Labour keep’s trying to shut down and shut up it’s critics, but the disillusionment and anger keeps coming out. Molly Polly adds to the growing despairing dissent within Labour.
You see Mike, many Labour Party members and potential supporters are currently despairing of Labour.
Despite a good speech at Conference, it really was too little too late. And who believes that Shearer will run rings around Key in the election debates come 2014, or that he will even come close? And it’s not that we don’t want him to, it’s just that we can’t imagine he will as there has been, so far, no stirring off-the-cuff statements or passionate interviews that can convince us otherwise. And he has been Leader for over a year now.
So as you can see Mike, many of my whanau have lost faith in Labour. The younger ones of course have already departed, but for those of us who remain, we are struggling. We feel so dispirited that we can’t even face going to LEC meetings. When we do it feels like a charade…everyone pretending to be positive about Labour and the direction it is taking, but never a mention of the elephant in the room. We know we should attend more and speak our minds, but that is difficult to do when one’s MP is close to the Leader and is part of the ABC group.
For many of us it has got to the stage that even that person is not likely to get our vote at the next election, let alone the Party.
And that will probably be seen by Labour leadership as just another voice to try and gag.
Gidday to the bored, to the guillotine knitters’ group, to all fellow bush lawyers.
Let’s have another 200-poster!
David Bain has his sights on an opera career. Is this the right target for him? Is this within the famously long reach of a Bain? Can David realistically hope to Karam so much into his busy life?
Will he top the bill, or is that in the hands of the Government?
Jack if giving a skinny weirdo a few bucks is all this country has to worry about then we are in good knick.
Big Picture Question: Are we watching the end of western democracies now that governments have figured out that you can use taxpayers own money to bribe them to vote for you and many of the dumber taxpayers don’t mind the govt borrowing to keep the bribes going?
If we put in place a civics test which must be passed for your vote to count (say 7/10 correct) would this help? Also a thumb print placed on voting paper, scanned and checked against all other votes so no two the same for vote to count?
The Labour MP behind the bid to legalise gay marriage expects the debate to divide grandparents and grandchildren.
With Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill tipped for a final reading in May, same-sex marriage could be passed into law next year.
Ms Wall said the bill was a “talking point” with the potential to split families this summer.
Just a little news stir from Stuff in case we had forgotten about it, but I don’t really feel over New Year’s Day it will a great topic of discussion between grand-dad and grand-daughter – sorry about that, Louisa.
But meanwhile, you could consider a competition offering 5 iPads for the best words to define those gayly-wed, since ‘marriage’ is still going to mean ‘married’ in the traditional sense and will need an accompanying adjective, or new word altogether, to further distinguish it to encompass anything else.
Of the 613 readers polled from December 13 to 20, 35 per cent identified themselves as being in support of same-sex marriage, while a further 35 per cent were against it.
… Eighty-eight per cent of respondents were aged over 40.
See? – the figures don’t quite match the headline, Gay marriage debate likely to split families, so add on a couple of random opinions
“I think it is difficult for most people in my age group (late 70s) to accept that two people of the same sex can be ‘married’,” wrote one respondent.
Someone else remarked that their stance against gay marriage was “just the way I was brought up”, while another apologised for being “old-fashioned”.
Here are a couple of the highlights from the “How Safe Is Dat ?” section:
“Watersports (Piss Play) – There is little risk of STD infections and no risk of HIV infections from playing with pee. It is possible that Hepatitis can be spread this way, so avoid getting pee in your mouth and get those vaccinations”
“Rimming (Lickin’ Butt) – The risk of transmitting HIV from rimming is very low. But the risk of Hepatitis A, herpes, shigella and intestinal parasites is high”
So there you have it. GLSEN (the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network) and those “educators” on the local district school-boards and teachers found it perfectly acceptable to peddle this filth to young boys. And it will happen here, as sexual militants seek to reorganize society in their own sordid image.
