Stuff reports:

Construction of a controversial $1.2 billion Auckland housing development will go ahead following more than five years of opposition.

Up to 1500 dwellings will be built at the former Three Kings Quarry between the suburbs of Mt Roskill and Royal Oak, after a compromise was reached between developer Fletcher Living and resident groups.

Community consultation on the $1.2 billion redevelopment began in 2008.

This is a good example of the reality of major housing developments. They often face local opposition and can take years just to get consented. Labour themselves have fought against some housing developments in Auckland.

You can promise 100,000 houses in ten years but the reality is it will never ever happen.

USA Today reports:

The investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government has now turned to investigating Trump himself for obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

The expansion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation would represent the clearest legal threat to date for Trump, who has long maintained that he is not personally under investigation — and who reportedly pressured former FBI Director James Comey to say so publicly.

The Post, citing unnamed sources, said the investigation into the president’s own conduct began shortly after Trump fired Comey on May 9. That prompted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller — himself a former FBI director — as special counsel the following week.

Mueller has scheduled interviews with key national security officials about the matter. They include Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, and his former deputy director, Richard Ledget, the Post reported.

Nancy Pelosi talked the other day about not needing to try and impeach Trump as he will effectively self-impeach. She may be right.

I’ve not seen anything to suggest Trump colluded with the Russians, or even that his team did. So no crime there.

But if Trump really did (as alleged) pressure the NSA, CIA and NI directors to pressure the FBI to drop the probe, then he may well have broken the law. Whether you like it or not, politicians should not interfere in criminal investigations.

Unless Trump can learn what is and is not acceptable behaviour for a President, he won’t last the four years. If he does learn, he might even get eight years.

The Herald reports:

Federated Farmers has applauded the Government’s decision to reject recommendations to tighten firearms rules, including having police record serial numbers on guns.

Police Minister Paula Bennett has today responded to the law and order select committee report on illegal firearms, accepting only seven of 20 recommendations designed to stop criminals getting their hands on guns. …

The committee inquiry had caused concern among some gun owners and widespread changes would have been a controversial issue in election year.

Rejected recommendations include requiring police to record serial numbers of all firearms upon renewal of licence or inspection, requiring a licence to possess ammunition, and making dealers keep records of ammunition sales.

Bennett also declined to act on the recommendation to investigate the creation of a category of restricted semi-automatic rifle and shotgun.

Federated Farmers national board member Katie Milne said the rejected recommendations would have done little to stop firearms getting into the hands of criminals.

“The farming community is frustrated with poorly thought out solutions to real problems that simply burden law abiding citizens,” Milne said.

“We are pleased to see the Government has listened and is directing attention to where it should be.”

Labour’s police spokesman Stuart Nash said he believed Bennett had “got it 100 per cent right”, and backed the same recommendations he had come to believe were needed.

As a member of the select committee he had received a large amount of feedback after the recommendations were released, including through public meetings. Nash said he came to realise many of the recommendations wouldn’t help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

So Labour is saying the Government got it right by rejecting most of the recommendations.

Act leader David Seymour said it was a relief to learn Bennett would reject most recommendations, that went “far beyond” targeting illegal gun possession.

ACT happy also.

Government response to committee recommendations:

1.A firearms licence required to possess ammunition. Reject.
2.A dealer’s licence required to sell ammunition. Reject.
3.Dealers required to keep records of ammunition sales. Reject.
4.Registration process for websites facilitating trading in firearms, parts, or ammunition. Partial rejection – not registration but clarify ‘mail order’ process applies to online sales.
5.Permit to procure extended to cover all sales or transfers of firearms (i.e. include A category firearms). Reject.
6.Investigate the creation of a category of restricted semi-automatic rifle and shotgun. Reject.
7.Implement firearm prohibition orders. Accept.
8.Codify the ‘fit and proper’ criteria in the Arms Act. Reject.
9.Implement a stand-down period after licence revocation. Accept.
10.Clarify that gang members or prospects must not be considered ‘fit and proper’ to possess firearms. Accept.
11.Require Police to record serial numbers of all firearms upon renewal of licence or inspection of premises. Reject.
12.Review the penalties in the Arms Act. Accept.
13.Treat dealer offending as aggravated at sentencing. Reject.
14.Determine appropriate security standards for A category licences. Accept.
15.Secure storage confirmed before licence or endorsement received. Reject.
16.Allow Police to enter premises to inspect security of A category firearms. Reject.
17.Failure to comply with storage regulations to result in mandatory revocation. Reject.
18.Clarify and publicise the extent of amnesty provisions in the Arms Act 1983. Accept.
19.Police publicise amnesty provisions. Reject.
20.Check that firearms brought in on visitors permit are exported or transferred legally. Accept.

