Angry about State Asset Sales? Mr. Slippery will be so happy

Barely a day goes by without more people beginning to realise that the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr. Slippery is as sly as they come. Promised not to raise GST. Back tracked on that. Guaranteed to reverse the anti-smacking law. Never quite got around to that (and almost supports it now.) He voted against the civil unions bill but has again confused everyone by claiming he isn't against gay marriage. Now though, a proposal more unpopular, more controversial and certainly more ridiculous has been passed, allowing the Government to sell state assets to bogon buyers overseas for ridiculously cheap prices. Using the world partial sales to disguise it all as minor desperation for raising capital, there in fact is nothing partial about the percentages being talked about. Mighty River Power, company number one up for sale shall have up to 49% of its company share sold. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815746. Many other high earning enterprises are going to be sold too, which does nothing more than create temporary capital. New Zealanders against these Asset Sales aren't oblivious to what is happening like Mr Slippery would have you believe. They simply want the Government, who are there to serve them (just to remind them because they're quick to forget) and who they voted in to maintain control of these Assets rather than have some overseas investor snap them all up for a bargain, most likely by the Chinese Government.

John "Sly" Key then crawls out his fox hole and is audacious enough to profess that the income generated from these Asset sales will be used to buy more Assets. http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-confident-asset-sales-law-passed-week-4944424
Is he telling the truth here? Maybe but unlikely. Only, what Assets are there left to buy if one is getting rid of their best assets to cover up the fact their gambling problem in the current account has gone on far too long. He reaffirms his reason by comparing the State Asset sales with the anti-smacking Bill (which has been addressed in an earlier post). Both are very undemocratic moves by the current National government, who continue to scoff at their voters as soppy incompetent sheep whom they must herd, in much the same way as the Lousy Labour Government before them. At the very least Labour knows State Asset sales aren't the solution, short term or long term.

Only time can determine how much money the Economy shall cry out from this deal. New Zealand investors, as shrewd as they may be ultimately won't be able to match the offers foreign Chinese and American investors make on ownership of these companies. No kiwi citizen wants a large proportion of their tax funded enterprises in the hands of foreign owners, even if it's alleged "partial ownership." Enough damage to be done already and despite the huge level of dissent about these sales among the public and in Parliament (remember the Bill passed 61 for 60 against in Parliament), Mr. Slippery remains rigid that those against it are ill informed about it. He think people will warm to it like they allegedly have with the anti-smacking bill (which he secretly admires). But people won't. State Asset Sales were met with disdain when David Lange's fourth Labour government did it and nothing suggests it'll be different this time either.

Ultimately Mr. Slippery can let off hot air all he likes about the benefits these sales will do. It will allow debts to be paid off temporarily; expect it to plateau within months. And expect New Zealand to still be in debt by the time National gets the old heave ho out of Government. They're certainly doing themselves any favors by not being democratic about it.

Childish, selfish and ungrateful

Towards the end of the first semester in New Zealand, the National Party released their budget for 2012, with huge cutbacks and reduced spending in many sectors. Who got the most upset over it? Surely it would be the secondary schools, who continue to be under funded in so many departments. No. How about the lower and working class people struggling to survive because of the disastrous tax reforms from two years earlier? Not at all. The most upset group of people were the young University students pursuing their degrees becoming upset that they cannot have their Post Graduate degrees funded for them. Many students rather took to the Auckland streets, childishly blocking off roads, creating too much noise and getting in squabbles with police. It is concerning that so many students are selfishly casting aside the cares of others in the pursuit of themselves. Saying "I help others" won't cut it. Holding needless protests only goes to show just how ungrateful these students are. If only Bill English could have come up with a wittier remark than "they need some Greeks to show them how to do it." http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6985746/Urewera-four-members-join-Budget-protests

Any protest which is led by Sue Bradford should and must be looked at with scathing suspicion. Her rather lame chant of "they say cut back we say fight back" is nothing new for such a vainglorious individual. Being led by her must give the students some false hope New Zealand MP's actually care about the people's voice (which they don't). The way in which they're pulling the protest is childish at best. Who should feel the full effects of their scorn and immaturity? The very people whose tax dollars fund such a wonderful interest free loans. Despite their best efforts to claim these were all done peacefully, video footage suggests otherwise. Here, one can clearly see student hooligans dragging rubbish bins around, stopping the flow of traffic and causing general chaos to traffic flow, not to mention carrying signs and placards full of derogatory language. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/budget-protest-students-call-no-education-cuts-4899789. So what's their solution? Tax the rich more. Socialism to a T. What these childish socialist students don't realise is how angry these students will be in twenty years time when a fair proportion of them will be the rich tax bracket providing equity for interest free student loans.

