Kiwiblog

Heh. Upsetting either Whale Oil or Cactus Kate is an inadvisable thing. Upsetting them both together has consequences, as one can see at Gotcha with the registration of a new company called Keith Ng Ltd, registered in Belize.

If not sure what this is about, read this on Public Address and this from Cactus Kate.

Cactus Kate blogs approvingly of a speech Barack Obama gave to the NAACP where he told parents to put away the x-box:

So last night we had the Obama speech/sermon to the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Most of the first part of the speech was dreadful, about how he was going to spend more of mostly the white man’s money. Being at a coloured convention he received a thunderous applause for every trillion he stole.

But then Obama turned it all on the audience. He was brilliant. I think he wrote this part of the speech himself.

“Government programs alone won’t get our children to the Promised Land,”

“We have to say to our children, ‘Yes, if you’re African-American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher, Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not.’

“But that’s not a reason to get bad grades, that’s not a reason to cut class, that’s not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands and don’t you forget that.”

“I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers,” Obama said. “I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court justice. I want them aspiring to be president of the United States.”

Only a black President could give that speech.

Kate goes on to say:

If only we could have an effective co-President who made sound fiscal decisions

I agree. A lot of what Obama has done I have no problems with. His fiscal policies though are an unmitigated disaster (yes even worse than Bush and he was crap fiscally) and I think will lead to another US crash when they start printing money to pay the bills.

A short clip of part of the speech. He even urges parents to take action if their neighbour’s kids are misbehaving – including smaclking them!

Phil Goff has been handing out lots of advice lately from telling Neelam Choudary to bring a chaperone to have coffee with Richard Worth, to his musings on how a younger woman would not be interested in an older man.

Cactus Kate has located further advice that Dear Phil has been handing out to his MPs. Here are some extracts – the full set is at Cactus Kate:

Dear Phil,

Simon keeps asking me for coffee after our Breakfast television spot early on Thursdays.

Should I take a chaperone?

Thanks and keep up the good work. I am enjoying your strong positive leadership.

Yours sincerely

Jacinda Ardern M.P.

And Phil’s reply:

Jacinda

Lovely to hear from you. I have looked up your parliamentary profile and indeed you are a strikingly beautiful young lady. I don’t know how I haven’t noticed you before and for that I apologise.

It is clear to me that you should always take a chaperone. That Bridges lad reminds me a lot of myself at that age. In which case you are always under danger.

I suggest speaking to one of Helen’s old people and arranging a chaperone. They could possibly wait in the car while you have these meetings and you can text a warning to them if you feel in danger. Make sure you keep these texts for later use. We could set Bridges up a beauty.

Regards

Phil.

And

Dear Phil

I am embarrassed to mention this but considering your comments recently I need clarification.

As a woman if I receive some 100 text messages and phone calls in the space of a few months, should I think a man finds me sexually attractive?

I ask as it is Duncan Garner again, he just won’t leave me alone. Is he hiding his attraction to me under the guise of journalism? I am old enough to be his mother, but he’s a cuddly little pup.

Sincerely

Hon. Annette

Hopefully this may become a regular series!

So many comments today. First Cactus Kate comments on Phil Goff’s description of Complainant A is “strikingly beautiful”:

Imagine a man from the centre-right of politics objectifying a woman as “strikingly beautiful”. The left would be outraged.

Is it appropriate for a Party leader to be commenting on the physical appearance of one of his members? A member you are meant to be protecting the identity of? At what point did Goff feel the need to comment at all on her appearance? What possible context would it have been necessary to utter this stupid answer?

Kate mischievously suggests the feminist wing will be so outraged it may be BBQ at Maryan’s place!

The Sunday News reports that Richard’s daughter is standing by him:

THE only child of under-fire former minister Richard Worth claims the businesswoman who filed a complaint with police against her dad “has problems and needs help”.

“He is the best man in the world and I love him so much,” Worth’s 28-year-old daughter Virginia told Sunday News. …

“I am standing by my dad and that is all there is to it,” said Virginia Worth, a Newmarket, Auckland, rental car company manager.

“I am 100 percent confident and sure that everything is going to work out perfectly. I’m very proud of my father and he has been the most amazing and devoted parent anyone could wish for.”