Looks like a victory for gun owners who are not criminals.

Jim Rose writes at Stuff:

Imagine what the world would be like if we woke up tomorrow morning without nuclear weapons.

It would be a world where every crisis was a potential nuclear exchange. The first nation to rearm would dominate. Beware of the man not with the thousand nuclear bombs but with one.

When there is one nuclear bomb, its use can be contemplated. When there are thousands, first use is suicide. Only a few missiles in a second-strike need get through to devastate your country.

Noble prize-winning nuclear strategist Thomas Schelling pointed out in 1960 that nuclear disarmament was not possible unless there was universal brain surgery eliminating the knowledge of both nuclear weapons and the principles of physics behind their construction. An impossible dream.

This is true – you can’t uninvent something.

There can be no peace unless both sides are better off not fighting. There must be a set of negotiated settlements that both sides prefer to war.

This need for a bargaining range is the fundamental flaw of peace activists. When they call for talks, peace activists never explain what will be discussed in a world where everybody does not share their good intentions. There can be no diplomacy in wars of annihilation such as with Isis or Nazi Germany.

Peace activists in the 1970s demanded the West unilaterally disarm, which would have left the USSR as the major political and military power.

Stockpiles of nuclear weapons and fleets of bombers in the air 24/7 during the Cold War prevented a hot war from starting. If you are ready for war, you will not need to fight. If you cry “peace, peace, peace now” you end up fighting. What brings war is signalling weakness and concessions.

It is still a harsh truth that if you want peace, those tempted to make use of nuclear weapons must know they will pay a terrible price in retaliation. That is what kept the peace even with volatile characters like Khrushchev and Mao. It is the only language North Korea and Iran understand.

It is why North Korea will probably never use their nukes. It would be suicide.

A guest post by David Garrett:

A few  weeks ago I had a piece on proposed  Maori prisons published here.  I came down firmly against the idea, and opined that they would be “dismal failures”, just like the Maori Focus Units (now renamed Te Tirohanga units) that exist now within some prisons.  My view was based mostly  on “unofficial” sources of information within the prison system.  In short, I had been misinformed. I ought to have waited for answers to my OIA request on the subject, mea culpa. I have now obtained those answers, and changed my view somewhat accordingly.

I asked the Department of Corrections first, “What percentage of inmates who had spent time in Maori Focus Units reoffend within five years of release?” The answer is 64.8%, which is about 10% lower  than the reoffending figures for those who had NOT spent time in a Maori focus unit (73.4% of the general population  reoffended within five years).  The Department does warn that “the figures are not comparable, as the two groups are not matched by risk factors”.

I take that to mean that the group chosen to spend time in an MFU are more motivated to change their behaviour as compared to the inmate population as a whole, which would tend to lead to a better result for the first group as compared with “the rest”. I also asked what percentage of prisoners went to Maori focus units in the first place, and what percentage of the prison  operating budget was devoted to them. Again, something of a surprise.

As at 30 April 2017, 3.9% of the prison muster were housed in a TTU (Te Tirohanga Unit) while only 1.4% of the total prisons budget is devoted to them.  So, notwithstanding the positive skew of the results arising from the population of the TTU’s being more motivated to rehabilitate themselves, after five years there is a significant difference in reoffending rates for those who have spent time in a TTU as compared with those who haven’t, and just as importantly, these units cost less to run than one would logically expect.

So far so good. It would appear then that TTU’s are working quite well – if not being the magic bullet which cures Maori reoffending – and therefore an entire prison run as a TTU would be warmly welcomed by Maori working in this area. Not so.

A week or so ago I was the token whitey – and token right winger – on what was billed as a “panel discussion” on Maori TV regarding Maori prisons. I envisaged a balanced debate, but found I was outnumbered four to one – but I digress; I’m a big boy. In addition to me, the panel consisted of a young Maori lawyer who is active within Kim Workman’s outfit “Rethinking Crime and punishment”, a Maori law lecturer from AUT, and two former prison inmates. Very much to my surprise, the consensus – the academic dissenting – was that Maori prisons were anathema; a “colonization construct”, and that a “Maori prison” was an oxymoron. Maori offenders ought to instead be dealt with in some unspecified “Maori way” – quite what that “way” was to consist of was not made clear.

At one point I asked the young lawyer, one Julia Whaipooti,  where, if not jail, the animals who bashed and kicked and stomped young Moko Rangitoheriri to death should go. The “answer” seemed to go on for some minutes, but at the end I was none the wiser. I think it was something about not generalizing from specifics.

