Let us help the children.

It has become an worrying trend. Ever since David Shearer announced a breakfast in school plan, something seemed out of place. Not neccessarily Labour proposing such a high spending, half constructed idea or National's ability to swiftly dismiss it as "not our fault." The idea of children going to school without breakfast in New Zealand-for all its socialist policies-is absolutely outrageous. Solely blaming parents for not managing personal finances properly cannot be the cause. Every year, statistics released point to more children arriving at school hungry and in need of a satiating meal. Her majesty Michael Cullen invented a tax system which crucified their contingency of voters; Princess Simon English has succeeded the Cullen critter by inventing an even more ridiculous tax system which continues to penalise lower income families with a higher level of GST, across the board. Meanwhile, Helen and John continue to smile as if everything is alright, when it isn't. 270,000 New Zealand children currently sit in poverty. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10835462



The biggest hurdle which prevents many families from properly addressing their financial strains is having such a repulsive tax system, creating a large dependency on handouts, or food parcels for those who cannot feed their families on what's given to them. Lower income earner currently pay 12.2 cents (including ACC levy) for every $1 of income earned up to $14,000. http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html Assuming somebody is working for such a paltry salary, it equates to $1708 of income put into hands of politicians who inform you that to get it back, you must register for Working for families. A complete nightmare, Working for Families currently costs $2,600,000,000 (fully typed just to give you an indication), of hard working New Zealanders income, much of which is returned to the taxpayer themselves. Instead of keeping that extra $1708 of income, each person must fill out a large amount of paperwork, as well as standing in line, to receive a handout which ought not to be handed out. Labour enjoy exercising authoritarian measures when in power. National has followed on in a similar way, saying they'll give people more personal responsibility. Many parents would prefer having an extra $32 in their pocket, which is satisfactory enough to buy food to feed hungry children. Weet-Bix is $4.99 for 1kg at Countdown; Bananas $3 per kg; Homebrand jam $3.09; some Signature brand toast to put it on, $3. Young  kiwi children will never go hungry at breakfast with these basic food items in the pantry. So why doesn't Labour admit they got it wrong in overtaxing, or National admit they made a mistake in their tax system? Try put it to them. Especially Helen, John, Michael and William.

If breakfast in schools is to remain a common policy, there is nothing wrong with that. One has to take into account that many young children have parents who are largely neglectful of basic personal needs their children have. Launching the breakfast in schools plan is a sensible idea, provided each parent is paying for their child's meal, rather than the sugar daddy sitting in the hot tub. It once again comes down to personal responsibility. Many young New Zealand families struggle financially and nobody who is well off can point the finger at Pacific Islander and Maori families and say they've got is easy. Many of them work long hours on minimum wage, barely generating enough to pay for the absolute necessities in life. Providing a breakfast in schools program on a scheme which automatically deducts $10 a week from a parents income enables a child to eat a proper breakfast and gives parents a sense of empowerment that they are providing for their offspring. After all, "if kids are hungry they can't learn." http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/east-bays-courier/7736157/Providing-balance

While it is tempting to rant about the useless job the politicians, this would be a deterrent from the main focus- helping to properly nourish the future generation of New Zealand. One of the simplest ways to help is going dumpster diving. Many supermarkets, bakeries, even coffee shops throw away large amounts of good food. Much of what is retrieved can be donated towards any schools who have hungry children. For someone who is looking to be part of a more established, practical source, look no further. A brilliant scheme created by Di Celliers, has people going to backyards and orchards and picking any excess fruit which is growing on the trees. So much fruit has been collected, schools currently on the roster have been overwhelmed by how many apples, mandarins, or grapefruits they receive. The Community Fruit Harvesting, which Celliers runs, also produces an array of jams; great for the morning slice of toast. Their Facebook page can be found in the following linkhttps://www.facebook.com/pickfruit?ref=ts&fref=ts. For the more discreet, of course there are donations which can be made. Be very suspicious of any government funded plan though.

It should never have come to this. Children do not deserve to go to school hungry on account of a shambolic tax system and neglectful parents. With some steady help and an outreach from the community, the future of New Zealand will continue to enjoy a delicious breakfast.

