The influence of Christianity in New Zealand

The other day there was an article in the North Shore times titled "Bible classes get the bash." At the heart of it were non-Christian parents (led by Peter Harrison), moaning and grumbling about "existing religious instruction being too exclusive" and how a Bible Class "does not reflect the multi-cultural profile of our country." http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/6780068/Bible-classes-get-a-bash
Mr. Harrison referred to the Bible as "some archaic document" and having a class "covering common values like tolerance, love and integrity." It seems like a class Mr Harrison would benefit immensely from as he displays none of those values in his interview. Nor does he realise how much of an impact Christianity has influenced New Zealand or how his ethics class is doomed to fail.

As an English Colony, New Zealand derived a lot of its law, lifestyle and traditions from Britain and British Culture. Peter Hitchens summarised it perfectly when he said "our laws, customs, traditions, language, music, architecture, diet, everything you care to name, these are all based upon Christianity." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig-thN-xxqI (He says this from 20.16-20.24). Mr Harrison has debated himself into a corner immediately by dismissing the Bible as some unnecessary obsolete text. So much of New Zealand's law, ethics and culture have Christian foundations. One of the things that is so sad to see from Mr Harrison is just how educated he is attempting to make himself appear, when he brings forth nothing more than a narrow minded, ignorant attitude about just how significant Christianity is in the foundations of our laws. "Thou shall not murder;" "Thou shall not steal;" "Love your neighbour as yourself;" "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." (Exodus 20:13, Exodus 20:15, Mark 12:31, Luke 6:31) These two moral laws and two guidelines are four of the many moral codes taken directly from Christianity and still very much as relevant in today's society as they were when written.

Mr Harrison's further claims that religious indoctrination "is too exclusive" and multiculturalism should come first. In that, he should be inspired by the occasion Jesus' invited the children to be with him, when his disciples were attempting to shoo them away. Mr. Harrison and the Non-Christian parents are the ones who are making these classes exclusive; so they ought to stop blaming everyone else for their own actions and start holding themselves accountable for this exclusivity. A true Christian church should never turn anyone away from attending their weekly services. They know it is imperative to stay true to 1 Peter 4:9 "Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling." Also 1 Thessalonians 5:15 "Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else." These two verses affirm, that above all things, living harmoniously and in peace with our neighbours is one of the greatest guidelines to being at peace with others. This Christian attitude is evident in today's society with social acceptance becoming more common with groups which were previously discriminated against.

So what is Mr. Harrison's alternative to this all? An Ethics Education class, similar to the one in the New South Wales Primary Schools; it is now being taught to over 3500 students. An inevitable problem with this alternative is simple; Mr Harrison should realise now how unlikely this ethics class is to give lasting values to young children. . "Why should I do that?" "That ain't no use" are two popular remarks teenagers enjoy making . Anything which they take in from these Ethics classes are likely to be tossed out as they walk through the teenager door. If Mr. Harrison wants rational proof of this (like he seems to want, based on his various blogs and internet posts) he need only go down to Browns Bay beach on a Friday night and witness for himself youth who don't respect the law and lack morals and is contrary to a devoted Christian teenager who hold the Christian moral code close to their hearts. This is not to say Christian teenagers won't be rebellious and misbehave. They do believe though, that there shall come a time when they will be held accountable and have to give an account of why they acted unlawfully and immorally. In turn, the troubled youth down at Browns Bay live without care for anyone or anything but themselves. The ethics Education is nothing but a cheap quick fix gimmick a young student will have difficulty learning and be quick to dispose when they begin going through puberty.

Peter Harrison is no idiot. He merely lacks an understanding of the impact and influence of Christianity in our laws and culture. His alternative Ethics class won't make the lasting impression he wants it to. Maybe now, he will hopefully see that Christianity has had a huge influence on Kiwi culture. Bigger than he's probably ready to admit.

It's not passion, it's bad sportsmanship

Fifty years ago there was a silence or polite applause from the home fans when an away team scored. Fans and followers of that team were not afraid to show their enthusiasm and it was all in the spirit of the game. As young kids, we are always told by our parents to be humble winners and gracious losers and always upholding ourselves by giving our best and respecting the opposition. Why is it then that grown ups give their kids such valuable advice, yet run off to their favorite sport and boo the opposition? That's not pride for your side, or passionately supporting your team; its bad sportsmanship.