So, although the TTU’s – and by extension a prison run on Maori lines – show some significant degree of success, many Maori are opposed to this concept. Our TV panel then discussed what were the real causes of the high rate of Maori offending and imprisonment. There was considerable consensus:  all agreed it  arises in the home environment – with of course the usual suspects of colonization and a lack of understanding of the Maori way being thrown in. Unsurprisingly, none of the Maori members of the panel were prepared to say exactly why Maori homes seem to produce a disproportionate number of criminal offenders.

Last week was a rich one for information. In addition to the OIA, I  obtained some research which pretty clearly shows what we all instinctively know: Maori criminal offending is closely correlated, and in my view  largely caused by, the destruction of the typical  Maori family such as the one  I wrote about in my earlier piece, our  next door neighbours, the Tuhakas. For those who didn’t read that  piece, Kumi Tuhaka was a roadman for the old Ministry of Works. His wife – like every other woman at that time – was a full time  stay at  home Mum. They had two daughters, who were our childhood playmates, and are both now university educated professionals. Except for having only two children, the Tuhakas were a typical Maori family in the 60’s and early 70’s. There were several families just like them in the state housing block I grew up in.

Today, things are very different.  I would guess the “typical Maori family” now is a solo mum in her 20’s, with several children to different fathers. Males will come and go in the home; none will be committed, and even fewer will marry the mother. The stats would seem to support that view.

While none of us can  for sure what the “typical Maori family” of  2017 is, consider these facts: in 1968 72% of Maori  births were to married couples –  by 2015, that figure had fallen to 21%; according to the last census, 84% of one parent families were headed by the mother; Maori teenage births are almost twice that of paheka teenage births (58/1000 per year vs. 30/1000/pa); 42% of children under 15  live with a Maori mother and no father, compared with 22% of pakeha children under 15 (2010 figures). And whether we like it or not, the correlation between one parent families – of whatever race – and later problems for the children is unarguable.

But don’t take my word for it; here is President Obama in a 2008 Fathers Day speech:

“We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison…”

So, is there any magic in actually being married? Isn’t a stable two parent household –whether mum and dad or mum and mum – just as good? Sadly no, much as many of us would wish that is the case. According to the Christchurch child development study, unmarried cohabitation is the biggest risk factor for breakdown of the child’s family in his or her first five years: 49.9% of de facto couples separate in that period, vs. 10.9% of married couples. There is a close correlation between declining formal marriage and notifications to CYFS – as marriage rates declined, so notifications to CYFS increased.

What does this all tell us, and what can we do about what is unarguably a very depressing picture? Well, first face facts.  I would say the following are pretty well unarguable:

1. A child who grows up in a one parent family is much more likely to have poor life outcomes, and to become a criminal, than those in a traditional two parent family;
2. In New Zealand, such children are very much more likely to be Maori than pakeha or Asian;
3. De facto couples are much more likely to split in the first five years of a child’s life than married couples;
4. The rate of traditional marriage has declined hugely since the 1960’s;
5. There is a clear correlation – if not a proven causal relationship – between declining marriage rates and young people becoming offenders;
6. The decline in marriage rates is considerably greater among Maori parents as compared to the population as a whole.

So what can we do to change this? Much as religious zealots would like to believe otherwise, marriage rates have fallen and de facto unions have increased, and nothing much will change that. The state is not about to provide incentives for people to marry as they once did – married tax rates used to be much lower than single tax rates.

We can however stop incentivizing young women to produce children into one parent or highly unstable two parent homes. The National-ACT government has taken some very tentative steps in this regard, removing the benefit incentives gained by endlessly reproducing. That move should continue, and become more firm.

We can stop teaching kids that ANY kind of family is as good as another: the facts simply do not fit that conclusion. It is very clear that a two parent family, preferably where the parents are married, produces better outcomes for the children than any other version of family. In short we can and should give our children the facts, and not obfuscate and hide the reality, unwelcome as the reality may be, and whether or not it is contrary to what ones ideological beliefs are.

In the meantime, and consistent with my view that the facts ought to govern what we do, by all means let’s try a prison run on the same lines as the present Te Tirohanga units. While the impact on reoffending may be small, ANY reduction in recidivism is welcome. Even if we changed our way of living tomorrow to reflect what we know about single parent families and criminal offending, it would take a generation for change to be reflected in offender numbers.

Today is the birthday of probably the greatest war hero New Zealand ever had – that of Keith Rodney Park born in Thames and educated in Auckland and Dunedin who was the Air Officer Commanding or leader of RAF Fighter Group 11 tasked with defending London and the vital RAF fighter squadrons in the southeast of England during the Battle of Britain.