Where these students are losing out so much is the biggest mystery. Of course, having been wired to be chauvinist like their governing bodies, any attempt to take away their many privileges as a student are met with scorn. The simple reforms which raised such outcry were raising the payback rate from "10 per cent to 12 per cent and cut student allowance entitlements" to 200 weeks of study http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/13840511/auckland-student-protest-ends/.
So, in summary, for up to four years, New Zealand students are allowed to receive a student loan, interest free and from the government, without having to pay back a single cent of interest. The Government has also not reduced the massive subsidies already provided on student's tuition costs, keeping fees relatively low in comparison to the United States, Great Britain and Australia. Oxford University charges £9,000 (NZD$17,766.42) a year for each of their Undergraduate degrees. http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/fees/information/universityrates/. The University of California Los Angeles requires students to pay USD$14,010.13 (NZD$17,689.19) each year. http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/fees/gradfee.htm
Sydney University demands a more modest but equally expensive AUD$5,648 (NZD$7,167.79). Many University (or College for the American) students in the United States take out huge loans and Graduate with a plethora of debt. Australia requires an upfront payment for the fees, as does Oxford. Many of the protesters did not pause to reflect just how luck they are. Many University Students around the world struggle just to make it through their Bachelors degree with as little damage as possible to their name, yet they have the audacity to be ungrateful towards a government which provides subsidies and loans for them, removing huge chunks of debt and strained financial difficulties in the future.

"Not good enough", they say. They have the right to do post graduate study, interest free. How about a little recap of where that has led. Thousands upon thousands of well educated students happily helping themselves to this very generous offer and then running off overseas, leaving the burdens of their actions upon those who remain in New Zealand. No apology, no feelings of contrition, not even a thanks. Thank you to those people, for ruining it. Thank you as well for exposing how (like you) ungrateful these students are. Carefully think about a post graduate degree which is very popular. An MBA. Very difficult to complete when in part time employment and almost always done by people who hold full time jobs. Diligent and focused, these people work hard for that title and very few who undertake it fall short. Post graduate studies should be approached in the same way. Rather than constantly expecting hand outs from the Sugar Daddy Government, how about taking some personal responsibility and pursuing post-graduate part time? If that's not achievable, apply for scholarships. Many are available and with the academic performance needed for post graduate studies, these won't be difficult to obtain. Still unsatisfied. Maybe you should wait for the Socialist Party to make it into government.

Students are free to criticise the government all they like about reforms and tax cuts. The hard line of it all shows the students have a brittle foundation to lean on and their arguments have a vitiated foul smell of arrogance. Hopefully soon, they'll learn to appreciate what they have.

Creaks and Cracks in the New Zealand Navy.

It's not very often when outsiders get to experience the Navy first hand and get an idea an understanding about what makes it tick. Aspiring Naval officer candidates are often fortunate enough to receive access to see the vessels, converse with many sailors and officers and sometimes even spend a few days on a ship too. Nothing of late however shows that the New Zealand Navy is heading anywhere but backwards. Why is that? It doesn't come down to one big failure, but rather a series of micro-failures which have sprung up recently. Not a single submarine in the entire fleet; Officers and Sailors regularly getting drunk and creating strife; an exiguous intake of ordinary sailors who were almost matched 1:1 by the Officers intake, not to mention the overused and overrated Offshore patrol vessels, trying to do a lot without really doing anything. How these failures (which aren't laborious fixes) still exist are embarrassing.

