VSM - 15 years of fighting and the challenges ahead

At long last the ridiculousness is over. The end of compulsory student unionism has finally come and students will have the freedom to decide at enrolment if they will or will not become a part of the student union.

For most people, the concept of freedom of association is taken for granted, we are not forced to go to church and we are not forced to join clubs or political organisations. The Labour Party, when making the Law Society voluntary in 2007 was very clear about it. Clayton Cosgrove said: ‘We haven't had compulsory unionism for 20 years. Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to?... If you want to join the footy club, the workingmen's club, the institute - go for it. It's your choice and you should have that right.’ There were no protests on the streets or in the courtrooms by lawyers as they saw this as a good move and they moved on. The fact that students for too long were forced to join something akin to the legal status as a bowling club has been a blight on our own bill of rights allowing freedom of association.

But that’s beside the point – most students actually don’t give a toss either way. They have been caught in the middle between the student unions and the National and ACT Party campus groups and will wonder what all the fuss was about. I would tend to agree that students apathy on this is fair, after all, you go to University to get your degree and get a job. It isn’t a lifestyle choice. But for me the campaign was more than a brief fight with a few student activists, it was much more than that.

We know that NZUSA (the NZ Union of Students Associations) have spent untold amounts of money on this. We know this because the SOS (Save our Students) campaign was well resourced earlier this year. The HQ of NZUSA managed to send their famous “flying squads” of activists in to fight moves by university unions to pull out of NZUSA and the amount of times that David Do popped up on screens and online during the campaign was more regular than most politicians. Campus ACT and the Young Nats don’t have millions of dollars of funds to fight their campaign. When I ran VSM campaigns at Otago in 1999, our budget was $90, which we dipped into our own pockets for. OUSA spent no less than $35,000 not including what was used via student media like the radio and newspapers that pounded the anti freedom message to the students every day/week. Since then I understand campaigns have still been run on the cheap – ironically the “right wing” side is the far poorer of the two.

The past 15 years for me have not been that easy. When I came to Otago in 1997 I asked an innocent question about my membership and was told where to go – in the student paper – and made to look a fool. Critic never allowed me to have any letter in its pages that were not accompanied by a rebuttal that they would seek. The Otago Polytechnic ran a 3 page rebuttal to my one page discussion on VSM and attacked me rather than the topic. Left wingers cry about the evils of corporate media and yet at a student level they were practising the worst of the worst forms of hypocrisy. However people joined the campaign alongside me and I was acquainted with people like Kiwiblogs’ David Farrar who’s earlier submission on the bill was our bible – which was a huge brick of a document we could reference from to counter any compulsionists argument. I ran for OUSA in ’97 and was about 50 votes off from making it in – on a VSM ticket. This was despite student media and OUSA exec making life very difficult for me at every candidate speaking event – to a point that after a socialist worker threw a chair at me I was told I was probably best to not ever attend any further campaign events.

I was assaulted on campus in 1998 by members of the international socialists for handing out VSM leaflets. This also led to them, and the campus chaplain at the time, burning the leaflets in front of me while I was held against a wall being screamed at. At clubs and societies day I stood up to dozens of threatening OUSA types who called me every name under the sun. I am not tall and most certainly not physically imposing. I have to admit this was pretty frightening and I was always relieved to have the backing of other Campus ACT (known then as Prebble’s Rebels) and sometimes Young Nats around to lend a hand. While I was also Otago (and NZ President) of Prebble’s Rebels – I was also through the years, spokesman for Student Choice that allowed me the pleasure of engaging with students who were not of the right wing variety, but who wanted VSM and also to have a debate about it with the student unions. Not once would OUSA accept a debate against us – despite my limited ability in debates!! The Young Nats at Otago were toothless and supported OUSA through fear of being at the end of the hate campaign.

The bullying campaign continued in 1999 when OUSA ran a paid campaign to fight the VSM “referendum”. My brother sustained some absolutely awful verbal harassment on campus and OUSA members alluded in Critic that I was engaged in sexual crimes with drunken students at my local student pub. Not one apology from Critic was ever made.