Some readers may object to this designation and cite Sir Charles Upham who won the prestigious Victoria Cross twice in World War 2 (one of only three out of 1,355 VC recipients to achieve such feats of bravery). There is no denying the incredible heroism of Upham and his bravery on the battlefield that has done New Zealand proud. But when you weight up the absolutely crucial role Park played in the Battle of Britain, it is hard to find another New Zealander who has played such a vital role in such a pivotal battle.

The architect of the RAF’s victory in the Battle of Britain was Chief of RAF Fighter Command Air Chief Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding. Whilst various commentators point to the vital role of the Spitfire and radar in winning the Battle of Britain, it was Dowding who conceived the entire elaborate defensive structure of Britain that gave the British the edge in battle and of all his subordinates, it was Keith Park who was the tip of the spear and whose job it was to implement Dowding’s plans in the most vulnerable and essential region of the England.

Dowding was a dour and gruff Scotsman but possessed a consummate determination to face down entrenched reactionary opposition within the War Ministry for his plans. It was Dowding who pressed ahead with plans to seek tenders for two modern mono wing fighters (the Hurricane and the Spitfire) against the prevailing mindset that biplanes were superior because of their maneuverability (a carry-over from WW 1 dogfighting). It was Dowding who championed radar which at the time was an experimental technology with no proven track record of success. Despite skepticism and opposition, he pressed ahead with the installation of a network of radar towers along the south and east coast of England called Chain Home and augmented it with 30,000 on-the-ground observers who could assess height and size of German flight formations as radar could only work out to sea. Dowding divided Britain into four Fighter Groups and allocated the strengths of the fighter squadrons in each group. Dowding was the one to devise the centralized command structure with Operation Rooms in each group and then linked the Group Operations Rooms to his central Command Room at Fighter Command HQ at Bentley Priory. Dowding ensured that deep, concrete-protected phone lines were laid between each of the Group Operations rooms and all the fighter squadrons and from all Observer Corp and Radar stations to his Central Command Room. This ensured that vital communication could continue despite the disruptions of the bombing that he anticipated.

Dowding installed state of the art colour coded readiness boards in each Group Operations Room which displayed at a glance the strength and readiness of each fighter squadron in the Group. The readiness boards and banks of phones were grouped around a large central plotting table with a giant map of the Group’s area of defense with all the fighter squadrons marked. WAAF officers were given headsets that connected to the Group Commanders whose job it was to receive the raw Radar and Observer Corp data from Bentley Priory thus giving an accurate description of the size of an incoming German raid, its height, direction and breakdown of Luftwaffe bombers and fighters. Each Group Air Officer Commanding and his staff could then choose from the readiness board which squadrons were in the best position to be scrambled just in time to meet the German formations. The system was sophisticated enough for Squadron Leaders and even Flight Leaders to have WAAF plotters patched directly through to the R/T radios in their cockpits to receive real time updates of enemy movements while they raced in the air to meet the incoming German planes.

This complex system took years of careful planning and dogged determination to pull off. But whilst Dowding had created the best logistical structure for the defense of England, it fell to Keith Park to actually run the apparatus of the system in the area that bore the brunt of the German attacks. Park had to decide with only a few minutes leeway as to which squadrons to scramble, where to send his fighters and in what numbers to what height. Leaving the decision too late left precious fighters on the ground and vulnerable to being bombed whilst making the decision to scramble too early meant the RAF fighters would arrive in the air too soon and squander precious fuel searching the skies for incoming German planes. It was said that Dowding managed the Battle of Britain from day to day but it was Park who managed it hour by hour on the front lines of the skies above Kent, Surrey and London. In WW 1 it was once said that Admiral Jellicoe (Admiral of the British Grand Fleet) was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon. Given the precarious balancing act Park was up against through the heat of the Battle of Britain, it was said that he was the only man who could lose the battle also in a single afternoon.

Park was a hands-on commander alternating between overseeing 11 Group’s coordination of the course of battle from his Group Operations Room deep in a bunker below RAF Uxbridge and flying around all his squadrons in his own Hurricane. Here are a series of interviews with RAF pilots who flew under Park as they sum up what it was like to be commanded by him.