There is enormous sympathy for Lynne and Virgina Worth, having to deal with all this.

John Tamihere writes:

The real target is not Dr Richard Worth or the complainant.

They are but a means to an end in the final game. In fact, they are merely unsuspecting pawns.

The head Labour wants is that of prime minister John Key.

He is new to the rough and tumble of bloodthirsty politics, of being in the gutter and having to slug it out.

While he is undoubtedly an outstanding corporate leader, and as such has had to deal with significant issues in regard to huge volumes of money and large numbers of staff and clients, the real dirty side of politics is now in play.

The question is, can he handle the constant and continual harassment and pressure the opposition will bring to bear? …

We see this by Goff insisting that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has to meet this “strikingly attractive” complainant despite the refusal to supply the text messages in advance.

Kerre Woodham writes:

What on earth would possess a man to think he could engage in this sort of behaviour and get away with it? Especially when one of the women was a Labour Party member.

He should be dismissed for that sort of poor judgment alone. There may well be no law against being a randy old goat but some of the allegations make for very uncomfortable reading.

Bill Ralston pronounces on the handling:

At 9.21 am on June 3, like the rest of the media, I received a short email statement from Richard Worth stating he was resigning his ministerial portfolio and would be making no further comment. Seven minutes later another arrived from Prime Minister John Key’s office saying he had accepted the resignation and would be making no further comment.

Hello? What were they thinking? A minister of the Crown resigns and the Government has nothing to say? Did anyone in the Administration seriously think journalists in newsrooms across the country would simply say, “Hey Richard Worth’s resigned but no one’s talking. Pity, well, where shall we go for lunch today?”

I think most people accept now the original press release was inadequate.

The problem with the Goff allegations is that he told Key only some considerable time, perhaps months, after first receiving the information that an Indian woman alleged Worth repeatedly made sexually inappropriate texts and phone calls to her.

He produced no affidavit from her and no texts were given to support the claim. Key instructed one of his senior staffers to investigate. Worth reportedly denied all, and threatened libel action against the woman. In a case where it was Worth’s word against an anonymous woman, Key was forced to accept his minister’s assurance.

And they still are refusing to provide the texts!

And finally the HoS editorial has some advice:

It is probably telling that, when asked on radio what he would do if criminal charges were laid, Key said that he could not sack Worth twice. It plainly implied that he did sack the minister and allowed the public announcement of a resignation as a face-saving gesture. If so, it is plainly the only slack the PM is cutting him. Helen Clark left a back door ajar or or at least unlocked for errant ministers to return; Key makes it plain that it will be a very cold day in hell before Richard Worth holds a ministerial warrant in one of his Cabinets. …

As to Worth himself, it may be beyond his capability to feel any shame. A man who exudes a sense of entitlement disproportionate to his status, he seems incapable of showing remorse about actions that plainly warrant remorse. After a private trip to India in which he spoke in his capacity as a minister while promoting an aviation company in which he had an interest, he was carpeted by his boss but would only allow, with a pained smile, that there had been a “perception” of a conflict of interest.

Well, the crystal-clear perception in that case was everybody’s but his – and this case is beginning to look remarkably similar. Rather than hide behind the niceties of legal procedure, Worth might like to act like a man: tell the public what he said and wrote, and when and to whom. And then he could explain why he considers it acceptable behaviour for an MP, never mind a minister.

This is Richard’s problem. He has the legal issue and the political issue. The best response to the legal issue is to say nothing, but that is the worst response to the political issue.

I speculated this morning that Goff may have known about the earlier complaint for as long as 75 days. I was wrong. It seems he said on Morning Report that he was alerted way back in November 2008 – within days of the alleged harrassment beginning.

So in fact Goff knew about this for six months – including most of the period where the alleged 100 phone calls and texts occured. And then three months after they stopped, then raised it with the PM.

Cactus Kate also raises issues around why was Worth not told to stop early on.

I don’t think any of this excuses the alleged behaviour though.

The hypocrisy from Labour on this issue is quite stark. They are saying Key should not have taken Worth’s word for it, and investigated further.