To start with. Not a single submarine in the fleet. Zero, nada, zilch. Surely with a vision of being the best small nation Navy in the world, the very best they can do to try follow through on this rather half-hearted promise is source ways of making their fleet more effective, versatile and adept. Tony Parr, the Chief of Navy still maintains that this goal is slowly being achieved. Having new in shore patrol vessels "provided the RNZN and respective government agencies with greater flexibility to monitor the exclusive economic zone and support the multi-agency approach to border and resource protection." Countless interviews, reports and speeches by Mr. Parr has failed to make a mention all about commissioning a submarine. Very embarrassing but not surprising. For comparison's sake, Australia has six submarines. (http://www.navy.gov.au/Current_Submarines)
Rear Admiral Jack Steer is none the better. Both he and Rear Admiral Parr are in cahoots together. Until one of them start collecting their pensions, don't expect to see any submarines anytime soon. Instead, expect to see sharp incremental additions of ridiculous Inshore and Off Shore Patrol vessels instead. Why New Zealand needs more of these boats remains a mystery to most people in the country, as well as most people in the Navy. It's probably the Senior Officers' way of shutting up the whinging Lieutenants who are craving a promotion (Most of the Commanding Officers of OPV's are Lieutenants).





Anybody who's served in the New Zealand Navy will be very familiar with the rather liberal attitudes many serving members have towards alcohol. Drink when you're on the sea, drink when you've docked overseas, drink when the weekend comes around. Last year a report came out that Commander John Butcher deliberately and willfully guzzled down glasses of wine until he was fully intoxicated; thankfully, he no longer steers the ship. Vanuatu Commander Maritime superintendent John Taleo said "It was very embarrassing. I nearly walked away from the table but I stayed. I think he must have been drinking on board before he came to the function." That's not surprising and nobody should see be surprised by it either. "A Defence Forces official said the navy took issues around alcohol consumption very seriously," but whoever said this can't be taken seriously in any sense. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10742606
A vast majority of Navy members are getting drunk regularly and if each drunken occasion was met with disciplinary actions, there would hardly be a Navy. An ensign studying at University regularly mentions all the peer pressure he receives to drink till you sink, particularly from a commander of one of the Fleet's ships. Here's the link, try and guess who it is. http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/overview/default.htm

Whilst these two problems remain scary, the problem which is even more frightening than anything else is the lack of recruitment for sailors. And do not forget the horribly disproportionate intake ratio for officers to sailors. In the January intake, there were 30 people chosen to begin Junior Officer Common training. Not bad numbers at all and definitely filling the necessity for "new blood." Consider this though. There were 40 people who began Basic Common training and by the pictures shown on the Navy page, that number dropped down to around 34. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nznavy/sets/72157629250801365/
That is an intake ratio of nearly 1:1. Whatever sort of hands on management by these aspiring officers is going to fall flat and collapse. If more recruitment is needed, they ought to cut back on Officer numbers and certainly not sailor numbers. Sailors will always need to be more plentiful than Officers for a simple reason. Their arms and feet push the ship forward, the Officers are the brains and leaders who tell them how to do it. This is an issue which must be dealt to soon. Recruiting and blooding more common Sailors is imperative if they're planning to increase their fleet size and operational expertise. Whoever mismanaged the intake needs to go. Making a mistake this big will haunt the Navy down the track when there's one officer to squawk orders to every individual sailor.

Solutions do exist. Unfortunately the Navy is going about fixing these problems in the wrong way. Time is running out for them, it won't be long they're seen as a Joke Navy. It quite literally is sink or swim.

Want to be offended? Go ahead and be offended

It's not very often where I'll talk from a first person point of view. This is no accident and removes any emotional bias I may hold on the matter and allow the rational facts to support the position: a search for the truth. The following topic however is very important to me and a very contentious topic on debate as well. Throughout western media, freedom of speech supposedly stands strong, separating it from some countries like North Korea and Saudi Arabia. How sure can we be of this though? Isn't one of the many problems these days that people find a reason to be offended by anything and everything. Many of my fellow countrymen from South Africa, stand accused of being "racists;" my fellow churchgoers and I get accused of being homophobic simply because we do not support gay marriage, and let's not forget the feminists who dislike me merely because I'm a man. Plenty more examples exist, which I'll get to in the article. The further one goes into the subject, the more we see squabblers in action doing what they can to suppress free speech, a right which is allegedly universal. Unless we start standing up and fighting against these non-offending lying, sensationalist, politically correct groups who seek to suppress free speech, it'll be unlikely I shall be able to discuss the issue one day, lest I be accused of being some sort of radical extremist.