The Battle of Britain was a close-run thing. Despite the advantages of Dowding’s integrated air defense system, in the end it came down to a race to see who could build new fighter planes and train new pilots the fastest. By the end of August 1940, Dowding told Churchill that had only enough pilots and fighters to last 3 weeks such were the losses the Luftwaffe were inflicting by its relentless bombing of the squadrons in the south. Churchill ordered a small flight of Wellingtons to bomb Berlin. This raid did little damage except to so enrage Hitler and Goering that suddenly in early September, they ordered the Luftwaffe to cease its attacks on the fighter fields of 11 Group and commence bombing London in retaliation. This one tactical blunder cost Germany the Battle of Britain. As Londoners bore the brunt of the Blitz, Dowding and Park had time to replace and repair damaged Hurricanes and Spitfires and train new pilots so that gradually through the autumn of 1940, the RAF were able to gain air supremacy and save Britain from what in May seemed certain invasion.

Park was the lynchpin who drove RAF Fighter Command’s defense of England. He stoically backed Dowding even when faced with intense opposition from the head of 12 Group AVM Leigh-Mallory who proposed a different strategy (that of scrambling all available squadrons into a giant formation) versus Park and Dowding who favoured the smaller squadron-by-squadron piecemeal defensive forays where squadrons would attack large bombing formations and get out quickly to refuel and re-arm allowing the next squadron to attack the same formation. Such was the politics of the Air Ministry that both Dowding and Park were relieved of their commands soon after the Battle of Britain despite their essential role in its victory.

It is hard to underestimate the enormous impact Park had on the Battle of Britain which in turn was one of the most consequential battles of WW 2. Had the RAF failed and Britain fallen, who knows how long it would’ve taken to liberate Europe. Park returned to NZ in 1946 as an Air Chief Marshall. He served on the Auckland City Council for a few terms and died in 1975 with little fanfare. He and Dowding have rarely been heralded for the absolutely crucial role they both played in Britain’s victory in the Battle of Britain. For this feat, Keith Park surely is New Zealand’s greatest war hero.

The latest Newshub Reid Research poll is covered at Curia.

The big mover is Labour who have dropped 4.4% to 26.4%, with 100 days to go before the election.

The drop is statistically significant (96.7%).

This is lower than Labour were in the same poll in June 2014.

Stuff reports:

Construction of Wellington Airport’s new $36 million Rydges hotel is officially under way after a groundbreaking ceremony on Wednesday.

The four-star, 134-bedroom hotel, expected to open late next year, will be adjoined to the main terminal building and accessible directly from the passenger lounge.

It will include a restaurant, bar and conference facilities.

Airport chief executive Steve Sanderson said the hotel would provide convenient accommodation for domestic travellers and those travelling overseas through Wellington.

“The hotel is part of the airport’s wider efforts to improve the experience of everyone who has to catch an early flight or arrive on a late one,” Sanderson said.

I’m really looking forward to this hotel, and probably will use it. As I understand it, you will be able to check in your luggage the night before if you stay at the airport hotel. If correct, this will be really useful.

At present if you have a 6.00 am flight to Aussie you need to be at the airport by 4.30 am. That means leaving home around 4 am which means waking up a bit after 3 am.

Or you can go to the airport the night before, and get up around 5.00 am, shower and breakfast and walk onto your flight around 5.30 am.

Getting up at 5 am instead of 3 am will be worth paying a bit more for me.

The Herald reports:

A man who claims to be John Banks’ son is taking the former Cabinet minister and mayor to court in a paternity case.

Antony Shaw, now 47, has filed proceedings in the High Court at Auckland asking a judge to declare that Banks is his birth father.

If the case is successful, the former politician could be declared Shaw’s next of kin with legal implications relating to potential claims against Banks’ will.

The court action follows years of uncertainty around the identity of Shaw’s real father. …

Shaw, who has lived in Japan for the last two decades, attended Mt Albert Grammar and grew up believing his mother’s Asian partner was his father.

His mother is alleged to have had relationship with Banks in the late 1960s while working as a nurse in Hamilton.

She eventually told Shaw about his parentage in 1999 and he tried to meet Banks in the early 2000s during a trip home from Japan to ask the then mayor “are you my father”, a 2001 women’s magazine article alleged.

So this happened when John Banks was aged around 22 or 23. And it was only 30 years later he was told his father may be Banks. Even if Banks is the father, it is possible he was unaware of the fact until Shaw approached him.

The Herald reports:

Gareth Morgan expects to spend up to $5 million of his own fortune on his political party – saying he is “donkey deep now and has to keep going”.

“I have been surprised [at the cost]. The sad reality of politics is you have to have money to play. And I don’t like that,” Morgan told the Herald. Morgan has started the Opportunities Party (TOP).

Money helps but money by itself does not get you elected. Trump spent half what Clinton did. UK Labour spent less than the Conservatives. DotCom and Craig both spent millions for few votes.

12 people to date are confirmed dead in the Grenfell Tower fire. A terrible way to die – trapped in a towering inferno.