Not just the education establishment but the media too,particularly “popular” or lowbrow stuff like Coronation St etc.Note the amount of homos presenting programmes too ,as a percentage it must be way above the odds.
I was struck by how TVNZ got in behind the Wall nonsense via their “personalities” of Coffee and Mclean.These fellows were given lots of air time on shows like Sainsbury and the Morning show.
Reddy has linked to something worth debating. Far too often we let politicians get away with diverting public attention onto issues of marginal relevance.
I’m all for redefinition of marriage, although to me it is purely a personal commitment and I see no need for the state to regulate any aspect of the personal relationships of consenting adults.
I’d much rather that debate centred on big issues like the environment, economic growth, immigration, education, health, defence and infrastructure.
milky is trying to redirect the dedate away from redefining marriage to other matters under the guise of debating education.
Some one made the point along time ago that the state never defined marriage in the past ,it gave legal recognition to an existing institution.
What the state is now doing is legislating a new form of marriage ,so called, under the guise of equality.
The state has no business doing so. This unwarranted state interference in ancient institutions is well worth debating.
I’m quite happy to debate marriage only; if that is your main concern. As I said above, the state should have no involvement in regulating the personal relationships of consenting adults. Simply repealing the Marriage Act would be ok with me. Marriage can then be defined according to choice, whether one does that i accordance with religious precepts or not is then a personal choice.
Do you have statist cravings to control marriages, kowtow?
Manolo, you might like to read this article. Very interesting, about Offshore Trusts.
“We have a regime which is fundamentally based on the residence of the settlor – a regime that deliberately ties up the taxation of the trust to the fact that the settlor probably has some sort of enduring economic connection with the trust,” explain Elliffe. “So on that sort of principled basis the regime does comprehensively tax New Zealanders who set up foreign trusts. And it provides for the converse – foreigners who set up New Zealand trusts are not subject to [New Zealand] tax.”
If Obama continues the Legal Proffession in NZ is probably the front runner to gain millions in legal fees as far as I can tell.
Be good to use up all those half baked lawyers to assist the Yanks to minimise their tax.,
Wonder how many Legal Firms have cottoned on to this.
“Some one made the point along time ago that the state never defined marriage in the past ,it gave legal recognition to an existing institution.
What the state is now doing is legislating a new form of marriage ,so called, under the guise of equality….This unwarranted state interference in ancient institutions is well worth debating.”
By the same argument the state has no business changing the traditional marital concept that, by definition, a man could not rape his wife.
In India I believe the state permits and recognises inter-caste marriages (I know, I’m as shocked as you are.)
And in the deep South, the state recognised the traditional racist form of marriage but later proceeded to change it so that whites and blacks could intermarry. What’s that about?
There is no inherent merit in any institution, ancient or otherwise. So appealing to venerability is equally without merit.
If you wish the state to recognise and grant special status to private agreements then it must be on a non-discriminatory basis. This means permitting homosexual and polygamous marriages.
I know many people here are keen on the concept of social-engineering – using the state to enforce their own views on everyone else – but I am not one of them.
’m quite happy to debate marriage only; if that is your main concern. As I said above, the state should have no involvement in regulating the personal relationships of consenting adults.
The reason why there is the need for a public recognition for the relationship between a male and a female who are going to procreate is that it assigns responsibilty for the care and welfare of any children born of that union to the parents i.e. the mother and the father of those children.
Thus society at large holds me accountable for the welfare of any children born of my wife – this is also why ADULTARY is considered a grave offense.
Cultural institutions do not arise in arbitary fashion and the sheer arrogance of politicians who think that they can remake them on personal whim continues to astound me.
Oh dear Manolo, you just don’t get that by collecting more tax on Tobacco the Government will bring about a state of Nirvana where all the citizens of Aotearoa will live for ever and ever and ever and never ever get sick and die the way we do today….
As to the issue of state interference in the private lives of the people – the state use to regulate divorce establishing criteria for assessing fault etc. That changed in the 1970′s.