When OUSA “won” the referendum the student paper continued to run character assassination pieces ridiculing everything we did. It led to some members of the Rebels choosing to quit in fear. Many attempted to leave OUSA at that time but were unsuccessful. In 2000 my confidence was at an all time low. OUSA continued to ignore the fact that they were disengaged with students and kept on with their petty personal attacks. I relinquished most of my political roles in 01 and tried to become an ordinary student in order to complete my degree, which I did easily and graduated in 2002. I’m not too proud to admit that this campaign for VSM has taken a toll on my confidence immensely, to a point that I was pretty afraid of what would ever come up in student magazines or sometimes when walking through campus days or nights. Many of these people are still students or are in trade unions today still attacking the free rights of individuals. When I left Otago I read some horror stories of the treatment of people like the Flanagans who stood up to OUSA and compulsion, and I am sure they have some stories that make my experiences sound pretty lame!

If OUSA and other unions had listened from the beginning and made compromises about it, I would have not had fought against this as much as I have. I support freedom of association 100% but if in my first year as a fresh faced union paying student was given a fairer run, I would have been only too happy to listen to other ideas. NZUSA and their member unions deserve everything they get. They have money, they have assets, power and arrogance. VSM really shouldn’t have been an issue if unions had collectively dealt with it years ago. Students are a mass market, students want stuff and they consume. Businesses know students make them money – ask any bar within 1 km of a campus. Why then did student unions do NOTHING about protecting their unions until after the Labour filibuster ended? If you see student politicians crying in the media about being hard up or “distraught” over low membership numbers DON’T blame VSM, blame them and their predecessors who deliberately ignored members when given the chance to. How on earth can these unions happily accept the fact that no more than 10% of their members ever vote at elections? How can they be happy to see quorums fail at almost every opportunity? These unions need shaking up and to be accountable.

Don’t blame freedom of association if services struggle at first. The law is different than the Aussie one but the lesson from Aussie is plain – students in the 21st century don’t see collectivisation as important as the union dinosaurs. Student unions have ploughed millions into failure and unaccountability. If they were businesses they would have gone bust within a year or two and yet they think it’s ok to keep funding them because they believe students must own radio stations or have building contracts. (and funding them compulsory in order to get a degree!)

Give the students out there some credit, if they want to join the union then they will. If students don’t see the value, or wish to join their faculty association then let them do so. Students will naturally advocate and organise themselves one way or another – how else did OUSA or NZUSA come about?

I have a sense of calm after today's vote. I won’t be screaming in joy over this despite its importance. It makes me sad that so many people thought it was acceptable to force others to be part of a collective and to treat others badly if they chose to stand against it. I thought that part of our history was over. I am grateful that so many people got involved in changing the law and am glad that on the final day we saw Nats actually get stuck into the law… eventually. Pity many of them were not doing that as voraciously beforehand as much as ACT MPs have been since 1996.

I will support the student unions plight to get members in 2012 and onwards if they honestly want to represent their members and be mature about the voluntary responsibilities they carry. VSM was never about killing students unions or the “voice” that we hear so much about, but is a myth – as nobody can represent all students voices. The VSM movement will make student unions stronger as they can honestly say they represent every one of their members. It’s a challenge that would have been so much easier if student politicians really gave a stuff about their members today and in the past.

Bring on 2012.

Dope - Turning wowsers into idiots

The ACT Party has always had a lenient approach to drug and drug crime. Members of ACT on Campus used to regularly attend J-Day around the country and our very liberal ex leader always gave the same answer when asked by students whether or not he believed in tougher crimes on weed smokers. Indeed when it came to drug policy, ACT under the leadership of Rodney had a credible policy. It was one policy that many of the Greens and Libertarians could relate with ACT on.

Brash announced over the weekend that he too is uncomfortable with our drug laws and it was picked up with much mirth by the assembled repeaters and spread around the news desks by breathlessly excited media folk who needed an excuse to shit on ACT again.
The difference is that with Brash, nobody is really sure exactly how much he subscribes to ACT philosophy considering he was a hairs width away from being the National Party PM. Worse still, the man given the role to run for Epsom, well known conservative John Banks – is completely against the idea of softening laws on weed smoking. Of course he is, he was Mr Law and Order when he was the NATIONAL minister for the Police! John Key has gone along the loony path by suggesting that if it became legal kids will all smoke it before going to school – so we shouldn’t be surprised why the Nats are light years away from being a real political movement for personal responsibility and free choice.