On April 16, 2012, in the FA Cup Semi Final between Tottenham and Chelsea, the crowd was asked to observe a moment of silence to mark the "23rd anniversary where 96 fans lost their lives." It was a short lived moment as a small group of Chelsea fans childishly started booing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9206300/Hillsborough-anniversary-Chelsea-embarrassed-as-fans-ruin-minutes-silence-at-Wembley.html
Liverpool's' fans behavior is even more abject. A fan wearing a Manchester United jersey comes to watch a Liverpool training session, only to be met with a reception of boos and jeers from onlooking Liverpool fans. A curious onlooker has every right to lambaste this puerile behavior. If respect cannot even be shown to a fan of another club, there's no denying it just gets worse the further one looks into soccer,* with players regularly bullying the referee and swearing at him, lauded on by their immature fans.

Don't assume this is a one off occurrence, or restricted to soccer* either. The Southern Hemisphere's premiere Rugby showpiece, the Tri-Nations is regularly subjected to sporting lowlifes who take every occasion the opposition has an opportunity to score point to boo the opposition kicker. An example is attached below. Listen at 11.50-12.00 just how loud these jeering noises are. Kids go to these games to watch their heroes play, only to see people around them pathetically chanting at the visiting teams' kicker. Retired Springbok Lock Victor Matfield has rather flatly dismissed home crowds booing as nothing more than "showing their passion" for their team. Eden Park tried and failed by asking the audience over the loud speakers to remain quiet while both kickers attempted shots, with little success. Passion for supporting your team comes from cheering them on when they're on the offense and praising them when they get the better of the opponent in defensive situations. Booing an opposition kicker when he shoots at goal and doing likewise when the referee makes a decision in favor of the visiting side is reminiscent to a child having a tantrum when they don't get the toy they wanted at the store.

Next time you're at a sporting venue and see a grown man or woman booing or jeering, ask them why they're doing it? Ask them just what it is that makes them arrogant enough to make such a low blow move? If they're audacious enough to give you an answer to each question, ask them how their actions are any different from a school student disrespectfully talking back to a teacher? Truth is that both the fan and the school student are rude, cynical, incredibly conniving, asinine and above all completely obstinate towards it all. Booing the opposition should have no place in any sport of any kind. Any fan that disagrees ought to put a diaper on.




*Soccer is used instead of Football so American and Canadian readers don't get confused.

The Poison Apple?

Apple has led the way in innovation, producing revolutionary products such as the i-Pod (released in 2001), the I-Phone (released in 2007), and more recently the i-Pad (released in 2010). Millions of units of each product have been sold and Apple has largely received positive reviews for ingeniously identifying, and satisfying, consumer demand for a product that ensures that a specific facet of people's life is better. easier, more enjoyable. In the process, the slick Apple marketing machine has made certain that the winsome products are ones which others must see you with. Underneath a blanket of 'wholesome-as-apple-pie' smiles though, there lies a supercilious attitude withiin Apple's senior management. It is a foolhardy attitude that their products are so superior, that any fault which these products (particularly the I-Phone) produces is to blamed on the customer, not the producer. Be wary of trying to get your 'i-item' repaired. The biggest adjustment will be to your bank balance.

An I-phone owner who used to jokingly refer to her mobile as 'god-in-a-rectangle' became dissatisfied with her I-phone when she noticed that her I-Phone "Home button" was beginning to respond erratically. It began to take four or five clicks to return to the home screen. "I went to the Apple Store at my local mall and told them about the problem. The store clerk said he could send it back to the supplier who could replace it for me. The catch 22 was I would have to pay $400 if I wanted to choose this option." As a cheaper alternative, this customer was advised to take the I-phone to an electronics repair shop, which she did, hoping that a change of stores would bring about a better response. It was to no avail. "The store said it would cost $45 just to send my I-Phone off to get repaired. On top of that were the actual repair costs themselves, which the shop owner estimated would cost anywhere from $60-$180. This, in effect, could be added to the original price of the phone. I realised I was being asked to pay about $100 to repair a relatively new phone." Outraged, and unconvinced the customer quipped, "I shouldn't have to be paying to fix a product which Apple knew was going to endure a lot of wear and tear." Don't assume in today's consumer marketing era Apple is going to show this customer (or the thousands of other customers who had endured similar technical faults with their I-Phones) any sort of sympathy.