The concept of adultery was established in the days of patriarchy when women were seen as part of property rights, females passing from father to husband. It is still most severly applied where men have polygamy, so the privileged who can support more than one wife have protection from threat to their aquisition from other men.
The principle issue was ultimately property rights (as distinct from the woman being property) because the children of the wife had a claim on the estate. Thus there was no advice to women not to lie with the husbands of other women, just for men to not lie with the wives of other men.
I suspect that the rationale behind dropping adultery from public law, was not to criminalise consenting behaviour – and allow the marital parties to determine if the marriage would end as a consequence. Similarly the state withdrew from allowing rape on the marriage bed and also regulating consensual sexual practices on it – a precurser to later ending criminalising homosexual acts. This enabling the possibility of same sex relationships being recognised.
the state should have no involvement in regulating the personal relationships of consenting adults.
The State is the regulator of social phenomenons of which marriage is one just like the economy is. It has been this way because of Judeo-Christian heritage, which we’re not allowed to talk about anymore, lest it offend someone if we talk about how mighty we used to be, in the olden days, when things weren’t quite so gay as they are today.
I don’t have a problem with it since I see nothing of coercion or manipulation in it. There is no hidden hand of compulsion or manipulation in it, at least there hadn’t been until this bill arrived. The fact the church is involved as one of the official participants is as I say, a result of our once-mighty and strong heritage and what the heck is wrong with conservatives celebrating that? That’s what we’re here for, to conserve the good, isn’t it? Yes, it is.
I see state involvement in marriage like I do the monarchy in the republic issue. It’s not broken, it has worked well in the past, by all projections it will continue to work well, there is no particular groundswell of demand to change except from beltway academics and politicos who use purist theoretical justifications like the ‘little engine that could’ argument people use to justify the republic argument and who cares about those arguments; so given all this, why change it?
reid, once upon a time, the church took control of the public marriage bed of the European peoples – the church had become the possession of imperial Rome before the empire fell and thus was the adopted heir or legacy of its civilisation. Change began when a King lacked progeny by his wife (because he spent more time in bed with the wives of other men). He introduced the nation state into the marriage bed. He was little better at it than he was at securing a legitimate descendant to inherit the throne.
The concept of adultery was established in the days of patriarchy when women were seen as part of property rights, females passing from father to husband.
Another that has bought into the left wing feminist narrative.
My friend in the days before big state nanny government people only survived by looking after themselves and their own. Thus men took care of and supported their women and their children and as they aged the children took care of their parents.
Those groups who built strong social structures prospered and those that didn’t died out.
The key to all of this are strong bonds based upon kinship – these bonds are biologically based, they are what drives us as people.
Adultary undermines the biological base of orderly society which is establishing unambigously Paternity and the responsibilties that ensue from it.
And my friend in these enlightened times resources which I could have put into my children were extracted from me to be put into the children of those whose FATHERS who for whatever reason (the breakdown of the family structure being the ultimate cause) were not providing for them.
AS is always the case with social engineering the result of breaking down social structures and taboos which have served us well for millenia the results are not good – responsible parenting and fatherhood in particular are undermined leading to a decline of the numbers children born into good families and a blowout in the numbers requiring the STATE to step in to feed house and cloth.
Of course Big State Government types love state dependency because it increases their power and that is the real reason why gay “marriage” is so attractive to them – it helps further degrade the meaning and purpose of the institution, to the point of virtual meaninglessness, which means that ever more children will be born into state dependency and know no different – lambs to the slaughter.
The Federal Reserve is a Private Company owned mostly by foreign interests and has no accountability to the US Congress. However, due to the outrage of the American people due to the published bailouts, Congress was able to perform a very limited audit in 2011 (first time ever) where we learned that the Fed made trillions of dollars in secret bailout loans to the big Wall Street banks during the last financial crisis. They even secretly loaned out hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign banks.