The response from the conservatives and nanny statists were of course predictable. Their spluttering disgust over the idea that a person shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy a puff in their own private residence must have ruined their Friday night at the pub. People are happy to pour litres of DB or Lion owned fermented water into their bodies and then ignore the news stories of NZs shameful statistics on drunk driving and alcohol related domestic abuse – all because of ill informed attitudes of exactly what marijuana actually does. Nobody died from smoking weed no matter how often you’ll hear horror stories from preachy do-gooders. They say it leads to harder drugs – MPs have made that decision for you already. They banned party pills – leading to dangerous sub-varieties of pills becoming available. They gave criminal gangs free reign over the control and distribution of drugs so that whenever you want to have a puff, you’re directly funding criminal activity.

How many of these wowsers have tried marijuana? What about the journos who have used the speech to pound ACT into the ground again? I bet many have skeletons in their closet that would be worth sharing. This blog is offshore so I’ll publish any emailed to me.

Dr Don needs to pull his incoming caucus and candidates into line over this. This is what defines ACT from all the other parties. Free will is not a dirty word. John Banks needs to remember that the meal ticket that he is standing on is a liberal party and it comes with responsibility. The ACT President needs to be reminded that he is the President of the ACT Party not National. His comments opposing the comments by Brash were extremely unhelpful and put him in the Tory camp of a Liberal Party.

So what now for Brash and the last remaining liberals in ACTs “electable” list for the election? Who knows? The media seem intent on wanting ACT to stop existing, the candidates are dropping like flies and as far as I know, there doesn’t seem to be any urgency from anybody about what to do next. Brash needs to stamp his authority and do it quickly – muzzle Banks and rally the membership or indeed the party will be goneburgers in November.

PS – I said it all along that John Banks was of the biggest mistakes ACT has ever made. His pure hatred for everything ACT stands for is already killing the brand. He should have never been allowed to stand for ACT, most certainly not for Epsom. I fear that if he does win Epsom, it won’t be for ACT. It will be for Banks. If ACT is dependent on Banks then the ACT Party as we know it is dead.

Disaster looming

I have officially been spellbound by our Prime Minister. I've never been so impressed by any PM we have had during my lifetime.

BUT without him, the Nats would not be so far ahead in the polls...except Goof is pretty bad.

I remember when Nat MPs had to climb out of student toilet windows to escape... now look at this...



Only the true extreme ideologue and hater will deny this moment. And that is why Labour is in so much trouble, they have no hope.

So will it be 20 or 30 percent?

Trotter on Compulsion

Chris Trotter has officially jumped the shark.

While many have enjoyed his political analysis over the years, even the righties, he has shown lately that perhaps it's time to take him out the back and put him out of his misery. He opines in his latest column about the "need" for compulsory unionism in the workplace, something he says even Labour have abandoned.

Brilliantly, he manages to cheer and boo Roger Douglas in one paragraph - the whole "what did Roger do for us?" speil, while his subject is sipping an overseas beer.

I'll paste some here, it's ok - Chris is a man of the people and will not mind me sharing this with the proletariat, who I am sure read this blog to get their dose of commonsense.

'Unionism doesn't work with some people in and some out, son,' he says. 'All that does is let the employers divide and rule - and it encourages people to free-ride on the guts and sacrifice of others. I've always argued that if it's alright for the bosses to be protected by limited liability, it's alright for workers to be protected by compulsory union membership."'

"Too bloody true!" said Blue, taking another sip of his Old Speckled Hen.

"And you should have seen his face when Len rattled off what bar- staff were entitled to under the award negotiated by the old Hotel, Hospital and Restaurant Workers Union. Travel allowances, clothing allowances, penal rates, time-and- a-half, double-time, triple-time.

"'In real terms, son,' he said, 'you're earning less than I was back in 1973."'

"What did he say to that?" Blue inquired, gazing through the window at the windswept gaggle of university students hurrying over the pedestrian crossing.

Harry laughed. "He said, if compulsory union membership and national awards were so good for workers, why isn't the Labour Party promising to bring them back?"