Now Worth not only denied the allegation, he wrote that he was prepared to sign a statutory declaration that they are false. This is a sworn oath on penalty of perjury – Jeffery Archer got a long jail sentence for making such a false oath. So you had a barriaster and solicitor of the High Court, an MP, and the Associate Minister of Justice saying he will sign a sworn statutory declaration, against a second hand complaint with no supporting documentation.

Sure with benefit of hindsight you can argue one should have asked for the text messages – but the complainant herself has said the text messages by themselves prove nothing without the phone calls.

Now for the hypocrisy compare Labour’s position on Owen Glenn’s donation to Winston Peters legal fees.

Helen Clark admitted that she had known for over six months that Glenn said he donated to Peters. She phoned Peters who denied it, and she left it there – saying it was not up to her to investigate – depute this being a breach of the Cabinet Manual.

Now Peters did not, as Worth did, offer to sign a statutory declaration. He did not state in writing they were false. He did not say he was so convinced they were false he would sue anyone repeating them.

So the double standard from Labour is immense. In Helen’s case she had direct first hand testimony from Owen Glenn, on a mater of absolute fact (did he donate to Winston’s legal fees or not – can be proven within minutes), and a mere verbal denial from Winston. And Labour says Helen was right to take Winston at his word, even though this was a simple factual matter that could have been proven by a request to Glenn for a copy of the bank transfer.

And here we have a PM who has an anonymous allegation from a Labour Party activist, who will not be named, who has not supplied any documentary evidence – against a Minister who denies it in writing, and says he will sign a statutory declaration at risk of perjury if false.

Now sure a reasonable person can say both Clark and Key should have inquired further. And a reasonable person could say neither Clark nor Key should have inquired further – you trust a Minister unless there is direct written proof. Also one can very reasonably say Key pushed as far as he could (given the offer of a statutory declaration) but Clark did not (as it was a simple factual matter which could have been proven in minutes)

But how can anyone reasonably claim Clark was right not to inquire further, while Key was wrong not to do so?

I’m sure some of the commenters will give it a good go though.

Cactus Kate has done a very lengthy and detailed post on the conflicts of interest around NZX as both a regulator and a commercial player. Her summary is:

1. NZX is privy because of their Regulatory position to information that makes them a trusted source.
2. NZX charges for dissemination of this information to the marketplace and generates 45% of its operating revenue in this fashion.
3. NZX is spreading its Regulatory role of a trusted source collector and disseminator of this information into commercial publications it is planning to purchase.
4. NZX has had no permanent Head of Supervision for a year and it is arguable that this person is truly independent anyway.
5. NZX claims that its Supervisory and Commercial operations are “quarantined”.
6. NZX Supervisory staff have been financed into an employee share scheme. The NZX CEO is according to the latest accounts, the third largest shareholder in the company and has a sole financial incentive to increase the earnings per share to receive more shareholding.
7. The Securities Commission has previously raised issues of conflict with respect to NZX.
8. The Securities Commission is over stretched and under resourced, more so due to recent finance company issues.
9. The Securities Commission has called internationally for “independent, strengthened, and well-funded regulators for implementation at the domestic level” due to recent subprime crisis issues.
10. The NZX CEO has a new politicised role and is seen by political advisors as having large influence on John Key.

I suspect we will see ongoing scrutiny.

For the first time ever, a day out with Cactus Kate had the food costing more than the alcohol. This is rare as Cactus only drinks good quality champagne. She is easily my most expensive mate.

We decided to lunch today at Shed 5, and did our little part for helping Southland survive the recession.

As we decided what to order for our mains, oysters were ordered for entrees. Now I am not actually a huge oyster fan normally, but these ones (Bluff of course) were just divine.

So oysters were ordered for the main course also. And again so very nice. It just wasn’t enough. So when the waitress came to take our dessert order, the look on her face was superb as we ordered ice cream and oysters for dessert.

Then after dessert, you can guess what we ordered for coffee – yes more oysters. They really were that good.

Shed 5 started to worry they may run out – they told us they only had 97 dozen, and that is probably now under 90 dozen. My strong advice to anyone who likes oysters is to head to Shed 5 this week before Cactus empties their stock.