Mass product recalls have never been uncommon and are frequently done if enough customers compain. Toddler tool made by Little Tykes had a mass recall "because of choking concerns." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44698187/ns/business-consumer_news/t/big-recall-little-tikes-play-tool-sets/#.T4lR_FGO13U
Toyota had flushed pink with embarrassment in 2008 and recalled 2.3 million of its cars that were at risk of randomly accelerating unmanned. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/runaway-toyotas-problem-persists-recall/story?id=9618735#.T4lXYFGO13U
Apple's record for product recalls is far from impressive. It's pathetic at best. Thousands of customers, in vain, complained about the defective 1st generation i-Pod nano which completely burnt out and ceased to function properly, only to be told that they could not be reimbursed. It took five years before did Apple. eventually, admit there was the chance the Nanos could "overheat and possibly even catch on fire." But in their typical smug, supercilious fashion Apple were not willing to replace all of the first generation Nanos, only "those whose serial numbers match the units with defective batteries."

Apple (and Steve Jobs) honed a reputation for providing products that were focussed on the consumer. Is Apple really that consumer focused? No. Their products are not built to last and the Board of Directors are well aware of that. A short term push to increase profits and boost fat pay packages far exceeds any concerns about technical faults that a consumer might encounter. It's about time these frustrated I-Phone users started writing formal complaint letters to Apple. Abandoning consumption of their products won't persuade the Big Apples of Apple to change. I-Phones must be built to last because in today's technology driven age, the wear and tear of these products will be high, and customers have to trust the mobile phone purchase they have made is a good investment, not one where they have to dump and jump (to another brand) after the phone starts acting up after a measly 24 months of use. If you are still unconvinced this is just a rarity, have a skim read through the 23 pages of complaints about the same Home button problem on the Apple website. (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3022587?start=0&tstart=0)

Apple has some serious problems to address. It is only when the crown gets knocked off their head will they begin to realize, ultimately their customers are the people they should be listening to more than anything else in the orchard. And, rather than building cheap, crummy products, they should make efforts to invest in producing higher-quality, 'built to last' "i" products. Don't protest against them silently, let your voice be heard. Sooner or later, in doing this, the poisoned Apple will be discovered.

Don’t listen to Sue Bradford, listen to your parenting intuition

Sue Bradford has always had a reputation for being controversial. A former back-bencher politician, she successfully managed to pass three proposed bills into law. One, which is totally valid, is making the minimum wage equal for 16 and 17 year old students and adults alike (that a youth’s ability to scan items or pack shelves should be rewarded with inferior remuneration compared to someone 10-30 years their senior, is baffling). Her second bill, that prison mothers be given further entitlements to keep their babies longer, is open to debate. One cannot, however, mention Sue Bradford, without bringing into account an incredibly unpopular third bill that she put through parliament. The Crimes Amendment Act 2007 was put through in 2007, removing a parent’s right to use reasonable force as a way of disciplining their child. One big question must be addressed about such a law. Why should we even listen to Sue Bradford?

Listening tentatively to a politician and taking their word for it on situations has rarely proven fruitful or beneficial. John Key promised not to raise GST levels, only to later backtrack on it, providing weak-kneed excuses. Julia Gillard adamantly said no carbon tax would be put on sources of energy Australians would be unable to function properly without, only to sneakily push it through by blaming Australians for lack of environmental concern. If one is unable to trust a Prime Minister, why trust anyone sharing a political bedroom with them?

Mrs Bradford, to be frank, is a lying, vainglorious, undemocratic sensationalist woman. It is to the benefit of the New Zealand people that she no longer serves in parliament. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ&feature=player_embedded

Her first address as to why the Bill should be passed, asserts that children are entitled to their own rights. Children do have rights, the right to be loved and cared for and brought up in a household where the parent(s) have provided for them a stable home so they are able to flourish through their schooling. Children, right up until their mid-teen years, are still immature with their decision making and if an incessant negligence for the rules arises, no law should prevent a parent using reasonable force to correct their children. Mrs Bradford, though, thinks otherwise. "While on the surface it might appear like a simple smack or a simple hit - what we don't know is what else is happening in that family either with that child, or other children, or the mother or some other family member.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4061/Bradford-says-anti-smacking-law-working-well She has fed an intrigued New Zealand media lies that any parent who disagrees with her warped ideology is some deluded, neurotic person who simply doesn’t cut the mustard. 99.9% of parents want their children to be the best they can be, and are willing to make sacrifices for them to achieve that. Talking to the child, giving them a time out or screaming at them just doesn’t work at times. It must be a parent’s right to know that if a smack prevents their child from being naughty, then a smack ought to be administered.