Keep any United States Army base off New Zealand soil

There is an increasing air of frustration coming from New Zealand people, as their small government repeatedly bends over backwards and submit themselves to being the lap dogs to a dying superpower. Now, with a recent interview on Q+A, interest has been expressed by US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to have United States troops based in New Zealand. The time has come for Mr. Slippery to say "thanks but no thanks."

New Zealand ought to think very carefully before considering any sort of offer from the United States, however honey soaked it may be. Economically, North Africa and the Middle East will start becoming suspicious of such a relationship, which will likely impact on the level of trade which happens. As it is, the economy is very dependent on exports as a source of GDP; losing business here would be a strike out.

Terrorist threat levels will also climb. Review the current countries which have suffered from terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, and an emerging pattern begins to become clearer. Each country has close ties, in some way, with the United States. Placing an Army base anywhere in New Zealand is a threat to the peace the island nation currently enjoys. Being a remote, distant country means nothing to radical terrorist cells, who will take on the challenge. They will have a target, a reason to attack, as well as a well constructed plan to carry it all out. Stand up and resist it. New Zealand people are tired of Americans pushing them around; they want to be able to get back to living life, without being under siege.

Another Day, another death sentence

Once again, New Zealand's finest young men and women depart to continue fighting a stupid foreign war. 140 personnel are part of the final operation to Afghanistan, for weird reasons only George Bush could ever understand properly in his utopia mindset. Almost everything being done by the troops is largely peacekeeping; handing out food parcels, giving away blankets, teaching young Afghan children to read and write. Politicians ought to go and do that. It'd be a far greater contribution to the nation then the stupid shouting sessions done down at the beehive.

Do not be surprised to hear about further deaths, prior to all troops are withdrawn next year in April. It is no longer a matter of "if it will happen," but rather "how long until it happens."

McCaw will make it to the next World Cup...as a commentator

Yes, this might surprise a few people who marvel at Richard McCaw (or Saint Richie for the cult of followers). A prolonged break away from rugby will not prolong his career enough to get him through to the next world cup. Unlike Brad Thorn, who has never suffered a major injury setback, McCaw has been plagued by a fair few, especially in the latter parts of his career. There is hope he will make it to London, as a commentator. Hobbling around against South Africa in Dunedin provided an indicator that the legendary flanker's body is now operating on sheer willpower.

The Duchess isn't the only person being stalked

Catherine Middleton was snapped (from afar) sunbathing topless by a French Magazine. Once again, it has caused a massive publicity circus to erupt over the whole debacle The Royal family had expressed their moral outrage over the invasion of privacy. What is becoming increasingly disturbing is not so much the occurrence of this one particular event but the increasing rate at which many people's personal lives are being followed by rather unwelcome people, be it lousy paparazzi for celebrities or governments and corporations for others.

People need to begin complaining regularly, often and loud enough to get the message through to these weird people. Having a stalker who will not leave you alone at all measures is absolutely terrifying, disgusting, but more importantly, it is against the law. If found guilty, these perverts who stalked the Princess may risk losing their jobs for a breach of protocol and may face further charges. It is not ironic they caught her topless. Whoever took the photo was standing roadside for that million dollar shot for quite a while. Be very wary of this stalker movement. Although celebrities are often on the receiving end in gossip magazines (which women foolishly fondle over), these scandals never used to occur often, or so regularly. Eli Wallach used to speak fondly of his great relationships with journalists and photographers in his early acting career, making friends with many of them.

