you have on worthless things, then demand more. More! Booze, cigarettes, Sky TV, Sky City Casino! The Sky's the limit. Do your bit, girls!

With this three-point plan in place, we can roll this fascist state, and then there will be handouts for everyone.

Whose baby is crying? Stop that! I told you to leave your runts at home, alone!

Now, ladies, that is the end of the session. We will reconvene in an hour, once Days of our Lives, has finished. In the meantime there is caviar at the back for everyone, paid for by the toiling taxpayer, and for the pregnant ones there's vodka and champagne.

How Not To Be A Role Model

The principals of Auckland Grammar and Kelston Boys High were on the radio this morning acting like angry schoolkids, blaming the other side for the weekend brawl between the schools' 1st XVs.

In some schools the top rugby team are treated like royalty - not just by the students, but by principals and teachers.

And so it appears to be in this case. It would appear that the rules most students must abide by don't apply to either team involved in the fight.

If you were the principal of a school whose team had been involved in an all-in brawl such as this one, would your first response to questions be something like this?

This is a disgrace and a stain on the reputations of both schools. Rest assured we will work together tirelessly to ensure this never happens again, and that those involved are punished.

Or would you go on-air and slag the other team's players and spectators?

If we want our kids to be responsible adults, we must lead by example. Not finding lame excuses for violence would be a good start.

An even better start would be for each school to suspend the entire rugby team until further notice, unless the Auckland Rugby Union does so first. Although I suspect the season's nearly over, so a suspension might have to carry over into next season.

No doubt some kids not actively involved in the brawl would be penalised by a suspension. But there are many precedents in top level sports for entire teams being banned from tournaments or competitions for bad behaviour. Such a punishment would send a strong message to both sets of students.

Of course, the schools probably won't do anything of the kind. After all, it's not their fault: the other team started it.

Ian Wishart Is Mad As Hell

Ian Wishart is threatening to sue anyone who criticises his fruitcake theories on climate change.

The author of an international bestseller on climate change is preparing to sue the New Zealand Herald and one of its journalists for defamation.

Ian Wishart, whose book Air Con has been a #1 bestseller in New Zealand and on Amazon.com in the United States, says Herald columnist Chris Barton has gone a bridge too far by defaming him without first reading the book.

“Barton has accused me of being dishonest, and or stupid, on the issue of climate change,” Wishart said today.

If I really wanted to defame Wishart I could speculate on the state of mind of a person who blogs in the third person, and praises himself to boot. But hopefully my use of the word "fruitcake" to describe his theories suffices.

Ian, when you're preparing your list of who to sue, will you please remember me?

Into The Bog: Mallard Speaks Up And Probably Wishes He Hadn't

Today's award-winning* instalment at "Into the Bog" starts with the efforts of a politician who probably now wishes he'd been more careful about his choice of words.

I am of course talking about Trevor Mallard and this post on Labour's Red Alert site.

The fact that they weren’t sent to prison because they are Maori just doesn’t seem right to me.

He is talking about the non-custodial sentences imposed on the killers of Janet Moses during a bungled exorcism.

If, as Mallard alleges, the killers escaped more serious penalties because of their race, then that would rightly be a major concern.

But what evidence have we that the judge "went soft" on them because they were Maori? There is none.

When Mallard says:

But I am certain that a Pakeha exorcism that resulted in torture and death would result in a prison term - albeit not necessarily a long one

he is simply expressing an opinion with no evidence to justify it. There is no case comparable to the Moses one. And even if one were to exist, can we really be certain that one lenient set of sentences in a case represents a bias towards a particular culture?

Of course not. How could that be so?

In fact, what little evidence exists tends to suggest that on average Maori offenders are more likely than non-Maori to receive custodial sentences. The graph below (taken from the Corrections Department website) illustrates this.
I'm not suggesting judges or the system are racist, because the reasons for this trend may be complex. But it does establish one thing: there is no natural bias in the system in favour of Maori. If any bias exists it may well be a negative one.

So why is Mallard stirring this hornets nest up? I don't for a moment believe it was a calculated play for the redneck vote, because Mallard's comments seem so out of synch with what other Labour MPs have been saying about race and the justice system. In fact, I expect some of his colleagues may be shaking their heads.
The reaction from the Right has been predictable.

