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.

People should have known a long time ago politicians only serve themselves

After a recent trip to the Manurewa area, it could not be clearer that Louisa Wall is not a voice for her voters. Of the fifty people which were asked whether her marriage amendment bill was representative of what her voters believed in, thirty seven said no. Had it not been for her high placement within the Labour Party during the 2011 election, that huffing piglet Maryan Street would not even be in Parliament, yet she wants to push forth a Bill on Euthanasia, with a biting intolerance towards anyone who questions it, even those who vote for her. Russell Norman and Meteria Turei want to legalise drugs which destroy minds and ruin peoples' lives. Is there any politician who speaks for the people? Winston Peters was thought to have been that person, until he got found out for lying to the public about private donations made to his party by wealthy businessman Owen Glenn.

What people want is a public servant who can tell the truth for a start. Mr. Slippery is a famed expert at talking about everything except the question put to him. People want somebody they feel will give them a voice. Politicians these days lack in this area severely. Isn't their main job to be a public servant? To speak for the people within their respective electorate should be the most important task seen to. Most politicians pretend to be concerned about the problems people have. Much time has passed since New Zealand has had an honest, reliable, consistent, passionate MP who speaks for their voters. No, politicians today are all in it for themselves.

Or has someone flown in under the radar?

Neil Armstrong is one small man, who leaves behind a legacy of exploration

“That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.” Ever since he used that expression to describe the achievement. Neil Armstrong has become immortalised as one of the most iconic figures in modern history. Lauded as an All American hero, he remained unusually solitary and remote, rarely giving interviews focusing instead on his career and work. Armstrong’s recent passing once again brought back (with a burning flame) moon landing conspiracy theorists to once again come forth with venom to dismiss the moon landing as a hoax. For all the claims these people make, Armstrong denies it being a staged hoax. In the interviews given, his answers were too lucidly detailed, honesty too forthright, with the stories he told about travelling through space too honest and truthful to raise any suspicion. Dismissing Armstrong as a liar or fraud is merely tall poppy syndrome. He remains an iconic figure and deservedly so.

During a speech to Congress in 1961, United States President John F. Kennedy said one goal to achieve before the end of the decade is “To put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of the 1960s.” http://www.space.com/11774-jfk-speech-moon-exploration-kennedy-congress-50years.html With fierce competition in space exploration coming from Cold War rivals United Soviet Socialist Republic, the pressure was on the Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop infrastructure, ground control and refine the Apollo Spaceship technology enough to successfully ensure a safe trip to the moon. NASA largely recruited Astronauts from the Defence Forces, inviting pilots, senior officers, as well as anyone willing enough to put their name forth. From the men who signed along the dotted line was a test pilot, Neil Alden Armstrong. After ten Apollo space voyages to determine all the technical aspects required from ground control alongside the working astronauts in Space, Apollo 11 was finally ready to be established. On July 16, 1969, Neil Armstrong, alongside Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, and Michael Collins piloted man’s first official trip to the moon.

After speaking those famous words, Neil Armstrong, alongside Buzz Aldrin walked around on the moon, jumped up and down in elation, drove a lunar vehicle around in addition to collecting samples of moon rocks. A pity for the cheese lovers though, who received nothing for their unwavering devotion. Those rock samples are a major dent to the conspiracy theorists. All collected samples were tested and confirmed to have been ‘non-earthly’ to put it plainly. The astronauts were welcomed back as heroes, with each man’s life forever changed by their achievement. Media outlets were raring to get interviews from each man, so that millions of interested people could know what exactly it felt like to be on the moon. “How did it feel?” “What was it like being so far away from earth?” “Were you scared?” People vicariously began to experience the sensations of being a moon walker themselves through the masterful story telling from Armstrong. Do not think that all the fame and glamour of being a national hero turned Armstrong into a gregarious go getter. “I am, and always will be, a white socks, pocket-protector nerdy engineer,” he says.
To farewell the first man on the moon is indeed very sad. Armstrong spoke with passion and conviction. He was not someone who minced his words, always giving an account which was accurately detailed, yet simple enough for everyone to relate to. He became a reluctant hero yet carried it with a grace and elegance many people could not handle. In the Defence Forces they tell you that two the two cardinal sins in the military are putting yourself ahead of your unit and lying. Armstrong was no liar. What did he stand to gain from repeatedly lying to the American public about the moon landing? To this day, every myth put forth by conspiracy theorists has been discredited or proven false. A more prominent testing of moon landing hoax theories have been conducted by Mythbusters Adam Savage and Jamie Heinemann. In conjunction with NASA, they disproved the theories of the flapping flag, the alleged fake pictures, and the clear footprints left by Armstrong and Aldrin. A recent photo has also been released by NASA shown below confirms that the material left behind still rests safely.