There’s no information to date on how the fire started, let alone how it spread so quickly and comprehensively to engulf the entire tower.

Stuff reports:

By reducing smoking rates and bed-sharing with newborn babies, the Government says it can drastically reduce the number of sudden infant deaths in less than a decade. 

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman has announced a new goal to reduce the number of babies who die each year due to Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI), by 86 per cent within eight years. 

By reducing the overall rate of SUDI by 86 per cent and 94 per cent for Maori by 2025, the number of SUDI deaths would be reduced from 44 to six.

 The SUDI rate is about 0.7 in every 1,000 babies born, and 1.59 for every 1,000 Maori babies born. The goal was to get that rate down to 0.1 in every 1000 births by 2025. …

The Daily Mail reports:

The gunman who opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice session this morning before being killed by cops has been identified as a Trump-hating Bernie Sanders supporter. 

Sixty-six-year-old James T. Hodgkinson from Belleville, Illinois, was killed by Capitol Police after firing up to 100 rounds from an assault rifle at a baseball park in Alexandria, Virginia, leaving five injured including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Hodgkinson was a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter and campaigned for the left-wing senator to get the Democratic nomination for president last year. The union tradesman, who ran a home inspection business, threatened to ‘destroy’ the president and his administration on social media. 

He was shot by two Capitol Police officers who were accompanying Scalise to Eugene Simpson Stadium Park for the scheduled baseball practice ahead of Thursday night’s charity game.

The male and female officers were both wounded as they used their pistols to shoot at Hodgkinson while the congressmen fled to a dugout. 

Zachary Barth, a congressional staffer for Texas Rep. Roger Williams, was shot in the leg but is expected to recover. The two Capitol Police officers, Krystal Griner and David Bailey, are also expected to make a full recovery.  Lobbyist Matt Mika was also injured and is in hospital.

Moments before the attack, a man – thought to be Hodgkinson –  asked if the group were Republicans or Democrats, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis said. North Carolina Rep. Mike Walker told NBC News he seemed he was there ‘to kill as many Republican members as possible.’ 

A terrible act motivated by the politics of hate.

Michigan Rep. Mike Bishop earlier described how one man – thought to be part of Scalise’s Capitol Police protection detail – stood his ground to return fire as the congressmen and at least one of their children dove for cover in a dugout and Scalise dragged himself across the field after being hit, leaving a trail of blood behind him.

He told CBS Detroit: ‘As we were standing here this morning, a gunman walked up to the fence line and just began to shoot. I was standing at home plate and he was in the third base line.  He had a rifle that was clearly meant for the job of taking people out, multiple casualties, and he had several rounds and magazines that he kept unloading and reloading.’

He said: ‘The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.’ 

It could have been far worse.

Any shooting is bad, but trying to kill elected representatives is more than an attack on individuals – it is an attempt to destroy the democracy of a country.

UPDATE: The shooter has a wonderful background – has convictions for beating his daughter.

Stuff reports:

The Supreme Court has sat a majority of women on the bench for the first time in New Zealand’s history.

On Tuesday, three women and two men made up the full bench of the country’s highest court, putting New Zealand ahead of comparable countries in terms of gender equality at the highest level of the judiciary. 

The New Zealand Law Society said the recent retirement of Justice Terence Arnold from the six permanent court members meant the court was now made up of Chief Justice Sian Elias, Justice Susan Glazebrook, Justice Ellen France, Justice William Young and Justice Mark O’Regan.

New Zealand Law Society president Kathryn Beck said the sitting was an important milestone in New Zealand legal history.

“It is 120 years since New Zealand’s first woman lawyer, Ethel Benjamin, was admitted as a barrister and solicitor.

“Our highest court now has a majority of women, and that is something to celebrate in the move towards a justice system and legal profession where there is gender equality.”

We may be the only country in the world where women make up a majority of the highest court. The percentages in other countries are Australia 43%, Canada 44%, US 33%, UK 9%.

Shifra Horn writes:

Israel was established to provide a haven for Jews from persecution in many countries, in a land they had lived in for 3000 years. The Holocaust was a fresh and frightening reality. Jewish refugees created a functioning and tolerant democracy – which now has an Arab population of more than 20 per cent or 1.6 million – with full employment, sophisticated healthcare and social services. There are no refugees in Israel despite the country absorbing millions of Ethiopians and Russians who escaped persecution in their homelands.

And as attacks on Jews increase in countries such as France, never has it been more important that there is one country where Jews can be safe from persecution.