MacDoctor

From the MacDoctor blog:

I just think it is naked racism.

We aren't fortunate enough to learn what this opinion is based on, and why the writer thinks the white middle class judge is a racist. Opinions such as this on the internet are a dime a dozen. Opinions that are backed by evidence or sound reasoning are more weighty.

MacDoctor quotes Barry Hart. Barry Hart may be a useful "rent-a-quote" when the occasion suits, but if you a trying to make a serious point you might want to choose someone in the legal fraternity a little less "colourful".

Cactus Kate

Cactus Kate is her usual blow-hard self, slagging the judge in her blogsite, and offering this as a comment to Mallard's post:

The worst part is that these people all get to vote. They are collectively and individually too stupid to breathe.

Which of the following is she talking about?

a) the Labour Party?
b) the Judge?
c) the offenders in this case?
d) Maori?
e) All of the above?

I will assume c), and that her comment is directed particularly at the superstitious nonsense the offenders were involved in (though from her various incontinent rantings in the past about the poor, Maori and anyone she doesn't agree with, can we really be so sure?).

In which case, let's be consistent: does she advocate taking the vote from Catholics? For example, the whole transubstantiation thing, where the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ. How is that any less strange?

And how about anyone who denies the existence of man-assisted global warming? Clearly nutters. No vote! Creationists? No vote!

Pretty soon most of the populace would be disenfranchised.

Kiwiblog
DPF is so excited by the news he's taken a break from his holiday, so as to offer his regulars the opportunity to bash Maori.

Do they accept the offer? There's the usual stuff like:

Not the first time Maoris have got away with murder aye?

And:

so when a trash maori beats a baby to death , its getting those nasty devils out of it???? could become a maori growth industry, ?

But the vitriol is not as toxic as normal.

The Left

At the time I posted this the response from the Left has been muted. This could be because many of Labour's traditional supporters are uncertain how to react, without sounding overly critical.

The Standard does its best to justify Mallard's comments, as you would expect.

I think the only conclusion is that the fact the offenders claimed to have been undertaking a traditional Maori exorcism led to the light sentences. And it seems to have been particularly because it was Maori spirituality that was involved (the death during an ‘exorcism’ of a Korean woman by a Korean Christian preacher led to him getting jail time). That’s, of course, the conclusion that most people have drawn, including Trevor Mallard, whose comments on Red Alert were picked up in the HoS today.

Had someone like David Garrett, rather than Trevor Mallard, made the comments, I suspect that The Standard's position might have been quite different.

And the Korean exorcism case is a bit of a red herring. The facts of that case were very different.
This matter illustrates the problem with the blog scene in New Zealand. Most of the popular sites are "affiliated" with one of the main parties. There don't seem to be many prepared to critique their own.

Although I might lean generally to the left (though not on all issues), I don't have an affiliation with any party. This fact makes it easier to be frank about what I think, rather than feeling the need to justify a position I really am not comfortable with.

It's a shame there are not more "neutral" sites.

* I made that up. It sounded more impressive than "not-read-by-anyone".

Into The Bog: In A Tiz Over Titles

I have delved into the murky depths once again for another instalment of "Into the Bog".

I's only fair that after having a go at Kiwiblog last time I should look at what the lefties are doing.

Class enemies



The Standard is worked up over the redesignating today of 66 prominent New Zealanders as dames or knights.

For just a moment today, perhaps set aside a little time for reflection on, or to lift a glass and toast those New Zealanders who are “one of us” and not “one of them”.

Ivor Lloyd Richardson, Silvia Rose Cartwright, Leonard Ramsay Castle, Witi Ihimaera-Smiler, Nigel (Sam) Neill, Vincent O’Sullivan, Ranginui Walker, Cassia Joy Cowley, Patricia Grace, Patricia Mary Hook, Penelope Ann Jamieson, Pauline Margaret O’Regan, and Margaret Wilson.

Kia kaha, kaumatua

That 66 people had the audacity to accept honours affronts the Standard. Thus these people are no longer "one of us". They become part of the insidious group called "Them". Class enemies and traitors.

I can well understand why someone from the Left would object to someone like Jenny Shipley receiving titular honours.

But what have the likes of Peter Snell, Peter Gluckman, and Lynley Dodd done to deserve such scorn?