Neil Armstrong was an asset to the world, an honest man brave enough to venture into the unknown to help further man’s understanding of the solar system and universe. He went on to achieve many more great things in his life but will always be remembered as the first man to walk on the moon. Goodbye Mr. Armstrong and thank you for inspiring a generation of people to challenge their own boundaries, to pursue their dreams. Above all, thank you for creating a general interest in space exploration, which is now extending out to the other planets in the solar system.

The best thing about blogs, they just keep going

The best thing about blogs, they just keep going

Can that Slithering Len Brown creature do anything right?

Has that soppy creature Leonard Brown learned anything from his endless Mayoral mistakes? Roads are still clogged with frustrated motorists, public transport remains shambolic, underground electricity cabling is being installed yet pavements remain squalid and uneven, rates continue to rise unfairly for everyone. Auckland is a diabolical experiment of an universal order, which has provided nothing but mediocrity for the masses.

Public transport was a hot issue. Conservative leader Colin Craig wanted to hear the local people's ideas in combating traffic. John Banks and Leonard Brown whipped up a typical "buy votes" politician answer, assuring concerned motorists improvements would be made. Alas, it was not to be. Auckland, for all the road projects which endlessly take place have not solved anything. Traffic flow has progressively gotten worse, with off ramps clogging up back roads with a foolish "one light per green"

system being one of the worst contributors. It isn't difficult for workers on road projects to be deployed during a time when congestion isn't suffocating everyone. Public transport hasn't yet been addressed and rather than seeking realistic goals, Mr. Brown holds the view trains will address the problem. As passionate as he may be, it remains a sturdy pipe dream. Upgrading access to Buses and making each ride more affordable will help deter people from commuting, restore their faith in public transport. Maybe the current situation with soaring petrol prices may push people enough to move towards using buses.

Strange that underground electricity cabling work can be underway, yet pavements cannot be fixed. Walkers, runners, cyclists, mothers with prams, all sorts continually vent frustration towards the inferior pavements Auckland possesses. One of the most livable cities nothing. Rather than address the basic problems with the city, the mush head creature of a Mayor prefers to appear sophisticated by introducing work which merely makes workers look busy. A cities greatest pride should be a clean, modern appearance, safe as well as secure. Auckland hasn't been rattled by any serious earthquakes at all within recent times, so why give everyone else such an impression to the world? Every single day people are trying to exercise and yet the mediocre sidewalks the Brown creature provides provide an ample training ground for cuts, grazes and scratches. Does fixing pavements cost a lot or consume a large amount of time? Absolutely not. Certainly not as long as those lazy workers are taking on the installment of the electricity grids. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter or priority. If Leonard thinks sidewalks are irrelevant, that all people are as lazy and incompetent as him, by all means continue squandering ever increasing rates income on expensive, time consuming projects. Or, attempt listening to all the concerned users of the sidewalk so that injuries from tripping over dodgy surface designs is reduced.

The slimy creature Leonard Brown will be unlikely to see another term in office. Hopefully people know now that if you Vote Brown you get a mouthful of risible excuses.

Fighting a stupid foreign war isn't going to achieve anything. Bring the Troops home

There is a major problem with the Afghanistan war. In the last twelve months, more members of the New Zealand Defence Forces have lost their lives than any other time since deployment began. It wasn't until mid 2010 New Zealand suffered its first casualty from the war. Today, three more people lost their lives fighting a battle saturated with idealism, dripping with lies. Afghanistan has become a battle New Zealand should no longer be a part of. The Taliban poses very little threat to such a remote, distant Island nation. Leave America to fight stupid wars, the time to bring home the troops is now.