"Bloody good question!" snorted Blue, distributing a fine spray of Old Speckled Hen across the table.

"I heard that Darien Fenton woman talking on the radio the other day - Labour's industrial relations spokesperson. You know what she says?"

"What did she say?"

"She says: 'Nobody on the Left is calling for the reintroduction of compulsory unionism and national wards."'

"Never asked us," said Harry.

Is this what the "new left" are going to pursue when Goof leaves the leadership in November? Will Labour be taken over by even more hardline unionists in 2012, presenting a true difference between the left and the right?

Who knows. I do know that if Fenton is against compulsory unions (for now) then why was she not against voluntary student unions?

What if given a political thrashing in November the membership led by Labour activists fuelled by the Mana Party starts to push for the return of hardline unionism?

Why are Kiwi leftists so out of touch with the rest of the world? Even the old "east" Europe have embraced low taxes, political and economic freedoms. They won't take being told what to do. How will Kiwis react being told by Chris that he knows best?

Best we consign ideas like this to the same place where the Berlin Wall ended up.

Polling on Crack

Colin Craig needs to get his "pollsters" to lay off the hard drugs. It is beginning to look like he changes his mind every time he gets bad news and then spins furiously to justify himself each time.

First his Conservative Party was going to take out the ACT candidate in Epsom. Why was that? His polling said so. The 3rd place getter in the Auckland mayoralty elections who had conjured a political party out of thin air was going to tear up the political establishment.

Pity real life knocked on the door like an unwanted Jehovah's Witness.

Now it's the Rodney electorate who will be inflicted in whatever Colin thinks will get him elected. But hold on, according to his polling, he is already in front of his closest rival. This is a pretty safe National seat, held currently by hugely popular Lockwood Smith who is vacating the seat to go on the list. It isn't a given by any stretch of his imagination - the confidence and swagger by Colin makes me wonder if John Ansell is working on his campaign!

The Conservative Party also polled Epsom, and said that Banks (National ACT candidate) was a goner as well - and yet Colin believed he too couldn't win it despite the Nats intention to stand aside and only go for the party vote.... somebody is telling porkies!

Mind you, the "values" that Colin are promoting are hardly going to be useful in Parliament when he seems keen to preach to others telling people how they can live their lives. He sits on the weird side on the fringes of National and Labour, although in the comments here does have a fan in ex ACT member big Kev Campbell... so goodness knows what identity Colin is trying to create.

If this is as exciting as the upcoming election is going to be, then don't blame me for yawning out loud at this.

Ignoring Values?

The class of 2011 for ACT will be different by the end of the year. Gone will be the grumpy Sir Roger, who should have had a bigger role in this Government but was ignored by Smile and Wave.

Thankfully also going is the not so dynamic duo of Hilary and Heather. Between them two, and Sir Roger, we are about to see an utter betrayal of ACT Party values, that is if they vote with the Nats to removing an accused's right to remain silent and not have that held against them. In other words, they will go against ACT values supporting freedom of speech and the right to silence.

It took Rodney Hide, ex leader of ACT, the one deemed by the toxic trio as not fit to be ACT leader, to spell this out to the party. He spoke to the party board expressly to stand true to ACT values and for them to pass a resolution to protect freedom of speech, which they did.
For a man that is leaving Parliament with nothing to lose, he has shown that he takes his role standing up for freedom and party values more serious than the others who are counting down the days before their political retirement… albeit forced retirement for Hilary and Heather.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Once Rodney leaves Parliament, whoever comes in under the ACT umbrella have a tough act to follow – some may say they will never match Rodney for hard work, political nous and likability. Quite right.
Those who sought a cheap poll boost (how is that looking by the way?) in order to stay in Parliament, and swing the party in a more conservative direction will also wake up one day and wonder why they did what they did when they could have rejoined National or jumped into bed with Colin Craig.

Cactus Kate I realise has also made comment on this:

We all await to see which way ACT MP's vote on this issue and if they go against the Party principles and the wishes of the Board, their Parliamentary Leader, their new Leader and even the old Leader.

And if they do - a statement on their reasons for doing so.

If they are doing this for "favours" as some are saying then they are as bad as anything we have accused Labour of and they should be castigated as such.