But it's not just The Standard. Here's what Tim Selwyn at Tukeke has to say about the decision of Margaret Shields to accept the honour:

Ah, love - sorry Dame - the people who actually gave you that honour were Helen Clark and the Honours Committee of her Cabinet. So if Helen says don't sell out, then you shouldn't sell-out. Coming up with some spurious justifications for your own vanity in personally deciding to accept a royal/British-based title from a Tory government is dishonorable.

Hang on a minute. Since when does she have to take orders from Helen Clark? Is the price for getting an award the obligation to do her masters' bidding?

I am as surprised as you no doubt are to learn that the folk at Tumeke appear to be supporting the use of honours as a form of political patronage. Isn't that what those Tory bastards do?

Now I don't think much of titular honours, but if people want to accept them, then that's fine with me.

But it is a trait of the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum to view anyone with a different opinion as an enemy.

Into The Bog: Guest Poster Has Buyer Remorse

I blog a lot about blogs. I assume that my audience is interested in blogs.

So rather than occasionally commenting on the blogosphere I'm going to try a regular feature, commenting on a regular basis about what's going on in the world of NZ blogs, and summarising what the main blogs are saying. This plan may go nowhere, or I might get bored and just go back to taking cheap shots at John Key.

My aim is to do this regularly - not necessarily daily, as I do have a busy day job. What with helping the rich evict starving orphans from their homes, assisting multinationals to exploit the proletariat, and rolling around in my big pile of money, I honestly don't know where I will find the time*.

This means I will have to visit blogs like Whaleoil, No Minister and Cactus Kate. Yay.

So here we go.

* If you force me to explain how irony/sarcasm works I will hurt you.

Kiwiblog guest discovers what everyone else knows

It has been entertaining to watch the battle on Kiwiblog between guest poster Tara te Heke (not her real name) and the regulars.

Tara is a beneficiary and is Maori. She writes about the hard lot beneficiaries have, and talks about her difficult life. She also writes about what she is trying to do to lift herself from welfare dependency. This is not what you expect to read on Kiwiblog.

You can already see where this is going to lead, don’t you? And the Kiwiblog community doesn’t let us down.

In her most recent post she takes a swipe at some of those who have attacked her.

Hundreds of comments from the same sort of people, same names. What kind of person comments in that I should have an abortion? Or have my children taken off me? That I am some sort of low life. That I don’t count because I’m not like you.

While some comments have been supportive (thank you) and some constructively critical (thank you), plenty have just been far too personal and utterly vile.

Clearly there are two sorts of people who read Kiwiblog, those intelligent souls who read, absorb and think (the vast majority of thousands), then the small amount (about 20-30) of absolutely nutters (commonly termed David Farrar’s troll farm) who feel free to spout nonsense that they wouldn’t freely speak of for fear of being written off in public as sad, old and downright creepy.

Little wonder women do not blog if this is the reaction they get for being opinionated and not deemed high achieving enough to be accepted by men.

And its not right or left wing here that is the issue, it seems that the hatred is not even political as I haven’t even started to post about who I vote for and what policies I support. Little wonder I cannot use my real name. I would fear that one of you were nutty enough to turn up on my doorstep.

Tara has explained the Kiwiblog community perfectly. Perhaps she didn’t know previously what Kiwiblog was about. But she does now, and I’m sure she now regrets the gig.

Her posts have drawn a mixed response from the “usuals”. Some are supportive, some are contemptuous, and many are so hostile their comments would make your skin crawl.

One particularly obnoxious poster, calling himself big bruv, responds to her taunt that some of the worst trolls need to get more gainful employment, by saying:

That is a bit rich given that you sit on your arse all day.

lilman shows his compassionate side:

Lady your pathetic!!!!!!!!

HARDEN UP ,WHAT A JOKE.

A Brian Smaller bravely puts his name to this piece of vileness:

Didn’t she ever hear of the pill. They give it away free you know.

And so on. You get the picture.

And many of the crew are convinced they're not actually engaging with a beneficiary. That could be because for most of them beneficiaries are, like dragons, things they’ve read about in books but never seen or met in person. But everyone knows that when a dragon comes to town it’s bad news.

From Jack5:

A scary thought. Has DPF roped in Coddington to craft the Tara persona?