From day one the Bradfordtism Section 59 Amendment proposal was met with an outcry of public disapproval against the adjustments. A staggering 85% of people were against the law when it was passed and that number remained largely unchanged when an Anti-Smacking referendum was launched in 2009. A multitude of opinions compiled by the New Zealand Herald supports these views. One respondent Sean says “We vote for you to represent us, our ideas, our opinions, how can you ignore them now!” Blomfield mentions that the government should “Stop making criminals of parents who choose to bring up their child (children) in a loving and disciplined manner Focus instead on the real issue of violence towards children.” All opinions voiced can be found in the attached link. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10431340
Knowing all too well she wouldn’t find favour with the common citizen, Mrs Bradford “adopted an elite, lobbying-style of politics,” choosing to go from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2009/05/sue-bradford-the-greens-futile-left-option.html Not only was this completely ignoring New Zealand’s democratic system, it suggests the true colours of a person intent on imposing communist-style attributes onto our political system. Even today, Mrs Bradford doesn’t seem content to let society have any input into her unpopular bill. “I think it should be up to the New Zealand Parliament to decide whether it wants to overturn the law.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XFaxThapdQ

If a parent doesn’t want to smack their child as a means of correction, that’s fine. If they believe there are better ways to bring up their child, they’re entitled to do so. Many great citizens exist who were never smacked. What is not acceptable is Bradford’s attempt to intervene and prevent parents from using force as a means of correction. Parents love their children and want the best for them. If smacking is their way of disciplining their child, so be it. If it isn’t, so be it. Don’t listen to Sue Bradford parents; listen to your parenting intuition.

***It has been confirmed by liberal apparatchik Conrad Reyners that the anti-smacking bill was done as a deliberate act of policy. In a guest column with the blog Norightturn he says "The law is very clear. Section 59(2) clearly states that it is illegal to smack your child for the purpose of correction." Reyners goes onto say that "Smacking a child is assault. It is child abuse by definition." Any person who says this bill was never designed to prevent parents smacking their children must no explain  why Conrad Reyners statements are false and provide the sections in the bill which provide parents with the authority to use legal force to smack their children.

Climate Changes' founding fathers

When Al Gore came forth and made the film "An Inconvenient Truth" he talked about all the troubles the world is currently facing as a result of 'Global Warming.' Artic ice retreating further inwards every summer, rising sea levels threatening to wipe out Island nations and C02 levels were some of the many areas he touched on. Concluding the film, he quotes "Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, with the electricity we use, the cars we drive. We can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands. We just have to have the determination to make them happen." http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm
It is incredible to think Mr. Gore can misconstrue such issues.If you're for, against or undecided about where you stand on the topic now known as Climate Change, it's important to address the key element of it. Where it all began.

The Climate change movement as we know it was founded by Canadian businessman Maurice Strong. In 1971, with Barbra Ward and Rene Dubos, Strong issued a report titled "Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet." It raised awareness about the supposed detrimental effects humans have caused to the planet and necessary interventions which can be made to prevent further problems. http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/strong-stockholm-leadership?showall=&start=1 Mr. Strong went on to work for the United Nations later on in his career, using his position to establish and organize the Earth Summit Movement and Agenda 21 "a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment." http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/?utm_source=OldRedirect&utm_medium=redirect&utm_content=dsd&utm_campaign=OldRedirect
Whilst it may seem heroic in a way, many people forget that, at heart, Mr. Strong is nothing more than an opportunist as shown by his business dealings prior to him joining the United Nations.

