Can a Green MP really not know who these people are?

In a short series of Facebook message exchanges, Kevin Hague proved himself to be somebody who lacked understanding about where the views of his party came from. I asked him

Who do you politically align yourself with more: Maurice Strong or Anthony Blair?

Mr Hague originally replied

"I don't know either of them sorry!"

After a brief explanation about who the two of them were, he responded.

"Certainly don't align myself with Tony Blair, but Maurice Strong sounds promising!"

It's still surprising that a member of parliament knows next to nothing about the history of their parties. Understanding where your party came from and why they stand for certain values is a good indicator of why you would want to align yourself with that party to begin with. If Mr Hague eventually does research up about Mr Strong, perhaps the answer would have been a lot more interesting.

Road taxes, Youth rates and PhD's

Who can give one example where road upgrades have made any difference to the well being of Aucklanders? Not building new ones altogether, as was the case with the expressway which goes out towards Hobsonville and beyond. No, general road upgrades. Have Auckland's motorway developments done the remotest bit of good for any commuter into the city? How about out of the city? The answer quite plainly is no. Instead of looking at viable options to encourage public transport in some shape or form, Gerry Brownlee is more than content to increase petrol taxes significantly to achieve a rather wicked purpose. Not only will current roads be butchered even more, new roads shall be constructed after much of the beautiful countryside is mutilated.

No apologies have been made either by Mr Brownlee to struggling families who can barely afford to drive. With 3c increases next year and the following year, these motorists can only hope petrol prices fall internationally to compensate for this rise. Otherwise, expect to see more cars by those who can afford it.

 How can a party which repeatedly promises a brighter future claim that having more cars on the road is more beneficial for anyone? The reason public transport remains so bad is because no National party leader with power can acknowledge that cycle ways and a national railroad may actually be a better, more efficient form of transport than more cars.

As youth rates are set to be debated, it seems almost ironic that the woman who campaigned against them was one Sue Bradford. While Ms. Bradford was full or propaganda about many issues, I applaud her for setting out a simple argument about youth and adults being entitled to the same pay for doing the same job. If Mr. Key would like to inform us about whether he received a youth wage, perhaps that could shed some light on a rather sneering opinion he holds that teenagers should be underpaid.

The other day, whilst surfing Youtube  I saw a woman continuously listing off a multitude of so called "climate scientists," professing that their books had to be right because they had the word "Dr" in front of their name. Would someone care to explain what suddenly makes someone with a PhD an absolute genius? The Bradford creature (mentioned above) nearly has a PhD and she is anything but intelligent. Paul McKenna (author of "Hypnotic Gastric Band") has two PhD's, yet he cannot see that book is only a short term solution to a long term problem. No, a PhD simply shows someone can, with an extreme amount of discipline and hard work, conduct high amounts of research in a very specific area and draw conclusions which add to human knowledge. If that's intelligent, then so is writing a book such as Tim Noake's The Lore or Running (1,000 pages of running know how) or Michael King's A History of New Zealand. Each man undertook an astronomical volume of reading and research to compile these two books. There are many other examples. Phillip Pulman (The Golden Compass), Stephen King (with his book 11/22/63) and countless others (which I'm happy to list if you want). 

***I've expanded on some areas in the PhD section on the back of one posters comment.***

Idiot/Savant and James Robins the same person? Almost seems possible

I'd like to draw attention to two rather hysterical left wing columnists. One is Yahoo blogger James Robins, whose generalisations and continuous attempts to smear his opponents (or enemies as he takes all criticism personally). The other happens to be a fellow commentator with me on Getfrank. A blogger living in exile known as Idiot/Savant. He has his own blogs pace and claims to be irredeemably liberal.

Mr. Robins embodies a lot of mainstream opinions, constantly finding a way to bash conservatives. He calls people like me truth benders and seeks to justify it with clumsy rhetoric. This hush talk from him that the child discipline bill was never intended to eliminate smacking as a form of discipline falls flat. Ms. Bradford's intentions were clear from day one. Redefining the bill was done in an effort to condemn any parents who used force of any kind to discipline their child. I posted a response to Mr. Robins about Ms. Bradford's recent comments. Surprisingly no response came. Even a brain surgeon has time to send a text.