Jack5 thinks he’s quite the detective. Later he says:

Tara posted: “…Little wonder women do not blog if this is the reaction they get for being opinionated and not deemed high achieving enough to be accepted by men…”

Are these the words of a Kiwi battler who worked in the freezing works at 16, raises three kids in tough circumstances, and has survived vicious partner violence?

Nah! It’s a journo mate of DPF’s, perhaps even a male one.

And some of the new posters are the journo’s journo mates chiming in for a laugh.

I liked them better when they smoked, boozed, chased women and were still called reporters.

Jack5 also reckons he knows her background:

But back on track. Tara’s is not a working-class, or former working-class (written) voice, in IMHO, and I know about these. And if you think working class origin is something to be ashamed of you are a snob.I think therefore that someone has created this persona.

From Ruth:

I doubt anyone really cares who Tara is. The stereotype of Maori early school leaver, freezing worker, abusive husband, DPB is too ‘pat’ to be true.

And:

I agree ... about the author being a middle class writer pretending to be on the DPB. The stereotyping is hootingly risible – something maybe an Intermediate School kid would write.

One Alan Wilkinson (at least he uses his real name) writes in response to another comment:

...if you think a South Auckland Maori DPB mother would write this you have led too sheltered a life.

A poster called Manolo manages to slam the Evil Left, South Auckland and beneficiaries at the same time as questioning Tara’s life story:

I don’t believe a word of this. Tara’s story is as real as the honesty of the Labour Party.

Stereotypes aside, do you expect a South Auckland beneficiary to write and communicate with the eloquence and style Tara has demostrated? Not in a lifetime.

The whole thing is a prank created by DPF and his mates.

That’s the problem when you put stereotypes aside: they just walk straight back in the front door.

It’s no surprise that few of the people posting this garbage do so under their real names. If their friends, workmates, or family members really knew what hatred seared the souls of these people they would probably recoil in horror.

Since many others on Kiwiblog have been quick to offer patronising advice to the little girlie, here's my Take Home for Tara:

• Don’t agree to be a guest poster on a reactionary right-wing site catering to angry white men, unless you’re a reactionary right-wing angry white man.


• Don’t go there. Insults and personal abuse are the tools of trolls. Walk away. Even poking a stick at a troll can be dangerous.

Writing your own obituary: is this goodbye?

One of the most intelligent and thoughtful bloggers is Poneke.

Or should that be "was"? This was posted last week:

Most of what I published here depended on my being in Wellington every day and seeing what was going on, what people were interested in, and what the big issues were. I got out and about, interviewed people, and published their stories on this blog. I put it into historical context. After all, I am a journalist, and my university studies in the 1980s trained me in history and political science.

However, as must be obvious, I am not here any more. Poneke is the original Maori transliteration for the British settler name given to Wellington, Port Nicholson. It is somewhat strange, and possibly even duplicitous, to name a blog Poneke’s Weblog when its author has moved on.

It has been great fun blogging...

He's not definitely finished, but we shouldn't hold our breath for a return to active duties. It seems that his site will remain as a memorial. Poneke's demise (if that's what it is) will be a sad loss for the NZ blogging scene. There are hundreds of sites spewing bile or uninformed opinion on all sides of the political spectrum. Poneke was/is a rarity: thoughtful, intelligent and informed.

Feeding Frenzy On DPF

I wrote last night that The Standard appears to have no sense of humour.

The outrage generated over this effort by Kiwiblog's David Farrar is a good example.

As a satirist Farrar is not exactly the master, so the folk at The Onion don't need to start looking for new jobs just yet.

And obviously any attempt at satire that involves references to abortion will always be offensive to some. It's a bit like basing a satire on the Holocaust - it could be done, but it's a brave soul who would dare to attempt it.

But it was a satire. It may not have been clever or funny, but does that make DPF a monster?

How is this for satire?

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

Oh look, it even mentions the forbidden word:

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

The writer was of course Jonathan Swift, the greatest satirist who ever lived. This particular satire, entitled A Modest Proposal, is a work of genius.

DPF is no such genius. But there is nothing evil about his piece. People may not agree with the point he was trying to make (and I certainly don't). But attack the ideas, not the man.

A satire isn't wrong just because someone doesn't agree with the point being made.

Now back to preparing my crockpot meal...