Cactus Kate announces her blogger of the year:

In my years of blogging, in fact in all my years being involved in politics I have never met anyone who cares so little about what those on his side or against him thinks of what he writes. A man so passionate that he is right that he will argue an entire day on a blog with every nutcase placed in front of him. …

A man who devotes his entire energy into blogging, has his own business cards for his blog and in my entire time knowing him, regardless of where he is going to meet you, will wear only his own merchandise. [He] is a true beast of conflict. Sometimes with the loudest and boorish of potty-mouths yet in a milli-second can say or write something so poetic, meaningful and intelligent that you can only burst out laughing wondering just who the fuck this guy is.

A man who when told to stop by his own people, calmly tells them to combine speed, sex and travel.

If you can’t work out who she is referring to, you must be new here

Cactus Kate has blogged her Dom Post column rating the female candidates. But she is not rating them on looks:

It is a challenging column to write as I could over-excite the male readership in having them believe that I find women attractive, empirical evidence proves this actually does little harm to a woman’s chances with the opposite sex. But refusing to engage in faux celesbianism, I shall analyse from the perspective of how women choose their men in New Zealand, not solely for physical attraction, but power, status and general usefulness at home.

So who does Cactus declare the hottest candidate:

The worst part of this column was going to be declaring that the winner of the hottest female candidate has to be Helen Clark. She’s been the most powerful person in the country for nine years, has interfered in your lives, told you not to smack your children, stole a third of your income, given some of it back and expected thanks then persuaded with minimal charm and maximum control to get you to vote her in once and back for two more thrashings. Not content with that she has the “charisma” to turn around and call the other guy untrustworthy, controlling and a domestic bully.

So Helen wins!

Cactus Kate has been rating the male candidates in her Dom Post column. To help her out she asked un-PC Lesbian to rate the female candidates. A unique perspective!

Cactus Kate rates the male MPs and Canidates for hotness. Those who make her list are:

• Rodney Hide (ACT)
• Shane Jones (Labour)
• Hone Harawira (Maori)
• Paul Quinn (National)
• Nathan Guy (National)
• Darren Hughes (Labour)
• Russel Norman (Greens)
• Shane Gallagher (Greens)
• Ron Mark (NZ First) – she compares him to mini-me
• Stuart Nash (Labour)
• Chris Tremain (National)
• Todd “Boris” McClay (National)
• Charles Chauvel (Labour)
• Chris Finlayson (National)
• Grant Robertson (Labour)
• Simon Bridges (National)
• Mitch Lees (Libertarianz)

A very balanced list – 6 National, 5 Labour, 2 Greens, 1 ACT, 1 Maori, 1 NZ First, and 1 Libertarianz

Cactus Kate writes a wonderful piece of how useless many meetings are. If she ever gets convicted of a serious crime, I am going to recommend to the Judge that he sentences her to three month’s servitude in a Government Dpeartment. She’ll be in a strai jacket within a week.

Kate also picks up on Winston talking about his accounts:

They’ve not been able to find a thing wrong with New Zealand First’s accounts outside and around New Zealand

Kate wonders why NZ First has bank accounts or records outside New Zealand. A good question.

Two interesting stories in the SST on Owen Glenn, but first a little mystery.

A reliable source tells me that  that a crew member on Glenn’s boat, Ubiquitous, told a family member that a recent guest on the boat, when in the Mediterranean, was Labour Party president Mike Williams. Mr Williams it is reported spent several days on board.

It is also reported that Mr Williams left the boat hastily, after receiving a phone call from the Prime Minister who was not amused he was there.

Maybe someone could ask Mr Williams if he was on the boat as reported, and why he left.

Anyway first we have Matthew Hooton:

Owen Glenn is flying back to New Zealand to sink Helen Clark, Winston Peters and the corrupt government they lead.

I love Matthew’s subtle style.

Clark may soon have reason to regret the disgusting way she treated Glenn when he was here for the opening of the University of Auckland’s new Owen G Glenn Business School, to which Glenn donated more than $7.5 million. For Glenn, the immigrant schoolboy from Mt Roskill, who never had an opportunity to attend university himself, this was the culmination of his more than 40 years of success in business.

