“He’s not handicapped, he’s different”

Friday afternoon inspiration.

Thanks for the precedence Kim Dotcom

I think there is a lot to thank Kim Dotcom for.

Personally I’d like to thank him for making me feel small (and there ‘aint that many people who can do that) but there is also much the country can thank him for and the most obvious is showing up the flaws in the GCSB and how our spies operate, although I think we shouldn’t thank anyone for where it’s gone from there into new legislation.

I would also like to thank Kim Dotcom for one more thing, I want to thank him for being the unwilling catalyst for the legal precedence that we will all be able to use and abuse for years to come to get out of many infringements that we made by mistake.

TVNZ reported last night that no charges would be laid against anyone at the GCSB and Detective Superintendent Peter Read told media “that in spite of the GCSB committing one breach under the provisions of the Crimes Act, no criminal “intent” by the GCSB could be established.

The official statement by DS Peter Read was

“While GCSB staff did commit the act prohibited by section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961, they did not have the necessary intent to satisfy the elements of the offence and be considered criminally liable,”

In other words because it was a mistake, and there was no intent, no one would be liable.

So, next time you don’t intend to speed…it just accidentally creeps up, or genuinely forget to file your GST, or you infringe on a law genuinely by mistake or misunderstanding there is a legal precedence for you to say “well officer, much like the GCSB, I had no intention of committing that crime, it was an accident” and they surely must be obliged to let you off…he says sarcastically

Syria…why now West?

I chatted with my wife last night and when I asked this question I saw the horror on her face until I had the chance to explain my thoughts, so please give me two minutes of your time and don’t jump to the first most obvious conclusion about this post.

Why is the West showing concern now that there has been ‘chemical attacks’?

This is when you breathe and give me a chance to explain my thoughts.

The West is getting ready to take action against the Syrian Government due to a horrific attack on civilians where chemical weapons were used. CNN reported last night that the “UK drafts U.N. resolution to go before Security Council today authorizing necessary measures to protect Syria civilians” but my question is why are ‘chemical weapons’ the straw that broke the indignant back of the West.

In this current civil war UNICEF reported in February that over 500 children had died already, by August the UN were reporting that 6,561 children had died. There are also reports that more than 600 detainees and political prisoners have died during the current conflict while the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports prior to the chemical attack that 3,607 Women are dead due to this conflict.

Overall reported total number of deaths vary, but the UN reported in July that there were estimated to be over 100,000 deaths in total due to the current conflicts.

If the UK were “authorizing necessary measures to protect Syria civilians” and one assumes the Americans are on the same page…and for the record it’s a page that I agree with and am on as well…what about the other 100,000, of which it seems about 60,000 are civilians, that haven’t warranted protection. Where were the West when it got to 20,000 or 30,000 or 50,000?

It is horrific to see the images on the news of people dead and dying due to chemical weapons, but you have to concede that there are going to have been thousands, if not tens of thousands of horrific deaths so far committed on civilians during the conflict. Where were the West then?

If this is a catalyst to help innocent civilians then I support it, but if it is the West, just placating their conscience because they have seen the images on their TV screens that shock them then I say, “Shame on you West, where have you been?

Syrian reunion

A father who thought his son had died in the chemical attacks has an emotional reunion.


Happy Father’s Day for Sunday New Zealand

Well done National on the political stunt

Love them or hate them, support them or be repulsed by them you have to admit that yesterday in the house the National Party had a brilliant moment of Political tomfoolery at the expense of the Labour Party turning the leadership run into an X-Factor type popularity contest.

Contestant number one

Well done on whoever thought that one up. I hope that we get some more clever, funny political moments in the next 12 months as opposed to the negative slanging match that we have started to see more and more of over the past few elections.

Hilter run down as a young child?

German students make a fake advert where a Mercedes runs over a young Hitler.

Mercedes are not very happy with the advert, and I wonder if it’s just that they are protecting a past customer


Flexi-Super ‘aint quite there

I personally like the idea of Peter Dunne’s Flexi-Super…but something is not quite sitting right with the concept.

I get the impression we are hearing a collective sigh of relief that all of a sudden, someone has finally addressed the ‘issue’ with Super that everyone has been talking about for the past few years. Problem is, this doesn’t address it.