In September 2005, some cartoons were released in an afternoon Danish newspaper. It was a series of cartoons satarising a major issue which was and continues troubling the world now; radical Islamic terrorism. What reaction were these cartoons met with? Enormous threats to blackmail the Denmark economy, lynch mobs and bullying gangs throughout the world burning flags and carrying threatening signs like "Kill those who insult Islam," not to mention the death threats each cartoonist received. It annoys me when anyone attacks my religion, criticizing it or sardonically misrepresenting it. Not for a second though will I run around making threats to kill people or disagree with my views because they have as much of a right to voice their opinion as I do with mine. Many Muslims who were involved in these protests happily live in western countries and enjoy the many liberties of western life their home countries limits or does not offer. If they want to voice their discontent, they are free to do so and can... in a civilized manner. Making death threats because of one's religion, towards cartoonists is a step too far and a detrimental attack on the free press, which thankfully many journalists like Christopher and Peter Hitchens have worked hard to uphold.

If you move onto the issue to racism and gender, this is a rather simple matter. If a black person goes around spurting out racial innuendo's, then it's alright. Poking fun at the white boys trying to look tough and the Korean boys who look like "disco asians," and let's not forget the frequent use of the word "nigger" among these circles. Why then should the United States minister of security get slammed when he voices concern about the alarmingly high proportion of African Americans who are in prison. It's politically incorrect to offend a racial group like that! How dare you say that? But here's a cup of reality. It's true. 1 in 11 African Americans are sitting in prison; to shrug it off as "racist" and "bigoted" is laughable and nothing more than lazy smack talk. What ever happened to telling the truth? Obviously many people are happier with hearing white lies, which lead to even more disappointment in the long run. Moving onto gender, I can remember one time when an interviewer (it may have been Paul Henry, no stranger to the politically correct brigade) interviewing a female member of parliament and she talked rather openly about celebrities she thought were good looking and sexy. Hardly a fuss was raised about it. Up steps John Key and ranks Liz Hurley and Jessica Alba as dream dates. Don't think he was going to get off easily. As much as I dislike John Key's political track record, he has as much right as the female politician to express his views. Green MP Sue Kedgley wouldn't dare stand for it and indirectly sought an apology with her rather stupid comments. Well Ms. Kedgely, along with all the other people who cannot stand your rigid request to remove free speech seek an apology. Don't go hating on men simply because you cannot accept his right to an opinion, just like anyone else. And don't you dare try suppress it either.




Which brings me to the main reason I decided to discuss this using examples from the three of the most contentious issues in society today. Religion, race and gender. Very delicate issues indeed, but not for one moment should any of these issues prevent us from telling the truth, even if it breaks the glass hearts of the politically correct. For thousands of years, honesty was always the best policy. Only within the last twenty years has this been revoked by people with glass hearts. We are fast in danger of losing our right to free speech from people who just do not want to hear an opinion that may be unpopular. The politically correct brigade search hard and fast to suppress these people, making personal attacks towards these people, branding them as bigots, racists, and offensive. Well if you want to be offended by being told a certain opinion or being informed with the sad truth, by all means be offended. Do not try to trample on the right to free speech, it has become the cornerstone of great democracies. Anyone encouraging people to be politically correct about everything they do should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves.

The sooner I see the back of political correctness, the less I'll write about these issues. I get fed up of white lies being told to avoid offending minorities, the huge amounts of censorship, name calling and blackmail shown towards people who voice these opinions and tell the truth. Do not be afraid to tell the truth. Do not be afraid if people claim to be offended. They know if they try come at you with their politically correct dogma, it won't stand any chance of winning the argument on which is better.

A theory full of doom, only ever from one side.

So often, people and ideas getting criticised and slammed are often unable to present their opinion, lest they subject them-selves to further backlash, suppression and vilified criticism. Today's generation has a soppy Politically Correct media which whinges about anybody who says something even slightly against mainstream ideology, before finding various ways to degrade them. On an international scale, an even more frightening following has picked up. Its followers publicly proclaim the validity of this idea, unwilling to hear the other side of the argument. Global Warming, for all the rather fantastic claims it makes still remains a mere theory among the scientific community. How ironic that the main public promoters of Global Warming are largely con artists using scare tactics to extort vast amounts of money through regulation and taxation. Large organisations such as the European Union and United Nations seeking to further extend their power and control. And do not forget the ("alleged") climate scientist's garrulous proclamations of doom and disaster if we do not act immediately. One can't go any further without saying "I smell a rat." Global warming is not man made.