Labour's emerging talent

We have seen throughout the years that both Labour and National MPs have a unique talent in relishing how much of our money they can spend. Other people's money (OPM) is the trigger for lavish lifestyles and almost zero accountability.

The difference is National /ACT MPs seem to already have a fair bit in the bank before going into politics. Most either take a pay cut to get into Parliament and have a bit of a better understanding of how to behave around money – most of the time. Labour MPs come from a background where being an MP is a lifetime aspiration and lifestyle choice. They may have already worked in unions, where OPM is already funding their lifestyles. Many have been average teachers, making the salary jump into politics - something they wouldn’t have achieved as a teacher. Others come in without a having a proper job at all. The question is, who would you trust with your money?

9 years of Labour showed us that given surpluses and huge tax income flowing in, they are not to be trusted with the treasury whatsoever. They were like drunken sailors on annual shore leave in Pattaya.

What surprised me today was that Labour didn’t protect one of their own when it comes to spending OPM. Usually they close ranks and keep things (semi) secret – but when news emerged that Sonny Thomas, a fulla I have sparred with in the past has been charged with “stealing $4183.90 from his boss (MP) Phil Twyford and his wife, stealing a cash machine card to withdraw money and racking up food and drink bills in his name.” I was surprised that Labour didn’t promote him to a reachable list position.

Sonny, ex Vice-President of Young Labour was a very naughty boy. Theft and illegal use of an ATM card, and credit card fraud is more than a petty crime, but using it towards food and drink to emulate his hero Parekura Horomia is another thing. Unless Sonny has aspirations to being Jonathan Hunt then he has no excuse for what he did and has been punished accordingly - if you think 250 hrs community work is apt punishment.

TV3 states he used some of the money to help pay for an operation for his father. I am pretty sure that the public health system doesn't have charges for operations - unles Sonny was paying for his dad to go private? Surely not?

The judge called him a talented young man with a promising career in public service and politics – but said it was over because of this. I would have thought this was a prerequisite for aspiring Labour MPs to show their disregard for OPM no? I am sure of Helen was in the country she’d be protecting one of her own as all good leaders would.

I wonder what Phil and the Camp Davids think of this chilling parting message from Sonny...

''I am still fully committed to the Labour Party who have been incredibly supportive.''

Did Sonny ever apologise for using compulsorily acquired money from students and using it to help support Labour when he was the campaigns officer at VUWSA? Or does he only apologise for when he gets caught?

Remembering September 11

Hard to believe it's been 10 years. I remember watching TV and saw exactly when the 2nd plane hit. We all stayed up all night glued to the TV and the next day it was surreal walking around campus, everybody was in shock. I fully supported the US efforts to find those responsible and like most people were glad they found and killed Osama Bin Laden. Not only that but in the same swoop, the US also got Saddam Hussein and got rid of the brutal Taliban regime in Afghanistan at great cost to the American economy.

I will be visiting Ground Zero in the new year to pay my respects to those who perished. It's been ten years, but we will never forget this vile act in the name of militant Islamic terrorism.

Roarprawn's Dhimmitude - Blair Mulholland

It's a curious phenomenon that I notice a lot, but many on the Right in New Zealand with otherwise solid conservative or laissez-faire credentials have a tendency to go all feral when it comes to their American counterparts, and will inexplicably parrot left wing talking points on people whom they should consider allies.

I put this down to a certain snobbery, and it is one which exists in America also, but in New Zealand there is no real flyover underclass base for laissez-faire ideas, so they tend to be nothing but moneyed Europhiles doing the talking. This is a shame, especially since, in my opinion, Americans have a better education system, a far better grasp of history, and a far more rigorous and intellectual policy debate than New Zealanders could ever dream of. The uppity ones do not take this into account, and simply believe whatever it is that Keith Olbermann might have to say about such folk.

There is no better example of this than the recent post on roarprawn about Michelle Bachmann. They have basically labeled her "dumb". I should state right now I am not a Bachmann fan, for various reasons which I will elaborate on in a future post. But the criticisms of her on roarprawn are ridiculous. She is many things, but "dumb" is not one of them. A rebuttal follows:

"She is currently a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2012 U.S. presidential election."