Clark ruined his day. Her almost unbelievable rudeness to the biggest benefactor of her own party and the country’s largest university shocked all decent New Zealanders. In public, she uttered not one word to Glenn, nor would she look him in the eye, and she sent her prize thug Trevor Mallard to keep him away.

Worse, Clark is believed to have turned on Glenn in private with angry words being heard through the walls by those in the next room.

It was meant to be a day of glory for Glenn, and he was treated as a leper.

Glenn will also have been fully briefed about the vicious smear campaign launched against him by Labour ministers and Beehive apparachiks. As usual, it was Mallard who sank furthest into the slime, reportedly advising people privately to check for scars on Glenn’s forehead, implying Glenn has received some type of brain surgery or electroconvulsive shock therapy. These are not nice people who surround Clark.

People may think Matthew is making this up. But not only did I hear the same thing at the Senate party in Wellington, the SST itself reports the smears in its main article on Glenn:

It can hardly have helped when Labour’s deputy, Michael Cullen, started describing Glenn as “confused”, and when rumours began to circulate in political circles that perhaps Glenn’s memory wasn’t quite what it was since his surgery last year to treat a life-threatening subdural haematoma (bleeding on the brain), something Glenn had openly discussed with the Herald in February.

The article quotes Cactus Kate on Glenn:

More recently, the acerbic blogger “Cactus Kate” (the nom de plume of a Hong Kong-based New Zealand lawyer) took Glenn’s political temperature during a long conversation with him in Auckland’s Soul Bar in 2002, and came away convinced there had been a meeting of right-wing minds. Writing earlier this year, she recalled that, “I didn’t hold back on the government of the day and Mr Glenn was extremely supportive of the idea that they were all things evil … He did not seem to like the `sisterhood’, unless they were hot and invited him to watch. He bemoaned the lefties in New Zealand and their sexual habits … “

I suspect Mr Glenn donated to Labour because they were the Government, rather than any firm ideological commitment to centre left causes.

Anyway Tuesday will be a fascinating day.

I’m sure all the media will be reading Cactus Kate’s comments on what she calls the Soper Syndrome – hot aging male journalists.

Kate proclaims the following as hot:

• “Baron” Barry Soper
• “Gorgeous” Sean Plunkett
• “Pitt-Clooney” Stephen Parker
• “Chess Champion” Vernon Small
• Richard Long
• Richard Griffin

The only one she marks down is Duncan Garner who gets “not hot yet”.

I think Kate is protesting too loudly here. Those of us who knew Kate before she was a blogger recall a small period of time when she had a small crush on Mr Garner. And when I say small crush, I mean raging stalker like obsession. Luckily Duncan got married, and Kate got distracted!

Most people will have seen a comment at some stage about how much money men spend on sex through dinners, presents, flowers etc.

Cactus Kate has reversed the equation and calculated how much money a woman spends on looking beautiful for men. Her calculations are:

Hair monthly (basic not “hair extensions”) $300 per month = $3600
Waxing and other beauty treatments $100 per month = $1200
Massage, pedicures etc $100 per month = $1200
Make-up/skin cleansers/toners and moisturisers = $300
Annual clothing spend on clothes you only wear out to meet men or with your man = $3000
Personal trainer/gym fees/education and reading material = $300 per month = $3600
Shoes. I consider it compulsory to spend lots of money on fabulous shoes = $2000
Phone calls/Drinks/lunches and dinners with girlfriends to drown your sorrows of bad relationships ie. therapy = $500 per month = $6000
Condoms & contraceptive pills (because lets face it – men over 30 years old totally suck at carrying rubbers) = $400 annually
Sex toys (again men have no clue so girls have to buy – Kiwigirl I am calling you out, you can add a zero here) = $500 annually
Pregnancy and STD checks (compulsory for anyone with half a brain and lets face it – the man doesn’t have to worry about being pregnant in the morning) = $250 per annum

So my rough estimation is a cost of $22,050 annually spent on looking and feeling good in the most part for men.

Kate goes on to say that if she gets sex only once a week then women are paying $424 per bonk, so men should stop whiming about their costs.

Her final advice:

So men, next time you take a single woman to dinner with the intent of asking her home afterwards, don’t ask her to split the bill.