The post "Climate Change's founding Fathers" gives an overview about how Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Dr. Benjamin Santer's influence on creating Global Warming today, with all its frills, scare tactics and hair-brained solutions. Deviating ever so slightly from mainstream thought and it does not take long to realise that governments, businessmen and communities are latching on purely out of their own financial interests. Case in point number one, the Emissions Trading Scheme. Many New Zealanders (and Australians in July) have yet to see any benefit apart from extra taxation this rather bogus revenue spinner has brought about in reducing the allegedly "sky high" carbon emissions produced by New Zealand. Quite a rational argument can be made that removing the Emissions trading scheme will have no impact whatsoever on C02 levels among western countries. Many citizens of developed nations are very sensitive indeed to the environment; many are opposed to vast degradation of the Amazon Rainforest, many prefer walking whenever they possibly can, and support the improvements in public transport. Do not for a moment think the ETS tax will be removed. Carbon credit trading is unlikely to be changed either, and vice versa with these phony businesses helping companies trade with them. Money makes the warmists world go round. So long as they are able to extract small fortunes out of you, nothing else matters. Just ask Maurice Strong,the mastermind behind the climate change scare tactic, now specialising in selling high polluting Chinese cars to the United States.

Suppression and ridicule are frequently used by Green groups in response to objections from the "skeptics." Many climate change skeptics who comment on the potential falseness of it are shunned. William M. Gray, famous for pioneering methods, tools and measurements used to predict hurricanes has had vast amounts of government funding suppressed. The reason for this funding cut? Speaking out against global warming. Reducing Mr. Gray's funding is not merely an attack on Global Warming, it's an attack on free speech as well, from the politically correct brigade. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist received a huge level of criticism, simply for giving an account from a skeptical viewpoint, reaching conclusions which differed from (the waste of taxpayer money), the International Panel on Climate Change." Journalist Mark Lynas cream pied Lombord in the face in 2001. Since then, he has withdrawn many of his idealistic views on the green craze saying "I once even threw a pie in the face of a Danish scientist who dared to question the orthodox environmental line. So what changed? Through research, I found that much of what I believed about environmental issues had little, if any, basis in science. Put simply, though my concerns were right, my solutions were wrong." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010981/You-mustnt-believe-lies-Green-zealots-And-I-know--I-one.html#ixzz1wPoXOJJS Lynas has now created many new enemies who used to be his allies in rallying for "mass taxation, giant suppression, and insane adjustments to daily life."

Many inconvenient truths arise, so in order to dispel this myth, good evidence needs to be brought forth. A half baked effort to disprove it due to its wiliness isn't sufficient. Recent studies, as reported in The Telegraph newspaper indicate that "today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists." Green fanatics have worked hard to explain the reasons behind this, from "the world being warmer in some places was cancelled out by other places where it was cooler," to "we can't trust this as evidence ." Among further evidences, the supposed mass melting across Antarctica as a whole, recent reports suggest otherwise. While the western section is still melting (which is happening faster as a result of the natural warming occurring), for the argument to hold firm, the entire continent must be suffering similar repercussions as a result of man's reckless polluting addiction. According to Glaciology Program head Scientist Dr. Ian Allison "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally." There again, the quote from the rather ill informed blogger comes to mind: "the world being warmer in some places was cancelled out by other places where it was cooler." Warmer in some areas, cooler in others is a flat statement. One must also remember that records only began in the late 19th century, right about the time coal factories were being replaced by more modern forms of energy. It remains uncertain whether or not one can assert that Britain is producing more C02 emissions now than when King William IV and Queen Victoria were in charge, but going by information from books and paintings, there were vast amounts of pollution billowing out into the air from huge coal powered factories.

Fireplaces, were the primary sources of heat for households, spewing even more icky mess into the air. Despite the significantly lower population, there reason to suggest and believe the coal powered factories had more detrimental effects and higher C02 emissions than the modern sources of energy and internal heating methods.

Do not be afraid. Island nations are not sinking, the world will not be uninhabitable in 100 years, and we will not be planet-less. Take some time to assess the case for Global Warming, analyse it with a high degree of skepticism. If some alleged climate scientist simply says "I know," don't believe it. Whether or not you want to believe in it is your choice, but do not become a herded sheep. Open your eyes and seek the truth. So far, the truth about Global Warming is that there's no scientific consensus yet that man made emissions are contributing to the earth getting warmer.