Blog Update

With a number of guests posting on Kiwiblog while David Farrar suns it up in Hawaii (presumably four days of moderating his site has exhausted him), I had hoped that something interesting might occur.

No - just the same flamewars. One guest actually had an interesting life story: on the DPB and trying to get off it. That wasn't good enough for the almost-entirely-white-angry-male audience, who demeaned her, attacked her, or provided patronising "advice".

The only interesting thing to occur there in recent weeks there is the apparent "outing" of the infamous Redbaiter.

Otherwise it's business as usual. Don't bother going there unless you have time to waste. Other more civic minded folk are keeping an eye on the behaviour of the KB community for you.

******

Still, is The Standard any better? It doesn't seethe with quite the same level of bile or hatred towards those who are different, but the various contributors are like attack dogs trying to rip the throat of the Government.

Like any forced propaganda, it becomes tedious after a while. Memo to The Standard - a little humour and irony wouldn't go amiss. The relentless angry ranting has become boring.

Tongan King Plays Soldiers In Scotland

The Tongan people worship their royal family.

Unfortunately, they have not always been served well by their monarchs.

Tonga is in mourning over last week's sinking of the ferry Princess Ashika. It is hard to imagine a more awful catastrophe to befall such a small nation. Over 90 people are feared dead, and the bodies of those missing may never be recovered.

The King of Tonga, George Tupou V, decided to go on holiday two days after the catastrophe. He is on his way to Scotland, and will attend the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, where he is a guest of honour.

According to the Herald the King can't now cancel his holiday:

Despite being aware of the unfolding tragedy, King Siaosi (George) Tupou V left for Scotland on Friday for an extended holiday that Tongan Prime Minister Feleti Sevele later told reporters could not be cancelled.

Why not? What is stopping the King from getting the next flight out?

Nothing.

I've done the planning for him. If he can get to London (and Edinburgh has dozens of flights to London each day), he can be home on Thursday morning. Here's my suggested itinerary:


It may be a bit small to read, but he goes from London to LA, then on to Nuku´alofa. He would touch down at 8.15am Tonga time, on Thursday.

And he won't be slumming it - it's business class all the way.

So why doesn't he go home?

It's not because he can't: it's because he doesn't want to. The King is a avid military buff, and the Military Tattoo is no doubt the only thing he's concerned about at present. He's known to like wearing uniforms, and he attended the Sandhurst Military Academy.

I know it's not the done thing to criticise the royal family in Tonga, but this is a disgrace. The King needs to be at home, not playing soldiers in Scotland.

I might add that the sooner the royal family gets booted out of Tonga the better. But them I'm an ardent republican, so my view might be a bit coloured.

The Tongans will probably always revere their royals. But the King is doing everything he can to lose what little respect the rest of the world has for him.

On Failure And The All Blacks

When the All Blacks lose matches the reactions are always fun to watch (even if watching the actual loss is as painful as having nails driven into your eyeballs).

There will always be an article about what a nation of failures we are. The Herald on Sunday obliges.

Look at those Aussies. Don't they do well? Why do we fail at every World Cup? What wrong with us?

Dare I say it, but does the way the public reacted in 2007 to the All Blacks' exit from the World Cup suggest we are maturing as a nation? I remember still the seething hatred and anger in 1999 and 2003, but in '07 I didn't feel it. Disappointment, naturally. But life continued.

And why continuously beat ourselves up over how well Australia does? Is it because we have a massive inferiority complex and can't bear to think of our bigger neighbours doing better than us?

I love a bit of transtasman rivalry as much as anyone else. But I don't lie awake at night worrying about our sports teams, whether Crowded House was a Kiwi or Australian band, or whether Russell Crowe is ours or theirs (they can have him).

The other thing that comes with an All Blacks loss is garbage from the mouths of defensive and embattled coaches. After telling the public that Dan Carter was only a possibility, and that they would not be rushing him back into the All Blacks, they have... rushed him back into the All Blacks. You can't believe a word that Mr Henry says.

If Dan Carter isn't the staring number 10 against the Wallabies I'll eat my hat.

A Tax By Any Other Name?

The Government has announced a review of the electricity sector, according to the Herald.

One of the biggest problems is lack of competition:

Mr Brownlee said there were problems with the structure of the industry in New Zealand. "I think if we do things right we'll see a greater amount of competition in the retail area."