Just shut the fuck up and pay.

Other financial words of wisdom from Kate have been how you don’t book her to fly economy class if you are flying business class!

Another fun night watching Back Benchers yesterday. Cactus Kate was in town so we settled in early at 5 pm. Highly amusing as she berates the waitress for the lack of decent champagne available in the bar, and the bar owner being at the table next to us.  However the staff redeemed themselves by following the instruction to automatically bring out a new bottle whenever the existing bottle got below 20% full.

We ended up with a very mixed table with Kate (ACT), myself (Nat), Will de Cleene (Greens/ACT), a 9th floor staffer (Labour), a National Radio presenter and an Electoral Commission staffer. Made for a fun night, which once again ended up at Mighty Mighty in Cuba Mall.

Our own Samantha, Cactus Kate, reviews the Sex and the City movie. Don’t read it if you don’t want to know what happens!

Cactus Kate has some useful advice for girls whose boyfriends tell them they are “fat, ugly and a whore”. She suggests no second chances and preferably a restraining order.

Sadly quite a few female friends of mine have gone out with guys like that – no not ones who turn violent, but those who seem to be so insecure about themselves, that they spend most of their relationship trying to lower their girlfriend’s self esteem, presumably in the hope that the girl will never leave them as she doesn’t think she can do any better.

I’d like to say such men are a tiny minority of men, but sadly they are not – they’re a reasonably significant minority (nowhere near a majority though). I don’t believe in feeling guilt or shame for fellow members of whatever demographic group I belong to, but I almost do when it comes to guys like this. I’ve seen far too many bright, attractive (in all senses) confident women just have their self esteem demolished and endure for months or even years in a miserable relationship because they think it is better than nothing. No it isn’t.

No relationship is perfect, and without arguments. But I have a simple philosophy I expound to friends – the 90% rule. The whole idea of being in a relationship is to be happy. If at least 90% of the time you spend together does not involve being happy, then get the fuck out.

Steven Price blogs that the headlines regarding the Berrymans bear little resemblance to the reality of what the Judge ruled which was simply to say that the Coroner was wrong to say that the collapse was primarily the Berrymans’ fault but he effectively amended that to partly their fault.

Bryce Edwards blogs on how Matt McCarten deserves his rating by Metro as a “right bastard”.

Cactus Kate blogs that she has managed to restore Deborah Hill Cone.

Fairfacts Media points out the PM is being somewhat economical with the truth when she claims Telecom wrote National’s broadband policy. I guess she believes if you repeat a lie enough times, people may believe it.

People have been expecting NZ First to start bashing Asian immigrants for months, to try and lift their poll ratings like it did in 1996. Peter Brown’s outburst yesterday was not him just thinking aloud, but part of a planned strategy. It had to fall to him, as Winston being Foreign Minister can’t do it directly.  He is now refusing to comment on his own Deputy Leader’s comments.

The EMA Northern have condemned (hat tip: The Hive) NZ First and Brown:

Comments by New Zealand First MP Peter Brown are racial stereotyping of the worst sort, says Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern).

“It was post war migrants like Mr Brown who brought here the bigotry of the British class system and a rabid form of unionism,” Mr Thompson said.

“Mr Brown should stop being hypocritical.

And the Auckland Chamber of Commerce weighs in:

“Asian New Zealanders, and those overseas, should see this for what it is: a pathetic piece of political posturing by a minority party.

Hon Chris Carter:

 ”I think he’s absolutely being racist,” Carter said. “He shouldn’t be condemning people because of their race or culture.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove:

 Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove told NZPA Mr Brown’s comments were ironic, given that he was a “native born British chap”.

He hoped Mr Brown did not “take his own advice” and return to the UK.

We wait to hear what the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Leader of New Zealand First has to say on the issue.

On a slightly related note, it reminds me of a further Cactus Kate story from Tuesday night. As we were heading along Blair Street, we ran into Keith Ng. Cactus looks at Keith somewhat warily when I mention he blogs for Public Address. I then mention he won a Press Council complaint against Deborah Coddington over her Asian crime story, and Cactus literally leaps forward and embraces Keith in full bear hug, finally releasing him after thanking him for his work.  It was very very funny.