High ranked politicians, judges and lawyers are currently working together, seeking to impose ways of monitoring the population more effectively. London has already partly achieved it by installing thousands of CCTV video cameras to monitor people's every move. Rather than admit it, the useless Tories and the Blair creature prefer to dismiss it as a means of protecting the people. Only a few independent minds are able to see through such half baked reasons (such as the brilliant Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens), for what it really is. Being able to track and monitor people. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

The examples about  ways in which Americans are being monitored have already been mentioned in previous posts. George Bush was eager to play a "for safety's sake" card in allowing himself access to phone tap land lines of all his citizens making overseas calls; luckily for many Americans, it was met with disapproval. Last year President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, a movement to relax the current laws against surveillance on private citizens. Keep a watch on this movement; if it does get brought in, it will be so gradual (almost lethargic), many will only realise when it's too late what has happened. http://www.infowars.com/surveillance-domestic-spying-and-invasion-of-privacy-in-post-sept-11-america/

Fight for freedom, fight for liberty. Take George Orwell's message about Big Brother  very seriously; don't let it seep into society. Ignore the people who give excuses for invading your privacy in the name of national security. Its a lie, much like everything else they say. 

Resist the Smartphone cult while you still can

Smartphones are becoming a part of modern culture. These revolutionary touchscreen gadgets are quickly developing a massive following, with many people joining the bandwagon, signing onto having one. Samsung, alongside Sony have begun competing with Apple in this very lucrative market. With more benefits, features and applications available than ever, what exactly is to cheer about these smartphones? Now that  a cult has been built around them, the dark sides have gone from being small cracks, to vast crevasses. People are more anti-social, rude, impolite, and cold in social situations than ever before. Nothing is wrong with having such a device. It's the manner in which people are using them. Pretty soon, no other phone options will exist, so resist this obsessive cult of the smartphone while it's still possible.

You have just met up with someone for coffee. The conversation is going great. The flat white swims down gratuitously, the baked food tasted great. Everything's going well, until this person whips out their smartphone. Never mind its brand or make, along with such an unexpected move. Mere boredom surely can't have brought about such a contemptible action. Abject, moronic excuses are often given to recipients of such rudeness but there is no excuse for lacking common etiquette. "Oh just give me a second" they say, pushing many buttons, as if the person in front of them lacks everything possible. More and more people are becoming infatuated with the idea about a smartphone being everything imaginable, completing a desire for happiness. Apple recently unveiled its IPhone 5, to rapturous applause. What's to cheer? More interrupted face to face conversations. Increasing masses who cannot resist the urge to whip out these blocks of metal every five seconds. Being told life is not complete without such a product. No, the modern movement of smartphones has become an evil mixing pot for anti-social behavior .

The people who possess habits like texting during conversations or in s social setting are not weirdos and may not ever be anti-social in many situations. Being so uncoourteous though is definietely a weirdo habit to have. What matters more? The right to give someone who is in front of you your undivided attention? Or childishly play around with your smart phone? Nobody wants to be ignored when in a real life scenario. Nothing is more humiliating than someone giving a piece of metal attention than a living, real and emotional human. It reduces the value the person places on the meeting with that person, preferring to stray away from interaction, instead choosing to be deliberately rude. What used to be taking a phone call has now become a text message bombardment, flicking through facebook, surfing the net, scanning around a photo gallery.

How degrading can it get when you're having a good conversation with someone and you have to stop because the person with you is not paying attention to you. If someone is having a face to face conversation, then suddenly turns their head to briefly chat with someone else, it'd be seen as an extreme lack of manners. Yet as this is done in bite size form, it doesn't seem to be so bothersome. The frightening thing is that people are becoming more indifferent towards people playing with smartphones in conversation. It's beginning to be seen as a normal thing to do. Is everyone a king, a president, an ambassador for their country? Is every text message, every facebook status update, every bloody email so important that it must be replied to in the middle of a conversation. A real life conversation is a commitment to the person in front of you; they've made sacrifices to be available to converse with you, the very least which can be done in return is demonstrating to that person you care enough to listen to whatever it is they have to say, without playing around on that stupid piece of metal every minute, second, hour of the talk.

Smartphones are the smart way to be anti-social. Catch people out who hold their head high and give excuses for being anti-social and rude. There is no excuse for bad manners and no reason why playing with a piece of metal should be seen as normal, alongside people being indifferent towards it. Try leaving the phone behind next time. You might find the conversation is a lot more enjoyable then being part of a cult which encourages weirdo behaviour.