Israel returned Gaza in 2005 and was rewarded by continuing rocket attacks on nearby Israeli towns and cities. There are no Israelis in Gaza and no occupation. These attacks continue today. Despite millions of dollars from the United States and United Nations pouring into Gaza, this money has been used for rockets and military tunnels – not the food or housing the Palestinians so desperately need.

And this is why the mood in Israel has turned against land for peace.They gave up the land of Gaza and in return did not get peace, but many more attacks.

There have been several substantial offers of peace with the Palestinians. Offers to return up to 97 per cent of the West Bank after the Camp David talks in 2000 and of land swaps by Ehud Olmert in 2008 were either turned down or answered with violence.

Make no mistake – any Palestinian leader who makes peace with Israel will be killed by his own people within days or weeks. Egypt’s Sadat did not survive his peace agreement with Israel.

Sad but true.

It is said that when the Palestinians want to have a Palestinian state more than they want to destroy the Jewish State, when they value life more than death, then maybe there will be peace.

Some Palestinians want peace. But many, possibly most, just want Israel destroyed.

Polls of Palestinians have found that 83% of Palestinians think the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is Palestinian land and Jews have no rights to it while only 12% think “both Jews and Palestinians have rights to the land.”

78% of Palestinians support suicide bombing of civilians.

Around 60% of Palestinians say that even if a two state solution is negotiated, armed struggle should continue to wipe out Israel.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little and Wellington Mayor Justin Lester have come out in support of Wellington bus drivers, as tensions continue over their proposed new bus contracts.

Meanwhile, the new operator says the pair have got it wrong, and insists drivers will be better off under the new deal.

Drivers across the region have staged strikes recently in an act of protest at the new contracts.

The stop-work meetings follow Greater Wellington Regional Council naming Masterton-based company Tranzit as the preferred bidder for the majority of Wellington’s bus services, in place of incumbent NZ Bus. …

In a video posted to Facebook page Thank You Driver,  Lester said Wellington

valued its bus drivers and it was important their future employment was secure.

“We want to make sure they’ve got good job security, and that they’re well paid. So let’s make sure we protect our bus drivers and let’s get a good outcome for all of Wellington.”

Little, a former union leader, posted a similar video to the page, in which he said drivers were facing a “major challenge” and accused local authorities of  using the contracting process to drive down drivers’ wages and conditions.

The first round of voting has seen:

1. La République En Marche! 28%
2. The Republicans 16%
3. Socialist Party 7%

We don’t know how many seats each party will get until the second round, as tactical voting may have an impact. But projections are they may win 75% of the lower house which is huge. And as they are a new party, most MPs will be new to Parliament. A revolution almost.

Stuff reports:

Police have been knocking on neighbours’ doors and sharing a guide on how to oppose a controversial liquor store application in central Wellington.

The city’s district licensing committee (DLC) has received 50 applications opposing the application to turn a fruit and vege shop in Aro St into a liquor store – but the owner says the backlash was heightened after police shared the “how to” guide on social media, complete with a photo of her store.

Officers doorknocked businesses around Manjula Patel’s Aro Fruit Supply in late May to inform them of her and Vinod Hira’s application.

So the Police have so little to do, they can spend time door knocking businesses to try and whip up opposition to a liquor store application. Once again we see they have become crusading activists.

Wellington human rights lawyer Michael Bott said it seemed police were acting as a lobby group pushing an agenda, rather than in their statutory function as a neutral enforcer of the law.

For once I agree with Michael Bott.

“The police are effectively involved in a campaign to drive out small shopkeepers from their ability to sell beer and wine. It shows a level of predetermination on their part by trying to drumbeat a wave of discontentment against shopkeepers amongst the community.

I think it is time to remove Police from having a special role in submitting on alcohol licenses. They keep abusing their role.

Today is the 30th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s famous Brandenburg Gate speech given in front of the infamous Berlin Wall where he challenged Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”. As riveting as was the actual speech (the full speech is here https://youtu.be/5MDFX-dNtsM and the money part is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A), what is equally riveting are two fascinating back stories.