" which is run by her husband ... has denied allegations that ... provides conversion therapy... which attempts to transform homosexuals into heterosexuals"

Yes, and Eleanor Roosevelt had a lesbian affair, Betty Ford was an alcoholic and pill-popper, Rosalind Carter was friends with pornographer Larry Flynt, Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers, Laura Bush once killed a man while driving drunk... I haven't even mentioned the relatives - Joe Kennedy, Prescott Bush, Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, the Reagan children, Obama Senior, and his brother? Candidates are not their spouses, or their families. You can't judge them according to the behaviour of others.

"was a longtime member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater. ...denomination's belief that the Pope is the Antichrist"

Where is the proof of that? Most people who go to church do not agree with everything that a church teaches. I doubt that the Pope as Antichrist thing is something that pops up regularly in sermons. And even if it did, so what? Pope Benedict has decreed that all Protestants are going to hell, which seems to me to be a little more significant. So he kind of deserves whatever Protestants may care to throw back at him!

You also ignore that we have a US President right now whose church is substantially racist and anti-American in its beliefs, so if you are going to paint Bachmann as having a dodgy church, well ditto times two for our friend Barry.

" introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act"

An excellent piece of legislation. National did an identical thing when it took office in New Zealand. It repeals the nonsense ban on incandescent bulbs and retains the freedom of choice that people have in buying lightbulbs. That's not dumb, that's fucking genius.

"has charged that global warming is a hoax"

It is!

"supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes."

I would hope any academic institution would teach all aspects of a subject, and provide adequate critiques. The Left in America want to stifle this sort of free speech. I am glad that Bachmann supports the First Amendment and wants all sides of a debate taught.

"when asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Bachmann responded that she is "100 per cent pro-life"

A legitimate view. The philosophical status of a foetus is unchanged regardless of how the foetus is conceived. Personally I support legal abortion, but I respect Bachmann's view, as it is philosophically consistent.

So... I am wondering who is the dumb one here? Bachmann has many faults, and I don't think she would make a good President. But I can tell you that there is no-one in the New Zealand Parliament right now who could even come close to matching her in talent, intelligence, ability, and fidelity to sound policy. So... seriously?! Do some hard thinking next time you publish crap like this. You might also like to think about letting my comments through, or I might not have bothered reaming you on my own blog ;-)

Not so Super Injunctions

I see there is great anger over the latest awful ruling that has allowed a "prominent NZ comedian" to be given permanent name suppression because he has stopped drinking, paid a high price - and "makes people laugh''.

The crime?

The man went to bed with his partner after returning home drunk from a Christmas work party in December 2009. After he fell asleep, his four-year-old daughter came into the couple's bedroom and got into bed with them.

Judge Cunningham read from the police summary which said the man laid his daughter on her back, pulled down her pyjama pants and nappy and kissed her.

The man's partner woke up and asked him what he was doing. He replied: "I thought it was you.''

As sick as one can get. But even worse, Judge Philippa Cunningham's ruling was absurd - She said he had already paid a high price in his personal life and work life.

"He's a talented New Zealander. He makes people laugh. Laughter is an incredible medicine and we all need lots of it.''

Enough is enough. Too many people who are "prominent" are allowed to commit any sort of crime, be it beating up their wives, drunk driving or molesting their children - and get away with it. Sure many may feel bad for their deeds, but while everyday citizens are getting locked up for far less, including victimless crimes, then we are creating a two tier system.

In the UK, people had enough of "celebrities" hiding secrets behind expensively gained super injunctions and although the crimes were hardly anything like what our "prominent Kiwi comedian" had done, something was done about it.

On Twitter, somebody set up an anonymous profile and listed all the super injunctions that they knew about. Of course it was all full of things like adultery, bondage and harrassment - but the main point was to smash down the wall that allows powerful people to have more rights than you and me. If you do the crime you must be big enough to face the public court of opinion.



The famous affair of Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas was already out in the open before this Twitter page came about, however nobody was allowed to talk about it or even mention that even a super injuction existed. This site allowed even more people to know about it, making the super injunction look weak and pathetic. Not to mention overseas newspapers and websites including some in Scotland were naming the footballer.