Idiot/Savant meanwhile happens to suffer from the same closed mind liberal attitudes Mr Robins has. In a small post on his blog "no right turn," Wellington's drought is brought up. After talking about reducing water usage to 30L a day, he states golf courses will be exempt, before snidely saying droughts "couldn't possibly be allowed to interfere with rich wankers playing golf." 

Whilst I may indeed be wrong, there is no doubt both bloggers have striking similarities in their writing. Both often resort to conventional wisdom (which is almost always wrong). Both men are quite bloodthirsty creatures. Mr. Robins says in one blog "I’m all for killing vile Islamofacists" and "gunning them down is good thing (however somber)." Idiot/Savant takes to calling anyone who disagreed with the "gay" marriage bill some rather rude names. "Meanwhile, Labour's Damien O'Connor, Ross Robertson, and Su'a William Sio still voted against the bill. Time to de-select these pricks already. Labour wouldn't accept those spouting racism or sexism, and it shouldn't accept bigots either." 

Something disturbs me about these strange creatures. As there are so many similar undertones in their writing, I can't help but think they are two blogs by the same person. One requires a bit of civility but my feeling is that anyone who talks with James Robins in real life hears a lot of rude words coming from his mouth.


http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/opinion/post-list/-/blog/jamesrobins/

Is "gay" marriage losing momentum, or are some polls not reflective of the New Zealand population?

For anyone who is interested in the NZ Herald digital poll about same sex marriage, you can find it at the bottom of http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ 's page. At the time of writing 52% of people do not support the bill. A select committee was established to hear submissions from both sides of the argument. Here is a breakdown of the submission.

Submissions
21,533 Total
10,487 For
8148 Against
2898 Unique submissions
220 Heard by committee

Two things stand out. For people in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry, support in most polls appears to still favor them. More submissions to legalise the bill were put forth than those against it. However, what also stands out is the decline as a proportion of people who appear to be against the bill. Last year, Colmar Brunton allegedly did a poll for TVNZ, with the results showing about two thirds in favour and one third opposed to it. Within the small space of 8 months, people may be changing their minds. 

The New Zealand herald poll is not the first to show people voting in favor of keeping marriage between a man and a woman. Yahoo also had a similar poll. 62% of people voted "no" to change the definition of marriage, 34% voted yes,  4% were undecided. 

Those two polls aside, there is still a relatively strong backing from politicians, who passed the bill in its second reading. Polls on stuff.co.nz and TVNZ show that it's visitors are quite happy the beehive voted in favor of it.

I'm not sure whether these inconsistent poll results spurred the select committee to rush the bill through in a mere seven months. I'd also be interested to know what the enutre homosexual community in New Zealand think of this bill? (not just noise makers like Ms Wall and Kevin Hague) Will a majority of them make use of it? Is there a requirement to change the law? Do they want to get married rather than enter a civil union?  These are serious questions which only homosexuals themselves can answer.  

If anyone, (whether in support of "gay" marriage or against it)tries to drag me into this discussion, they will be left in the rain; I'm raising an issue of people changing their minds on the bill, not the positives and/or negative of introducing marriage "equality." 

But, in case they try, here is my answer. Same sex marriage is an immensely trivial issue in the wider scope of things. It amazes me that anyone can argue this issue is as important as rebuilding Christchurch, helping hardworking parents provide for their children or working towards fixing New Zealand's horrendous drinking problem. Apart from a few tree hoppers in the each political Party and those sneering youth wing leaders (who I have not seen making speeches outside parliament on any of the issues mentioned above) you won't see many people disagreeing there. 

Super Rugby vs Cricket

It has been quite unusual that just as super rugby is kicking into gear, the Blackcaps are finally gaining a small surge of momentum as they take on England in the test series.