George Bush began spinning a fairy tale of deceit, claiming the war in Afghanistan to the only way to prevent terrorists from causing further damage to western civilization. Anthony Blair was easily persuaded and soon the British Army was out in full support. Rather than deter terrorists from committing heinous crimes, it served as a motivator. Here were deployments of Armies, willingly venturing into enemy territory, attempting to capture Osama Bin Laden, along with other radicals. The first New Zealand deployment to Afghanistan was with the Special Ari Service in 2001, with regular forces moving in in 2003. Soldiers worked on four month rotations, mainly conducting peacekeeping operations, while the Special Air Service conducted operations and raids behind enemy lines. While soldiers in the larger Armies began dropping fast and quick, New Zealand stayed under the radar, continuing the rather un-glamorous tasks of conducting foot patrols to reassure locals, as well as handing out aid packages.

To have not suffered any casualties until 2010 is amazing. Had it not been for the heroics of (former) Corporal Bill Henry "Willie" Apiata, New Zealand would have suffered loss of life in 2004. Facing heavy enemy fire, Apiata carried his comrade across 75 metres of heavy enemy assault so that the person could receive vital first aid, which proved the difference. He lives on to tell the tale. The sad truth of one year of maintaining troops inside this war torn nation is grim. Eight troops have died in the last year alone, two of them SAS soldiers http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5482313/New-details-as-killed-soldier-identified. When the news broke this morning of three soldiers killed in action, some serious questions towards the necessity to even be in Afghanistan were brought up. Afghanistan is a hunting ground for mass murderers; little regard for life is a cornerstone for each and every terrorist looming around.

John Key, Murray McCully and Wayne Mapp have some serious questions to answer. Why are the troops still roaming around in very dangerous areas, completely vulnerable to attacks such as roadside bombs?http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14594994/taliban-trying-to-hunt-down-kiwis/ Nothing has come of the extended period within Afghanistan. Every passing day gives Al Qaeda a chance to murder more of New Zealand's finest and bravest young men and women. One cannot help but feel sympathy for those forced into an idealistic battle, a losing cause. Leaders who send them abroad do so in the hope it'll bolster an image a Government full of patriotism . On the contrary, it merely sends them out into the field as target practice. Think any politician could manage a day on foot patrol in Kabul? Neither. Mr. Key says withdrawing the Troops would take months and is really not worth the effort because apparently it "wouldn't be sensible, it wouldn't be practical and it wouldn't be right.We made a commitment. I don't think we are the type of country that cuts and runs." Mr. Key seems quite content to continue allowing a country to go on fighting a losing battle, squandering millions of dollars in taxpayer money for a war which poses no direct threat to New Zealand.

What value is New Zealand getting out of fighting in Afghanistan? Everyday families of soldiers live life in angst that someone close to them may fall next. Helping other countries is not a reasonable answers. Maintaining a healthy relationship with America can be achieved without spilling kiwi blood over it. If Lieutenant General Rhys Jones were asked that question, he'd likely deliver a cliched "doing it for freedom" answer. A proper assessment of the situation needs to happen now. War is a dangerous, risky and very lethal event and neither Mr. Key or Mr. Jones can give proper answers as to the reasons behind New Zealand's operations over there, they shouldn't be playing the "we're blindly loyal" card. Loyalty to a good cause is commendable. Being loyal to a cause you know will end in defeat spells out "odd" from earth and "Nutter" from Space.

Why should New Zealand remain in Afghanistan? It's not for a cause anyone in New Zealand believes in? Nobody is benefiting from constantly living in fear a roadside bomb may spell the end. People need to be resolute they do not want New Zealand's bravest throwing stones at the enemies' tank. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not phased at all by New Zealand presence and will barely notice the Military's withdrawal. Leaving now will settle the dust. No peace has been achieved over there, so why should anyone think peace will come in the next nine months? Risking lives to hand out Aid Packages is not worth the loss of life, nor was it what the brave soldier's died for. They died fighting an war they knew they could never win. Enough already. Bring the troops home.