Keep it at 18 so we can continue abusing it

It is fascinating how infatuated young people are about keeping the drinking age at 18, yet many other age groups would like to see the age limit put back to 20. Many would be abusing alcohol regardless of the age limit, irrespective of the bans on RTD's with more than 5% alcohol, against the wishes of people around them. Young New Zealanders are shining examples of a generation which is almost completely incapable of drinking in moderation. 'Keep the drinking age low so we can continue to show you how irresponsible we are,' seems to be their motto.Increasing the drinking age will not alleviate New Zealand of its drinking problems. Far from it, the problems will likely get worse in the University category, even though the stupid drinking games are well above sea level as it is. Raising the age will do something. Strip an eighteen or nineteen year old from buying booze for high school parties. Where does the problem with alcohol abuse begin the most? It begins with young high school students willfully picking up the habit by attending high school parties.

Leaving it at that, what are your views on the situation? Keep it at 18? Raise it to 20? Have a split purchasing age? What do you think the main problem is with New Zealands drinking culture? How would you go about solving the problem? Can it be fixed in the next year, decade, quarter century? What will it take to get the young generation drinking in moderation?

Euthanasia

Yes, here again lies a contentious topic, so here again, you the readers will get the chance to share your opinion on the view. Going to one hard sided opinion is possible, although it'll mean debating against people who love venturing off topic and using ad hominem arguments. So today, it comes to Euthanasia, in which a for argument will be given and then rebutted by the position against. If people want to share their one sided arguments against posts here, fear not, there will be upcoming posts. Some crude blogger too sly to reveal their identity wrote in the homosexual marriage comments "Perhaps in future, you may be interested in delving into greater detail, rather than making bold, but unbacked statements of position." To avoid receiving flimsy arguments from this person again, there will be a fair discussion from both sides outlining why people would want it to be legal and why there is a reason to keep it illegal.


Euthanasia should be legalised

Legalising Euthansia is ultimately down to a matter of choice. People have the right to decide when they should take their own life. It is a matter of personal choice. When someone is suffering immense amounts of pain or in a vegetable state of mind, that individual should be free to exercise freedom of choice to take their own life.

Why allow the pain to continue? Why continue to live in misery when one can "die with dignity." Maryan Street of the Labour party, who has advocated Euthanasia be legalised had the following to say. "For people who have been vibrant, self determined individuals throughout their life, seem to be lacking in compassion determining the end of their life." A lot of support has been drawn from this position that nobody should be coerced into the situation of being pressured into ending their life by anyone, but people who have the moral choice to end their lives do not want to have an impediment of legal prosecution being a threat to any doctor willingly executing such judgement.

Street further continues "it should be about compassion and it should be about dignity. It should be about people choosing to have their moment of exit." Why should people not be able to determine this outcome? After all, it is their life, one's own health, their well being, one's future, their struggle. Everything which promotes freedom to make personal choices should be done to help those who cannot physically look after themselves anymore should have the chance to end their lives.

Euthanasia should be kept illegal

Are people really becoming so soft in the mind that they lack the determination to follow through and battle on? Ms. Street does not actually realise how damaging the bill would be. It will become more widespread in use, more accepted as appropriate. Alex Schadenberg, who debated against Ms. Street, mentions a report which took place in Europe which discovered nearly one third of people who were euthanised had it done against their wishes.

A recent statistics poll was released, detailing the list of people who had committed suicide. An inquiry into why rates among teenagers was so high, led to a conclusion of not enough being done to prevent it from occurring. A strong urge from families who have lost loved ones as a result of suicide, plead that any sort of encouragement for suicide should be repelled. Euthanasia is a fancy word for voluntary suicide or submissive murder. Giving someone the permission to take your life in exchange for dying a painless death.

Many people feel the the social concern should be the main point of address. Don't allow people to voluntarily kill themselves but offer caring love and support through the difficult times. What if it is legalised? It will probably become more widespread like abortion. Young people who see their grandparents consent to being killed, will use it as a justifiable reason to end their own life painlessly. The repercussions are scarily predictable and according to those against the idea, should be kept illegal for that very reason.