Hopefully this form can continue. And hopefully people are able to support them, rather than flocking to super rugby, which, while exciting, still has plenty of time to show its face, long after the summer of cricket creeps to an end.

Join the "climate change" gravy train? Not a chance.

So another famous figure has been suaded into making a stand for supposed man made climate change. Rugby World Cup winning assistant coach Wayne Smith has jumped aboard the "climate change" (formerly global warming) bandwagon. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10870243




Leading the charge to indoctrinate countless other people is ecologist Sir Allan Mark. Mr. Mark, who's publications and discussions are always interesting- even if you disagree with him- says a "degrading quality of our land, air and water" has hurt New Zealand. Apparently "a sea level rise of up to 1m by the year 2100" will also take place.


I'm not a huge fan of cars or driving. Nothing is more hideous than traffic jams or the thick smog pumped out. As a runner, I strategically avoid any area with dense traffic as often as possible.More often than not, I now walk to university because cars do an enormous amount of damage. When enough money has been saved up, bicycling shall also be used to get around. In saying that, my decision to walk to University was not done out of a desire to please the outrageous "Generation Zero" group or Al Gore, it was for conservative reasons.


The main problem advocates of Maurice Strong's "climate change" idea is acceptance. People will not all agree on this issue. Warmists often are not content with that. Those who happen to believe man made activity isn't responsible for sea levels which will supposedly ruin us are universally shunned. Climatologist William Grey had his funding taken away for voicing skepticism. The late Augie Auer got panned many years ago for expressing similar opinions. Apparently society should just accept it without question and dismiss anyone who disagrees without question. Observing what supposed climate science goes towards measuring sea level rises would be interesting, as would recent statistics of Islands which have been completely submerged. Are there actually any which have gone off the map?


Whatever Mr Allan is imploring the government to address is rather vague. Is it innovation in farming to stop wastage? Must New Zealand reduce its levels of Dairy farming? Is the sin of just existing a just reason to impose a festival of regulation and taxation on New Zealanders? What difference will lobbying the big players make? Introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme has done next to nothing in an effort to reduce pollution. Petrol is just more expensive, companies are taxed more and many honest farmers are vilified, despite the majority of them working to minimise economic damage. All tax money generated goes into Government hands, ready to be squandered on benefits.


Question these people who are taking "a moral stand" with a skeptical eye. Do you really want to give these people so much power. Right now its just just lobbying power. Soon it will be the power to control what cars you can drive, how much you can drive, how often you're allowed to fly, what light bulbs you can use, as well as what types of buildings and bridges can be erected.


I used to believe "climate change" or "Global Warming" was real, until coming across the name Maurice Strong on a "save the planet" website. Within an hour, any lingering belief in "climate change" being man made was gone.


The crackpot paparazzi out to boost their low self esteem

Justin Bieber has never been a spectacular singer. A lot of his lyrics are reworded versions of songs from Michael Jackson, Elton John and Lionel Richie. Having poster poster boy looks and a rather odd hairstyle seem to be his trademark.


With that said, I sympathise with the Canadian pop star, who fell victim to a rather rude photographer, who probably works for some degenerate gossip magazine. Bieber, who was leaving his apartment pushed aside a sloppy, overweight photographer vouching for a photo to slap alongside a rather half rate gossip article.


Not impressed by being pushed around, the photographer offered his rather foul mouthed opinion to the singer, who was forcefully held back. A further display of bad manners from the paparazzo given, things simmered down.


For anyone interested, celebrities and the media used to get on quite well with each other. It was only when the media began aggressively hunting celebrities and abandoning respect for privacy that celebrities started thinking less of them. At least Bieber has shown us that he's only human. That ego is still quite high nonetheless.


Going low cost on fitness fails

Is there anyone who goes to Jetts gym who competes in serious bodybuilding competitions? Is there anyone who goes to Jetts who can outrun the best ultra runners in New Zealand? Can anyone at Burn24 hour fitness come forth and proclaim themselves as a National or International representative in any athletic pursuit or discipline? The answer to all of these questions is "probably not."