The State is the biggest player in the electricity generation business by far, as it owns a large number of power generation companies. It's hard to see how the Nats can increase competition when they are at the same time demanding higher rates of return from these companies.

The demand for higher dividends, driven by a huge budget deficit, is why prices keep rising. That the deficit is so high is partly due to tax cuts.

How are you enjoying spending your tax cut on the power bill?

Telethon: No Charity For Defence Lawyers

Now that the Telethon has finished and raised almost $2 million, hundreds of z-list celebrities will have to find something else to do.

The first Telethon I actually remember was in 1981. That year they were raising funds for the International Year of the Child. Back then they held the Auckland event at the Town Hall. We queued for what seemed like hours before getting in, got shunted into some temporary seats, had people shoving money buckets in our faces every two minutes, saw very little of what was going on, then got told to shuffle off again. Magic!

But Telethon was the big news, mostly because there really wasn't anything else to do. No internet, no Playstation, almost no weekend shopping, and only two TV channels.

This Telethon seemed to bring out all sorts of different people, from the really awful youth singing groups, to the really awful youth dancing groups.

And our PM was there, of course, grinning like a fool, being chummy with various sports stars. He seems to delight in being anywhere near an All Black. He clearly enjoys being around a team that looked so promising last year but has since failed to put anything together.

Even so, he probably thinks it's nice to get away from his own party for a while.

******

I suppose this story was inevitable.

However loathsome Weatherston may be, he still had the right to defend himself in court.

I don't know whose idea it was to go for provocation. Given how things turned out, it obviously wasn't the right call. Weatherston may well come to regret his demeanour in the witness box when it comes time to sentence him.

That doesn't mean the defence lawyers are to blame. I wonder if they were mortified at his antics in front of the jury. Or was it some desperate gamble to convince the jury that Weatherston's narcissism was so severe it was a mitigating factor?

It doesn't matter. It does matter if people are harassing the guy's lawyers, though. They were just doing a job.

Did Nat MP Murder A Teddy Bear?

I have just looked back at my last couple of posts. I've been grumpy this week. Sorry about that.

This story at least brought me some joy, and a little sadness.

I was born in the '70s, and still have vivid memories of Play School.

And the Play School clock, now unearthed, taught me how to tell the time.

But the most shocking revelation from the story is that Little Ted is dead.

Missing is Little Ted.

The bear's head was blown off in an explosion on the last day of filming. Former presenter Jacqui Dean, now a National MP but then known as Jacqui Hay, was quick to deny any responsibility for Little Ted's fate this week.

"I had nothing to do with it."

Who is responsible for this dastardly deed?

Teddy-Gate deserves a full public enquiry.

Oh Dear, Dear Leader

Maybe North Korea's reclusive leadership have got it right. Because, judging by Key's recent efforts in the public arena, it might be better if he just went into hiding.

Here are two reasons why our own Dear Leader should adopt Kim's approach of never being seen in public.


First Oops: Climate Change Denial Mask Slips

John Key in a speech on Tuesday, said about climate change activist, actress Keisha Castle-Hughes:

"My advice to Keisha is this: Stick to acting."

Keisha's passion is admirable. She's a young woman who deserves respect for taking an interest in the planet and the environment.

Key's snarky comment merely illustrates what many of us suspect: his heart's not really in this climate change lark. Yes, of course he's required to mouth the appropriate platitudes, and of course he's committed to tackling the problem blah blah blah...

But fine words are not followed by fine deeds. And occasionally he lets the mask drop.

Here's what Key said in Parliament in 2005 on climate change:

This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem. Even if it is a problem, it will be delayed for about 6 years. Then it will hit the world in 2096 instead of 2102, or something like that. It will not work.

He has since claimed he now believes man-assisted climate change is occurring. But Key doesn't strike me as a man who holds strong beliefs about anything. He's a man who claims he couldn't even remember how he felt about the 1981 Springbok tour.

So why should we believe the view he holds in 2009 is any different to the view he enunciated in Parliament in 2005?

Key has refused to meet Castle-Hughes. You might ask why he is always eager to be photographed with All Blacks, but won't meet a well-known actor.

I suspect the real actor in all of this is Key.