According to the results of the limited Fed audit mentioned above, a total of $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. What’s worse is that these loans were at low interest and the banks turned around and used the money to buy more US securities. Effectively, the Fed gave away $16.1 Trillion of U.S. taxpayers $ so that their “Foreign Owners” could loan it back to them at a higher interest rate. The QE Infinity initiative is more of the same. The Fed is printing $40 billion per month and “buying” from banks below mortgage backed securities. What they would like the American people to believe is that the billions are being pumped back into the economy , ie. bolster the stock market, investments for small business, increased consumer credit, etc. In reality, these banks are using the money to buy T-Bills from the Fed. Basically the Fed is using this initiative in the biggest property grab in the history of the world with $ that are worth just the paper on which they are printed.
Here is a link to the list of illegal loans from page 131 of the audit report.
andrei, your real objection is to the legal right to divorce and consequent tax supported children, not adultery. Adultery is not a major cause of divorce – financial stress can be (for this blame the greater insecurity of employment, low wages as the fruit of productivty are retained by the few and the housing value bubble).
And there is no likelihood of much of an economic ost on society of same sex marriages.
I am presuming your POV is not based on religion (given any bible reader would know how to spell adultery).
CROCODILE DUNDEE KILLED BY GUN-CONFISCATING POLICE
I am unashamed to tell you I am weeping as I write this story.
Last August, Rodney William Ansell, the rugged Aussie whose real life exploits inspired the Crocodile Dundee movies, died in a shootout with Australian police who had come (to confiscate his unregistered firearms. Oh, you didn’t read about it in our ‘free’ press? That’s cause it never appeared.
A police sergeant was also killed in the incident; the number of “peace officers” injured while invading old ‘Croc’ in his natural domain is unknown, but likely he took down several. I don’t mean to imply glee over the death and possible additional injuries; after all, they were “just doing their job” like the obedient Nazi’s tried at Nuremburg.
Ansell had been named 1988 Australian Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting Australia on the Tourism Map.” of particular interest to us here in the tourism dependent desert, Ansell was probably responsible for hundreds of millions of increased tourism dollars flowing into his beloved country. This is how his country repaid him. Because you see, in today’s world, no good deed goes unpunished and no bad deed un-rewarded. After all, Janet Reno was the laughingstock of DA’s nation-wide for her inept to outright unlawful per-formance in Florida. She is now “our-Attorney General (in addition to Fidel Castro’s).
There is no doubt that Ansell was affected by amphetamine intoxication prior to his fatal interaction with Sergeant Huitson…Ansell’s behaviour prior to the initial shots being fired is consistent with amphetamine intoxication with restlessness, hypervigilance, anxiety, anger and impaired judgement (DSM IV). He was also affected by a paranoid psychotic state which is typical of chronic amphetamine use.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Ansell
Adultery is not an offense in NZ. Indeed, very few people really care less if a person is shagging somebody other than their partner.
Nobody cares (as long as it is not their own partner) and nobody who has a brain is going to stand up and make a big noise about it.
Society has moved on Andrei, it might be time that you joined in.
Its like most of your comments ,totally fucking meaningless.
He was an England Captain, someone of some stature in the game and the article is padded out with this tripe Australian cricketing great Glenn McGrath tweeted: “My thoughts are with Tony Greig’s family today.”
Someone from the ECB could have been contacted for a bit of depth but na we get tweets, about as shallow as you can get. Lazy lazy lazy
Barry Richards is the one I would have loved to see bat live, I saw LLoyd and Gavaskar but evidenty Richards was something else in his prime.
In 1970-71, as an overseas player for South Australia, Richards scored 325 runs in a single day against Western Australia off an attack that included Dennis Lillee, Graham McKenzie, Tony Lock and Tony Mann. In that season he hit 1538 runs in 10 matches at an average of 109.86.
now thats a batsman, not a batter , a batsman
Just had a look at the stats Gavaskar did’nt play WSC
Why don’t you write an obituary and post it as a comment here since you are such a fucking genius?