A single visit to Jetts gym was all it took to make it clear what they are running is a pure money spinner, not a " an environment where no-one feels shy about turning up." Fit 4 Life in Glenfield is only $71 more than Jetts but the value you get for it is far greater than any other low cost gym. There is always a staff member or volunteer on the desk, the prices you see are the prices you pay, there are group classes, there are free seminars (on fitness, friendship faith and finance) for members, people feel welcome and the facilities and equipment are better than what any Jetts gym or any other low cost gym offer.




For those who are crying foul about the criticism of Macklemore's ridiculous songs ought to ask yourself this. Would you want young children swearing like he does in Thriftshop? Would you be happy to let young teenagers fool themselves into thinking they cannot change a predisposition which they hold?


I am not, as one person absurdly states "hating on Macklemore." No, there is just a general worrying trend in a fair amount of his songs which is reason to be worried. Also, for some of his song with "powerful lyrics" (whatever that means), the way he sings them seems incongruous. "My oh my" would have been much better if he'd dropped the loud, gangster talk for a simpler rendition.

The Macklemore myth

When people flocked to go and see "Macklemore," I declined a request to interview him for a good reason. Like any modern singer who suddenly seems to spring up rather unannounced, something had to give. After a careful inspection of Thriftshop, Same Love and a few others, some common themes stood out.

To begin with, his song "Same Love" is full of basic errors. Whilst the jury is out on homosexual marriage (an issue I will not be dragged into), people certainly have the ability to change. Saying "I can't change, even if I try" is rather odd. Does this apply to all aspects of life or just our sexuality? How does he know that? Many people have been able to change their hostile attitudes towards homosexuals after befriending some (as I have in recent years). "Even if I wanted to." Again, is it orientation specific or is nobody ever able to change anything about their lives. If he is adopting this "I can't change because I can't" then an elementary error in observation is there. People who accuse me of cherry picking from his lyrics are right; "Same Love's" main message is Haggerty's opinion but the hook's start is simply not true philosophically, morally or empirically. Of course people can change. Mr Haggerty wrote "Same love." Regardless of who is singing the chorus, the message of not being able to change an attitude towards a position is supported by him. Of course, some will say "you've misinterpreted his message. He just means sexuality." Perhaps. To make it clear such was the case, why couldn't he have included at the end of his verses instead of independently as a chorus? This closed mindedness transitions into his other works.

Mr Haggerty has said in interviews the track "Thriftshop" focuses on buying as many cheap clothes as possible, whilst putting some money away. For a hip hop artist, this goes against the grain. Nonetheless, this song finds a spot in my list of top 10 most loathsome songs. Partnered by some  jibber jabber from Wanz , Haggerty presents a destructive message about how amazing cheap materialism is. He has failed to see that materialism and cheap shopping cannot be given credit for happiness. Francis Scott Fitzgerald single handedly destroyed the myth of materialism in his powerful novel "The Great Gatsby." Yet here is a rather hysterical singer promoting temporary happiness through buying cheap rubbish.Credit can be given to the song for being stupid, deceptive, poisonous and ghastly, just like the lyrics. For anyone willing to actually listen to the hidden swearing, Haggerty uses the word "bitch" twice, "shit" four times and "fuck" seven times. Several other rude words are also in there.

From his other well known other songs "Wing$," "The Town" and "The Heist" something seemed off. I just couldn't bring myself to liking the songs. Nor was I able to relate to his constant messages about how one specific thing defines him. Saying something so focused puts people in a dangerous situation, where, if their passion for that area crumbles, they feel as if their worth is diminished greatly. Nobody should ever believe this to be true.

Perhaps "Macklemore" could answer me this question. Does he want his younger fans to go about swearing like he does? And is music the only thing which truly defines who he is as a person? I'll readily listen to his songs which address to these two questions.