In 1986, American Water Development Inc, one of Strong's sought to siphon billions of liters through underground pumps in the Colorado. "The project was portrayed as an environmentally sensitive solution to urban water shortages," but did not factor into account the local areas requirement for groundwater. AWDI were threatening to destroy the local wetlands and sand dune ecosystems. Mr. Strong's pursuit of power and wealth are at the forefront of his agenda and his shambolic business pursuit in Colorado, (and today in China where he works with the Chinese government on carbon credits trade) gives us good reason to be skeptical of his self proclaimed love for the environment. http://www.hcn.org/issues/12/350

"IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. ch 8." The listed section of the International Panel for climate change presents the second instigator of global warming, Dr. Benjamin Santer, the leader of chapter 8 in the report. When the final draft was submitted for submission and distribution, the report was submitted with mixed views about human contribution to Global Warming. In an interview on "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" Lord Christopher Monkton states "In goes Santer and crosses out sections disagreeing with man's contribution to climate change and changes them to fit his views and Mr. Strong's views." Later, in an interview with Dr. Santer, he himself does not deny changing certain elements to "make the report more consistent." A sly ploy. Realizing he would receive vast adulation and praise for his efforts from other one eyed viewers such as Kofi Annan who wrote an article titled, "Climate change puts us all in the same boat. One hole will sink us all, Mr Santer sacrificed his integrity for 15 minutes of fame." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/10/kofi-annan-climate-change

The more reading one is able to do into these two men, the more you to realize that Al Gore is merely continuing their legacy of speculation and assumption. British journalist Peter Hitchens sums it up perfectly when he says "If they really believed what they preached they wouldn't leave their house...But you notice these people are often the first ones into the planes and the first ones into the limousines."

Oil Companies are running out of excuses

When is the last time you remember going to fill up your Automobile? For most people, it’s a least once a week. Even those chugging along in hybrid cars sooner or later have to make a stop to the petrol station. Now ask yourself, when was the last time you considered the price of petrol to be a fair and just? Not since September 2010 is the best answer one could give. During this time period, prices hovered around $1.70 to $1.80 for 91 Octane. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1010/S00064/september-fuel-prices-stable-until-october-tax-inc.htm.
Today, the price of petrol per litre of 91 Octane sits at $2.20 throughout the major distributors such as BP, Shell and Mobil, with Gull selling at $2.18. New Zealand's Automobile Association spokesman Mark Stockdale asserts that these greedy conglomerates are merely using the most abject and lowly excuses for the sake of making higher margins. "The margins [before the increase] were at a level where, a year ago, they would have been acceptable to the fuel industry.Now the industry is saying that these margins are not acceptable, and the public don't understand the reasons why."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6576542/Fuel-firms-accused-of-chasing-greater-profits

One year ago a litre of 91 Octane was level with the highest price it had ever been, at $2.19. A later increase in May pushed it to a record price of $2.22 per litre, forcing many motorists to seek alternative methods of transportation (much to the delight of Green Party). A series of drops slowly and reluctantly came from these oil cartels as excuses began to run dry. Now, as price creep up again, be mindful that there is no valid reason for 80% of petrol increases because so often they're linked to events which are completely irrelevant or pinned on a dollar which has proven recently to bear little weighting. Below is a compilation of explanations from various company spokesmen and women.

"Oil prices have been rising in recent months on fears that Iran will disrupt supplies through a key export route."

"Oil prices are also being pushed up by fear of spreading conflict in the Middle East, with websites promoting a "day of rage" in Saudi Arabia on March 11." http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4745822/Petrol-heading-for-record-high

"But Caltex and Greenstone Energy, which owns the Shell brand, told NZPA the price of refined oil had gone up faster than the exchange rate, prompted by demand in the United States and West Africa." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10723374

These were three among many of the lousy excuses motorists had to swallow, finding out, sometimes up to three times a week, they'd have to pay more to drive their automobile around. Every time conflict and strife happens, it fulfils the reason to have a rise in the pumps. Who could forget the incessant blame Libya took for high petrol prices from these corrupt bigots. Yet no one remembered or cared to address Saudi Arabia doubling their production to account for Libya's diesel deficiencies.