Cactus Kate has been in town for a couple of days, and has been lots of fun catching up.

I first met Cactus over a decade ago after she went on a Centre of Independent Studies course, along with a couple of friends of mine. I expressed surprise that she didn’t actually hook up with anyone on the CIS course, and she stated that it was because everyone at CIS is far too left wing

Monday Night was meant to be a catch up with Un-PC Lesbian but she pulled a sickie. Cactus and I consoled ourselves with some nice bottles of Moet down at Concrete. We were later joined by Karen Fuchs and eventually Ten after her prick of a boss allowed her to finish work at 10 pm. I have to say that there are few things as good as decent champagne – not the usual crap which passes for it in NZ.

Eventually dinner seemed a good idea but very little open at 11.30 pm on a Monday night. Eventually went to an Indian restaurant on Courtney Place whose name I can’t remember and whose food was pretty umm about forgettable also.

Tuesday was Cactus’s annual date with her secret Business Roundtable lover. I am their official chaperone. We had a stunning lunch at Shed Five – mainly thanks to the new waiter Scott who was just hilarious. After I took a call from someone, Scott confisicated both my phones for the next two hours and told any callers I was lunching with company and not to be disturbed. He arranged a non stop flow of Moet (Cactus lives off it) and mineral water, and kept us highly entertained. He refused to allow secret lover to have coffee until he had finished his dessert, as it will spoil the taste. The highlight was after we have moved onto cocktails and I had a raspberry Manhattan which didn’t quite work for me, so I left it slightly undrunk. Despite me not complaining, Scott insists on tasting it to check if anything was wrong, and it was priceless as his face screwed up and he loudly proclaimed the cocktail as disgusting and undrinkable, and he went off to the bar to point out you put raspberry not cherry into that particular cocktail. Scott was great and made the lunch a great success, on top of the excellent food.

Cactus then put on her union president hat for her Fairfax meeting, and we caught up after that at Monsoon Poon – always a good reliable choice. It was packed full, so we ended up dining up at the bar, which of course suited us fine.

Fortunately for my continued good health, Cactus flies out this evening, but we do have lunch with Parliament’s second most famous blogging MP today, after he wouldn’t miss a few unimportant votes last night to join us.

UPDATE: For the benefits of all the wives and existing mistresses of Business Roundtable members, I will clarify that if Cactus did have a secret BRT lover, I would not be blogging about it here! It is just carrying on a joke I made last February and carried on as to my delight I was asked by journalists last week in Auckland if it was true Cactus was having umm relations with a member of that fine body. Mind you I do hear she is preparing an application as to why she should be hired as their intern

Cactus Kate celebrates the Hong Kong Government giving out NZ5.5b of tax cuts because they took in too much tax.  And that is on top of the fact the top marginal tax rate is 17%.

Craig Foss is outraged over the sacking of the democratically elected Hawkes’ Bay District Health Board after just 72 days in office.

Liberty Scott has the top ten reasons why lefties should hate Castro.

Russell Brown covers the issue of some favourable parliamentary edits in Wikipedia to National MP’s pages. I agree with his conclusion that if you do more than one or two minor edits you should register a profile rather than just do it from your IP address.

A friend gave me an article in New Scientist a couple of weeks ago, about how political persuasion may have a genetic basis.  They found identical twins has more similar political views than fraternal twins, which is quite fascinating.  I had been planning to blog it, but Kiwiblogblog have covered it with links to an extract of the original research.

Daily Tech finds that a 12 month drop in world temperatures has wiped out a century of warming.  From what I can tell this doesn’t mean that human activity is not contributing to warming, just that other factors such as solar activity still have far more influence. Comments from those more up to date with the science here are welcome.

Tim Selwyn at Tumeke has a post on Oliver Driver’s interview with Helen Clark’ and how she seemed unsure how to handle questions criticising her performance not from a right wing perspective but from the left. He also compares how Helen Clark was unable to come up with a single nice thing to say about John Ke, while Key had no problem supplying an admirable quality of Clark’s the previous week. If someone can get the Alt TV interview onto You Tube I’ll link to it.