Second Oops: Fiji People Power Be Damned

When Key was asked this week what he thought of the call by Niuean Premier Toke Talagi for the people of Fiji to rise up against the military regime, he said:

"You can't have a good coup and a bad coup."

Sorry, John, but a popular uprising is not a coup by any normal definition.

Wikipedia defines a coup d'état as:

the sudden deposition of a legitimate government, usually by a small group of the State Establishment — typically the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military.

Never mind that Key has no idea what a coup actually is. What business does he have telling the people of Fiji not to take popular action? Does he think the military rulers will just hand over power when they get bored of it?

While I can understand why New Zealand might not officially sanction or overtly support a popular movement, do we have to actively discourage one?

Bored Of Expenses-Gate

At the risk of patting myself on the back, may I just remind my reader(s?) that I told you this would happen. From my post of 30 July:

The unfortunate thing about the expenses scandal (for it will become a scandal - Kiwis are too mean to see how modestly our MPs are remunerated) is that a number of hardworking MPs are about to be asked unfair questions, and have their expenses examined out of context. Talkback radio callers will be foaming, Right blogs will cite Labour's extravagance, and Left blogs will accuse the Nats and Act of hypocrisy. And it will all become so dreadfully tedious and petty.

And so it came to pass. There's a great deal of envy in some of the comments being made about the money politicians make, and their expenses entitlements. But it's actually quite simple: if you want the best people you pay them well. That also means paying their expenses.

That's something most successful businesses and large public sector organisations understand. Our MPs may earn a lot when compared with the average wage. But if you were to compare an MP to a senior manager in a large corporate, a cabinet minister to a company director of that same corporate, and the PM to its CEO, you would find they were underpaid.

Before you jump, I know what some of you will say: government is not a business. Well that's all very well, but the expectations we have of politicians in terms of delivering effective policies, implementing successful change and increasing national performance, are really not so different to the expectations the shareholders of a company have of their board.

Not only that, but there are more than a few in the public sector earning big money.

And politicians are under pressure to perform. If they don't perform they get booted out: there's no job security. If you knew you might be out of a job after three years and would have to find another career, might you not want just a bit more money to make it worthwhile? Would that be unreasonable? Hardy.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay doctors, teachers and nurses more. Of course we should. But let's stop whining about how much our politicians earn.

And that's not to excuse any and every expenses claims. For example, legitimate questions may be asked about what exactly Bill English was doing and why. But if we want our top people to aspire to positions of leadership we need to reward them. They understand this in the business world and in the public sector. Why are politicians different?

The Standard Provides A Gift To The Right

The Left in this country tell themselves that they're decent, honest people and that they don't stoop to dirty tricks.

We all know about the awful things those terrible rightwing bloggers publish. And Investigate magazine seems to exist solely as an excuse to sniff through other peoples' dirty laundry (when it's not in Jesus/creationism/climate change denial mode)

So if someone told you a blogsite had published the address of a prominent MP you'd immediately think "that prick Whaleoil's at it again."

But you'd be wrong. because the culprit is The Standard, and the victim is Bill English.

No doubt after a sudden feeling of conscience they decided to remove the minister's address, but the author of the post in question has left a nice set of clues to ensure anyone who wants to find the address can do so in about five minutes.

The excuses for publication are as dishonest as they are inaccurate:

The public have a right to know where English claims to reside.

WRONG. Not the actual address. A suburb would have sufficed. Why the street name and number?

If someone puts personal information in the public domain, then it is legitimate for someone else to republish it.

WRONG. How many people know how to access the information? Lawyers, accountants and some professionals know how to access Companies Office records, but who else?

He chose to publish his address. He could have put down his solicitor's details.

WRONG. He was complying with his legal obligations. Here's what section 12(2) of the Companies Act 1993 says about an application to incorporate a company:

Without limiting subsection (1) of this section, the application must state—

(a) The full name and address of each applicant; and

(b) The full name and residential address of every director of the proposed company; and

(c) The full name and residential address of every shareholder of the proposed company, and the number of shares to be issued to every shareholder; and

(d) The registered office of the proposed company; and

(e) The address for service of the proposed company.

[emphasis added]

So what? Who checks these things? Why don't you ask David Parker that? Remember the shit the Labour cabinet minister got himself in when he was alleged to have committed a minor breach of the Companies Act? It was alleged that he filed an annual return when he hadn't complied with all of the Act's requirements. He resigned over the matter. So why would English risk a breach?