As I said, the crime by the "comedian" is on another level. I have already been told his identity, which I also aluded to on this blog quite some time ago. The man in question has been constantly rumour mill for years and I can only presume that it is all about this crime. People are genuiniely pissed off and if the law is going to protect these sorts of people then the people should take action.

An Anonymous Twitter site like the above, could suffice. Especially if it can link to an offshore blog . While I am advocating this idea, I will not be the one who will do it.

And people thought Whale Oil was being silly with his constant attacks on these stupid decisions. He was right all along. And says so again today.

Make them pay or lock(e) them up

In 2008, three vandals broke into a secure compound and deliberately destroyed a satellite inflatable dome worth USD$1.2million. The satellite, Government owned, is used by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to intercept satellite communications and shares intelligence with the United States, Australia, Canada and Britain.

They admit the damage but their weak defence is that they did it because they “genuinely believed” that it would “prevent harm to civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan” by destroying it. In other words they themselves received faulty intelligence that led them to do something completely stupid. To spit in the face of Kiwis further, they are saying they can't pay nor will pay.

Priest Peter Murnane, teacher Adrian Leason and farmer Sam Land are the dirtbag vigilantes who are now telling the media that they will not pay for the damage they caused because they believe the satellite installation was helping the military in their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan – the same war that Kiwi soldiers were off fighting in. The same war that liberated the populations from mass murderer and Dictator Saddam Hussein and rid Afghanistan from the iron rule of the Taliban. The same war that has allowed women the right to education and to vote – not to mention where kids have hope for a brighter future as a result of an expensive war that the US mainly bankrolled in order to see democracy in the region.

But of course these fools, supported enthusiastically by Green MP Keith Locke, decided that this was a bad idea. This is the same Keith Locke that wildly supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan mind you – so you can see the blaring hypocrisy a mile away, not to mention utter stupidity.

These people committed a crime on land and property belonging to the NZ Govt or if you want to be exact, taxpayers. In the US they’d be tried as terrorists – and in China or Russia they’d probably have already been shot, if we’d actually hear anything about it from their closed media. They are hoping that the lenient NZ court system will let them off without paying for their deeds, but of course if they did it would set a very dangerous precedent for other criminals.

A comment made on the news story made some good points about retribution to these clowns:

So presumably farmer Sam Land won't mind if his farm is razed by vegetarian activists, and priest Peter Murnane will be happy for the victims of paedophile priests to burn down Catholic churches etc - all in the name of protecting the innocent! Or do they reserve their divine right to destroy the property of those who they believe to be wrong for themselves only?
Couldn’t have put it better.

If these people get off without paying one or another, be it substantial jail time and a hefty fine then I suggest that the above action be taken against them. If vandalising property is to be rewarded then it’s open game for them. Not at all surprised that the Greens would be so enthusiastic about people not facing up to personal responsibility when committing crimes.

Bigger Boobs or something else?

As a young gentleman, it doesn't take me too long to open up news stories that start with "Bra Sizes Increasing"  especially as it conjures up images of hot young women, healthy sized and yet busty.

Unfortunately the truth is so far from the truth.

Massey University Associate Professor in Human Nutrition Jane Coad said there was no significant research behind the phenomenon, but suspected it could be caused by many factors.

"One is that everyone is getting bigger," she said. "Women get bigger breasts because fat is deposited in the breasts, sides and bottom."

People have been growing in size, with the World Health Organisation describing obesity as an epidemic.

Obesity rates in New Zealand have been on the rise, going from 9 per cent of men and 11 per cent of women in 1977 to 20 and 22 per cent respectively in 2003.

The most recent Health Ministry figures showed one in three adults was overweight, and one in four was obese.

So yeah, girls are just getting fatter. Sad.  But lets be honest, we are all getting fatter - blokes too. Kiwis are in the top 10 of the fattest people on the planet. In fact Kiwis cannot point to the US and ridicule them as fatties any longer - we are catching up with them very quickly.

Is this the way the West is headed? Is our collective wealth our downfall? Will the title of this post bring in a crazy amount of hits? :)  After all, after 6 years of political and sports ranting - my posts on topless Ukrainian feminists and the Latvian Blonde Festival are still getting me 100-200 hits a day.