Oil Companies now are in a similar position to a year ago. After yesterday's close in trade, the New Zealand dollar sat at 82.17 US cents, whilst in 2011 it was nearing a similar mark. http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/nz-dollar-holds-near-week-high-4801403 When an increase occurs, these corrupt bigots continually moan about the New Zealand dollar bearing weight for the price rise when the exchange rate is low. They merrily did so last year after the terrible earthquakes in Christchurch and will continue to do so, unless proven by analysts of their unjust price fixing. This excuse is proven void right now; with a strong kiwi dollar, no decreases at the pump have yet occurred, despite oil prices hovering within the same price brackets for the last month (Based on Brent crude oil.) http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=1054972

Comparatively, New Zealand ranks high among cheap petrol prices in the OECD. New Zealand also has an average income of just $54,000 NZD a year, "not the most high by international comparisons." http://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/article/average-salary-in-new-zealand/07163011.aspx Such an advantage doesn't cover much considering Australia, which has wages far superior to New Zealand, sells petrol at $1.50.

Excuses like this cannot last forever and those aristocrats in Parliament ought to put more pressure on these greedy Oil Giants to be more fair in their pricing. It's little wander so many New Zealand families are struggling. But don't tell Kiwi owned Z Energy that. They claim to be doing everything they can to keep their customers happy. In a few years time, if

the petrol price is at a fair price of $1.75 a litre, the Aotearoa whanau would believe it to be an honest expression, rather than a smug excuse to clean out motorists' pockets.

Auckland’s Super City is a super disaster

The Mayoral elections of 2010 now seem like a long off memory. What must not be forgotten though are the promises Len Brown made in the campaign to the Mayor’s office because with the ever increasing rates, inadequate public transport and license increases on dogs, it’s time we showed Mr Brown the door, before he causes more chaos.

Only minutes after his victory over his predecessor John Banks and Conservative party leader Colin Craig, Brown addressed a crowd telling them he wants to “build Auckland into the great, great, great city it can be.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10679260 This great city was assured they’d benefit from him finding ways to “fix local transport,” “keep rates low” and flourish from “strong economic growth.” http://www.elections2010.co.nz/2010/candidates/len-brown. Indeed these are some very big claims and promises. Fifteen months have elapsed since Auckland went to the polling booths and if they followed their cities progression with more affinity they’d be totally appalled. Just as well for Mr Brown they aren’t.

Not even two months into his new role, Mr Brown recommended there be a rise in the rates for Auckland home owners, to 4.9%. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/auckland-mayor-recommends-rates-rise-3968054. Whilst many dismissed this as a one off lapse in judgement, 2011 produced worse news for many home owners, with rates again increasing at 3.5%. Councillor Cameron Brewer rightly summed up the situation. “The mayor’s latest rating policy is nothing more than an envy tax.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5870619/Row-over-Auckland-rates-changes. No justified reason behind these climbs has been made for these pathetic rises and it’s about time Mr Brown address these rises, rather than slipping away out of sight.

Whilst there is a conscious effort to improve roads in Auckland, rather than making it more convenient for motorists, the contrary is occurring.. Congestion is running right back as far as Oteha Valley for city bound travellers most mornings, buses spasmodically appear and disappear at stations, Ferries are undersupplied and the bus system only runs through the city. Very few changes have arisen to give Len Brown and Steven Joyce the chance to point their finger prodigiously and say “I did that.” It seems young school children are trying harder than both these men combined to find small ways to remove the clutter. Zach Amir last week proposed there be a transit lane put in nearby his school, allowing parents to peacefully negotiate around the shambolic clutter and drop their children off, rather than just allowing traffic to swell up. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6572272/Pupil-fights-traffic-chaos.

If you thought Mr Brown couldn’t think of another way to ruin Auckland city, quickly reconsider. What’s this you may ask? How about a 201% increase to obtain a dog license. No valid reason has been given for such a monstrous leap in the price, apart from Spokesman Kevin Ramsay’s asinine comment that it “reflects the cost of providing animal management services.” Granted a 10% rise in licensing may be fair game if those services are increasing, but a 201% is pure opportunism at its best and if Mr Brown is going to support this massive rise, he ought to address each and every dog owner publicly, without any notes. Old time politicians, (Including Margaret Thatcher) used to cringe before these events and Mr Brown ought to have the audacity to front up.http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/papakura-courier/6497627/Barking-up-a-storm

It is clear that Len Brown enjoys taking a circuitous route to avoid the accidents he has
caused. Sooner or later though he will have to take his head out the sand and speak up.