This is a spectacular own-goal by the Left. I can think of no good reason why the public needs to know where English lives, other than so people can harass and intimidate his family.

"I Will Destroy You!"

Is this a warning to the West?

Or is Mad Vlad auditioning to be the next James Bond?

Taken from his recent Siberian holiday.

When World Leader Deathmatch finally begins I know who I'm putting my roubles on.

A Book List - And I Fail The Literati Test

The Times has a list of the top 60 novels from the last 60 years.

I like lists like this. They're highly subjective, and you could argue for hours over them.

I've reproduced the list below. What surprises me is how few of them I've read. I've coloured in red those I have read.

1949 Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
1950 The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, C. S. Lewis
1951 The Catcher in the Rye, J. D. Salinger [can't believe I've still not read this]
1952 Pigs Have Wings, P. G. Wodehouse
1953 Casino Royale, Ian Fleming [a good read, but not his best Bond novel. From Russia With Love was in my view his best, but I also enjoyed the silliness of Goldfinger and Dr No]
1954 Lord of the Flies, William Golding
1955 Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov
1956 The Hundred and One Dalmatians, Dodie Smith
1957 Doctor Zhivago, Boris Pasternak
1958 Our Man in Havana, Graham Greene
1959 The Leopard, Giuseppe di Lampedusa [God I'm an ignorant savage. Never even heard of this one]
1960 To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
1961 Catch 22, Joseph Heller
1962 The Golden Notebook, Doris Lessing
1963 The Bell Jar, Sylvia Plath
1964 Funeral in Berlin, Len Deighton [I read this and was not inspired]
1965 Dune, Frank Herbert [entertaining enough, but no way does it deserve to be on any list like this]
1966 Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys
1967 Towards the End of the Morning, Michael Frayn
1968 2001, Arthur C. Clarke
1969 The French Lieutenant’s Woman, John Fowles
1970 Play it as it Lays, Joan Didion [never heard of this one too. Back to school for me]
1971 Americana, Don DeLillo
1972 Watership Down, Richard Adams [the saddest book I ever read. But I was only about eight. The film gave me nightmares for months. Poor widdle wabbits all died]
1973 Crash, J. G. Ballard
1974 Fear of Flying, Erica Jong
1975 Salem’s Lot, Stephen King
1976 Even Cowgirls get the Blues, Tom Robbins
1977 A Scanner Darkly, Philip K. Dick
1978 The World According to Garp, John Irving [started well but then became tedious. Like most Irving books I've read]
1979 Smiley’s People, John le Carré
1980 Earthly Powers, Anthony Burgess
1981 Lanark, Alasdair Gray
1982 The House of the Spirits, Isabel Allende
1983 Waterland, Graham Swift
1984 Money, Martin Amis
1985 Love in The Time of Cholera, Gabriel Garcia Marquez
1986 Tourist Season, Carl Hiaasen [another one I've never heard of]
1987 More Die of Heartbreak, Saul Bellow
1988 Mother London, Michael Moorcock
1989 Sexing the Cherry, Jeannette Winterson
1990 Get Shorty, Elmore Leonard
1991 The Famished Road, Ben Okri
1992 The Secret History, Donna Tartt
1993 Trainspotting, Irvine Welsh
1994 How Late it Was, How Late, James Kelman
1995 Northern Lights, Philip Pullman
1996 Angela's Ashes, Frank McCourt [am reading this at present - God it's grim]
1997 Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, J. K. Rowling [was this the best 1997 could do?]
1998 The Wind-up Bird Chronicle, Haruki Murakami
1999 Disgrace, J. M. Coetzee
2000 The Blind Assassin, Margaret Atwood
2001 The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen
2002 Atonement, Ian McEwan
2003 The Time Traveler’s Wife, Audrey Niffenegger
2004 The Line of Beauty, Alan Hollinghurst
2005 Twilight, Stephenie Meyer
2006 The Road, Cormac McCarthy
2007 A Thousand Splendid Suns, Khaled Hosseini [oops, never heard of this one either]
2008 Netherland, Joseph O’Neill
2009 The Little Stranger, Sarah Waters

That's less than a third I've read. How will I hold my head up in literary circles?

How did you do?