The speechwriter
Reagan’s speechwriter Peter Robinson arrived in Berlin three weeks ahead of the official Presidential party to do research as background for the speech. Before meeting people, the senior American diplomat in the Berlin Embassy assigned to brief Robinson urged him to not mention the Wall because West Berliners had gotten used to it. Mr. Robinson recalls that he got his idea for the famous line of his speech from the reaction of the guests at a dinner party he attended not long after his arrival. At the dinner was a gathering of some Berlin society elites: a prominent industrialist, businessmen, several well-known academics and a popular socialite. Discussion had been polite and genial when partway through the dinner, the subject turned to the coming Presidential speech at the front of the most famous part of the Berlin Wall, the Brandenburg Gate. Robinson was curious to gauge attitudes in the room to the Wall and the speech. At first there was an embarrassed silence as it clearly was not a topic in polite society. Various around the table mumbled politically correct bromides and made rather neutral comments. There was a pause in the conversation and suddenly one of the women changed her tone and said bluntly and loudly “I don’t care what you think but I hate the wall with a passion”. With emotion tinging her voice she said that her sister lived only 5 km from her apartment but that she had not been able to see her over 20 years. She pounded her fist and said that if Gorbachev was serious about peace, he’d get rid of the Wall. This outburst acted as an emotional dam burst and suddenly almost everyone in the room piled on with similar comments that betrayed the visceral loathing that all in the room actually held for the Wall and all it stood for. Various of them told similar stores of family separation and of the sadness and trauma associated with the brutal partitioning of Berlin.

Robinson was taken completely by surprise. Here was the creme of Berlin society and to a man and a woman, they detested the wall and the communist ideology that erected it. This strong reaction from normally such polite and measured people made Robinson realise that the existence of the Wall was a huge hot button issue for Berliners and that to make a bold statement about its removal was a comment that Reagan’s audience in Berlin would warm to. The speech was drafted, Reagan liked it and it was entered the system and circulated amongst the State Department and other key Cabinet members in advance of the actual speech so that the diplomats could be ready for its impact. Well all hell broke loose. The entire foreign policy apparatus of the government immediately weighed in with lengthy memos strongly urging the “tear down the wall” line be taken out with dire warnings of inflaming Cold War tensions, provoking the Soviets into some form of damaging reprisal and calling it naive and needlessly raising expectations. Soon Reagan had his Chief of Staff Howard Baker, his Secretary of State George Schultz and even National Security Adviser Carlucci all urging the him to listen to the officials and take out the line.

Reagan allowed the debate to rage around him but demurred on a decision. In the final meeting in the hotel suite the day before the speech, Reagan met with his Deputy Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein who again represented the consensus objections of many in the senior echelons of government and showed him their various revised drafts. Reagan turned to Duberstein asked, “Am I the President and can I say what I want in a speech?” to which he replied, “Yes Mr. President”. Reagan emphatically said to him “the line stays in”. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Soviet Dissident in the Gulags
An equally gripping tale of the impact of the speech is told by prominent Soviet Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky in his landmark book “The Case for Democracy”. At the time of the speech, he was the third most senior Soviet dissident incarcerated in the Gulags (after Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov). He said that when news of the speech was smuggled in to one prisoner in a coded letter, he tapped the news in Morse code to his neighbouring prisoner who in turn tapped Morse code or whispered the line of Reagan’s speech from cell to cell until all the prisoners knew. He said that as each man heard the news, a cheer would go up. He said the feeling in the prison camp was electrifying and that hope swept through the camp like a wildfire. It raised the spirits of these starved and tortured men immeasurably. They knew that leader of the free world was prepared to stand up to the Soviets and call for the dismantling of one of the most potent symbols of their repression. Sharansky said that he knew at that moment that the days of the Soviet regime were numbered if Reagan remained President.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Bill English’s strenuous opposition to Labour’s proposed “breather” in immigration draws a clear battle-line in the election.

Labour leader Andrew Little wants net migration cut from the current 70,000 a year by up to 30,000 – mainly targeting overseas students – saying it will relieve pressure on Auckland road by 20,000 cars and 10,000 houses annually.

But English says Labour’s policy is based on a misunderstanding of the export education sector – 70 per cent to 80 per cent of such students left New Zealand at the end of their study, the students did not buy houses and not many had cars.

English also said the cut would stall the momentum in the economy which was producing 10,000 new jobs every month.

Some of the changes proposed by Labour are worthwhile, such as encouraging more degree based courses. But there is no way they will see a reduction of 30,000 a year – and if they did, it would have a significant economic impact.

Migration has cycles, and the projections are net migration will start reducing soon. Better to have this done gradually and in a sustainable way.

English rubbished the so-called “Kiwibuild visa” outlined by Labour to address demand for skilled workers under Labour’s policy to build 100,000 houses in 10 years.

Residential construction firms would be able to hire a foreign worker for three years without testing the market for Kiwi tradesmen if they took on an apprentice for every worker hired.

The Kiwibuild visa would be limited to 1500 at any one time, and additional foreign workers would have to be hired under current rules.

“Mate, who thinks you can build 100,000 houses with another 1000 people?” English said to an Australian reporter who questioned it. “It is completely unrealistic.”

So each person builds 100 houses each – that is about as realistic indeed as many of Labour’s policies!