The major issue has been that the economy cannot afford Super with our aging population, and as we are being told that this is fiscally neutral, it does nothing to address that. That being said, Dr. Don Brash said on Radiolive this morning that he wasn’t so sure if it would be neutral, but unless the Government, via Mr. Dunne, is trying to slip a reduction in costs past the country, then this doesn’t ‘fix’ the issue of cost.

The other thing about it is that I think the majority of people will take this at 60, not wait. Can we please see some projections about that?

My rationale is this.

If my wife and I take Super at 60 we get $403 a week, if we wait until 70 we get $885 a week and there is a sliding scale for the decade in between. If we take $403 a week we have received nearly $210,000 before we reach 70 and take a cent. This would then take us another four and a half years to catch up to before we are then better off. So we wouldn’t see a benefit of taking Super at 70, until we are close to 75 and with the average life expectancy being 80 in NZ at the moment, who would be willing to take that financial risk.

I like the idea of giving people the choice and I like the idea that people groups who have shorter life expectancies could get Super earlier but I have major concerns that New Zealanders are going to think the ‘problem’ with Super is solved, and it’s far from it.

‘Expert’ hypocrisy?


So when Ken Ring from predictweather.co.nz forecast there was going to be another earthquake we got told by the scientists that you cannot predict earthquakes. Mr. Ring then had death threats against him for saying it…but now when ‘experts’ suggest it it’s seems all okay to make predictions of ‘another big jolt.’

When Mr. Ring spoke out his prediction he was told it was yelling fire in a theatre, in fact some said that it was like yelling fire in a theatre where there was already a major fire going on…in other words of course a ‘prediction’ is going to be right as there are many earthquakes on the way…how is this any different?

Is it hypocrisy? Or is is that Mr.Ring is seen as a kook and science is more trusted to forecast upcoming quakes?

I don’t post this to support the validity of Ken Ring’s predictions, only to point out what looks like hypocrisy to me.

For the ‘old romantics’ out there

The other day my wife gave me some grief for showing her what I thought was a pretty cool wedding video. I watch these things and sometimes get a little ‘moist’ in the eye region. I guess that is a little pathetic, and I guess it confirms that I am a bit of an old romantic.

I saw this poem this morning and have to admit to a little moistness again, I thought it was amazing. I don’t know if it was the content, or the poet and his disorder, or a combination of the two. Have a look.

But how can it be a mistake if I don’t have to wash my hands after I touch her


Neil Hilborn is the poet and her started a Facebook page 21 hours ago and is approaching 10,000 likes at the time of writing this post.

So…did you get moist?

The art of the political ‘flip flop’

We all know what it is about, we know all politicians do it, I’m pondering if in the next election cycle will our media serve us in demonstrating which politicians and political parties are flip-flopping for what some would say is political expedience.

A couple of examples that I have come across recently.

The much publicised flip-flop by Prime Minister John Key on Winston Peters

Key in 2008

“It’s a matter of political principle. We just do not find NZ First acceptable”
“Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a minister in a government led by me.”

Key in 2011

“I want to lead a positive aspirational government and I don’t believe a Winston Peters government does that.”
“If Peters is the balance of power it will be a Phil Goff-led Labour Government.”

Key in 2013

“I think partly it reflects that the country doesn’t want to see Labour and the Greens in office. And so if it means having to deal with New Zealand First – a lot of our supporters would prefer to see that situation.”

And here is a less known, perhaps unknown flip-flop I cam across in my archives.

We interviewed Colin Craig from the Conservatives in 2008 and when asked about Gay Marriage he said the following

Yet this year I think it is safe to say that the Conservatives have made it quite clear that they oppose ‘Gay Marriage’ and have spoken with pride (‘scuse the pun) about being the only party ‘arguing against it‘.

From the Conservative website

Conservative Press Release

Seems the Conservatives are no longer ‘uncomfortable’ with making this a focus

The US media is brilliant at showing politicians changing their position for political expedience. The Daily Show makes a living off showing these clips back to back on a nightly basis.

I only hope that somewhere in the media in the lead up to next years election we will see clarity and long memories from our media to demonstrate these inconsistencies in our politicians and give us a fair look at who we are voting for.