Might just do that and I won’t have to resort to tweets , newspapers have morgues with all the information available, its just totally sad that lazy duty journo’s have to try and make it “contempory” by putting crap in like McGraths tweet
I’d love to have seen Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock in their prime- Pollock had a Test average of 60.
I remember watching him in New Zealand in the Hadlee (Testimonial?) series a few years back. He was in his late 40s then and still smashed the young bowlers all over the park…
Well Longknives (and Keeping Stock)we will just have to content ourselves with the New Zealand mens Cricket team playing England in March .
While on that subject, who is the drug addled wreck that puts on the tests on this tour in March. The Poms are world class and they put the tests in a weather window that is usually disastourous. All the shallow stuff is on in February when the weathers sharp.
Mind you the third ODI is on at Eden Park on my wife’s birthday, it should be a a good day out for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Margaret Thatcher gave Francois Mitterand a good bollocking after the Poms found out that the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys were trying to smuggle Exocets into Argentina at the height of the Falklands war:
Margaret Thatcher warned that Britain’s relationship with France would suffer a “devastating” blow if the latter allowed Exocet missiles to be smuggled to Argentina during the Falklands War.
In a secret telegram to French president Francois Mitterand, the Prime Minister even cast doubt on the future of the Nato alliance, should he fail to stop shipments of the anti-ship missile, then being used with awful effect against Britain’s task force in the South Atlantic.
The sea-skimming Exocet was the most feared weapon in the Argentinian armoury, accounting for the destroyer Sheffield and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor, and posing a mortal threat to Operation Corporate, the mission to recover the Falklands.
“Father Michael!” I shouted to the elderly priest, “Father Michael! It’s good to see you again.”
“Hello Brian,” he responded by taking my outstretched hand. “It’s been a long time. I’m surprised you seem so pleased to see me… You know, after what happened the last time we were together.”
I sensed his apprehension. “It’s okay Father.. I don’t blame you for what happened.”
“I wish I could feel the same,” he said quietly. “I should have known better. I’m really sorry if it’s any consolation. I ask God for forgiveness every single night.”
“Seriously Father.. It wasn’t your fault.”
“It’s nice of you to say so Brian, but I still feel terribly guilty.”
“Don’t,” I replied, “I was the mad bugger who asked her to marry me.”
While she was “flying” down the road yesterday (10 miles over the limit), a woman passed over a bridge only to find a cop with a radar gun on the other side lying in wait.
The cop pulled her over, walked up to the car, and with that classic patronizing smirk we all know and love, asked, “What’s your hurry?”
To which she replied, “I’m late for work.”
“Oh yeah,” said the cop, “what do you do?”
“I’m a rectum stretcher,” she responded.
The cop stammered, “A what? A rectum stretcher? And just what does a rectum stretcher do?”
“Well,” she said, “I start by inserting one finger, then I work my way up to two fingers, then three, then four, then with my whole hand in. I work from side to side until I can get both hands in, and then I slowly but surely stretch, until it’s about 6 feet wide.”
“And just what the hell do you do with a 6 foot asshole?” he asked.
“You give him a radar gun and park him behind a bridge….”
Traffic Ticket $95.00
Court Costs. $45.00
The Look on Cop’s Face. PRICELESS
Sheila was in a coma. Nurses were in her room giving her a sponge bath.
One of them was washing her private area, and noticed that there was a response on the monitor,when she touched her. They went to her husband Bruce and explained what happened, telling him,”Crazy as this sounds maybe a little oral sex, will do the trick and bring her out of the coma.”
Bruce was skeptical, but they assured him, that they’d close the curtains for privacy. He finally agreed and went into his wife’s room.
After a few minutes the woman’s monitor flat lined, no pulse, no heart rate. The nurses ran into the room. “What happened?” Bruce replied, “I guess she choked.”