The voice which pelf silences

Throughout the last several years, there have been some truly horrific enviromental disasters. Oil tycoons British Petroleum (better known as BP), carelessly allowed vast amounts of oil to spew out around the Gulf of Mexico, destroying ecosystems, wildlife, and numerous industries. Out of sheer arrogance, BP tried (and failed) to plug the wall as cheaply as possible, in full awareness these methods carried only the tiniest chances of succeeding. On July 15th, 2010, when BP finally managed to stop all the leakage, BP did what any slimy Multi National Enterprise does in times of ethical trouble. Sneakily pulling out the check book and promising compensation for everyone, senior managers hastily retreated or resigned from their positions. Not a single prison sentence was handed out. New Zealand's largest maritime disaster with the cargo ship Rena, (which is still being attended to to prevent further environmental damage) today saw the navigation officer and Captain sentenced. Both men will be free before the year ends. The pain of seeing the most beautiful beach land areas in the world destroyed, without any proper justice is shameful.

Surprisingly, the Green Parties worldwide seem to have no vested interest whatsoever towards fixing these issues. They are quite happy to go about with their idealistic agenda quite happily, so long as they can cash in on these disasters in any way possible, often by promising to do more about helping the environment and keeping their seats in Parliament and Congress (for Americans), rather than alertly seeking ways to respond to these disasters. Nobody should ever take them seriously until they seriously begin endorsing proper justice for anyone responsible for these environmental tragedies.

The Minister of Education is lost in Lala land

Whatever chortled waffle that is slipping out of Hekia Parata's mouth is pure balderdash. New Zealand most certainly does not have enough teachers; go and ask any teacher who's already suffering from overcrowded classrooms. Why should students have the chance to review a teacher's performance? Many students who will be affected barely know just how incredibly hard teachers work to prepare lessons each week, let alone be in charge of deciding on what makes a good teach. Mrs. Parata's knowledge starts and finishes rather quickly.

To begin Mrs. Parata says that "We've made a trade-off around quality and quantity." Where exactly that trade off is, how it was determined and the reason for arriving at this conclusion is not explained. No such reason can be given. Kids from years 2-10 will all now have to put up with a "ratio of one teacher to 23 pupils up to one to 27.5." Whilst the teaching quality and content may remain constant, irrespective of class size, the one to one time spent with the teacher (where students are proven to learn more effectively) is further diminished. If Mrs. Parata affirms this being true, she's going against her own budget; should she continue to deny it, maybe decreased academic performance might sway her thoughts. http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/6935881/Parata-signals-bigger-school-classes


Savings of $43 million will occur as a result of reducing teacher numbers. An odd cost saving tactic you may think? Not even close. "An extra $60 million invested over four years for boosting teacher recruitment and training" will be where a majority of these savings will head, dispelling any plaudits from the education sector. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6930141/Class-size-controversy-erupts

Mrs. Parata verifies that this "is investing in better teaching," much to the criticism of the New Zealand Educational Institute's Ian Leckie. He states "What parent is going to be happy with the prospect of their 6-year-old going into a large class at the very time they need good-quality time with teachers?" Very few, if that will want to see their child's learning experience ruined by lack of interaction with the teacher, less resources made available, less time to be taught properly. Do not be surprised if private schools receive more application forms than ever. Long before Mrs. Parata was allowed to ruin public education, Pinehurst placed a billboard up which read "Small class size + Proven Curriculum = Guaranteed Results." Everyone learns something new everyday. Sometimes, even billboards are right.

Public support for the amendments has been scant. Professor Dugald Scott "said there was strong evidence that the quality of teaching was more important than class sizes." Professor Scott speaks from a University perspective more than a secondary school one. Tertiary lectures and papers sometimes swell up beyond 400 people per paper; many students not only pass, but pass very well (not in the least to avoid adding to their enormous student loans). Try as he may, Mr. Scott isn't fooling, even himself. Smaller class sizes enable a teacher to determine straight away which students need more help and one to one help and which ones assuredly work consistently hard and achieve high. Teaching should be an attractive career, not one dogged with 60 hour plus weeks dealing with noisier, bigger class sizes and overloading the plate with more marking.


Do not be fooled by what Mrs. Parata says about Education reforms. She's as unschooled on the matter as the students who will be affected by her policies. One day, her grand return back to Earth will be complete, with a simple question. Why didn't this idea work? To which the audience will reply "Because you forgot to proof read it silly."