Monthly Archives: August 2012

Great Quote on Government Redefining Marriage

Via Jim Hopkins, a quote from Brendan O’Neill:

"The real value of the gay marriage issue is not in the improvements it will allegedly make to homosexual people’s lives, but rather in the opportunity for moral posturing and right-on preening it affords its backers. Gay marriage isn’t a real issue; it’s a cultural signifier, which you support in order to show that you are decent, enlightened and, most importantly, not like Them, the rabble. In an era when old-style morality is on the wane, if not dead, the elites are forever feeling around for new issues through which they can communicate their moral superiority."

For "the chattering classes", O’Neill argues, gay marriage has become "the issue through which they distinguish themselves from rednecks and the religious, from bogans and the backward".

It’s a paradox, to be sure, but the advocacy of the redefinition of marriage is based on bigotry. It’s all about the desire to be a Star Bellied Sneetch, and be morally one-up on others. Because practically, the change is inconsequential. Anyone can formalise their relationship before, and they will still do it after. I freely acknowledge the world won’t end if it happens. Government will never define marriage for me personally. But it is a matter of principle to oppose it. Just because YOU think your silly inconsequential issue is important and I don’t , doesn’t mean I should just roll over and let you have your little indulgence. And I might not have cared so much, except for the vociferous nature of the advocates, and the way they are prepared to demagogue anyone who opposes them as being bigoted. Especially a certain blogger…

Government should not be the arbiter of differences in moral opinion, and I think Jim Hopkins makes that case well in this article.

Advertisements

Review – The Smashing Pumpkins – Oceania

Like vegemite, the Smashing Pumpkins are an acquired taste. However, I’ve always thought they were one of the best bands to come out of the ’90s. Detractors will dismiss Corgan’s whiny voice, their pomposity, sense of self-importance, hypermelodramatic tone and insane level of egotism. But those are precisely all the things I like about them. Corgan is one of the few performers who understands that rock and roll is about all these things, and he plays it up to the max in an ironic and self-aware way that you wish a band like Radiohead could grasp.

While Siamese Dream remains their best album to this day, I’ve continued to be a fan of Corgan’s work. Despite its detractors, Corgan himself among them, I still think the Zwan album was one of the best things he’s ever done. I’ll even go so far as to say that, up until this point, with the exception of that ghastly solo effort he did about eight years ago, he’s never put out a bad album. Or at least nothing which didn’t have a few good songs on it.

Until now. Oceania is a shocker. There’s no songs on it. It starts off with the same production trick that Cherub Rock employs – gradually bringing all the instruments in to create a wall of sound – and it’s a delightful start, but that’s the best the album gets – copying a great moment from the past. Buggerall happens after that – just phoned-in Pumpkins by numbers with no memorable hooks, passages, melodies or lyrics.

It’s a shame, because up until now, I was rather enjoying the Teargarden by Kaleidyscope project, and the band had put out some interesting stuff. Horrible video notwithstanding, Owata ranks up there with the Pumpkin’s best songs, and there’s been other gems like Freaks, A Song for a Son and Widow Make My Mind released. It seems to me that what has happened is that, while care and attention has been paid to previous releases in the project (almost like single releases), the album itself has become more of a dumping ground for the crap, and the sum of it is far less than each the songs that had come before. In fact, every song from the Teargarden project so far is better than anything on Oceania.

The publicity blurb for this album had Corgan saying that Oceania was an album "unlike any other I have made". He’s right. It’s terrible.

Cameron Slater Becomes a Shill for the Left

Cameron Slater’s blogging on the US Presidential election continues to be pro-Obama and anti-Romney. If all you read were his US election posts, you’d assume you were reading a left wing blog.

His latest thing now is to criticize Romney for calling out so-called "fact-checkers" in mainstream US newspapers and websites, despite these people being economical with the truth themselves. He asks if Helen Kelly and Simon Oosterman – two far-left union bullshitters in New Zealand – are now working for Romney. Well shit, dude, if Oosterman and Kelly wrote a blog, would they say anything different about Romney than what you do? Who are you working for?!

Slater needs to clarify some things:

When Obama said "You didn’t build that", did he actually mean "You didn’t build that"? When Romney, and damn near every other GOP speaker at the convention mentions the phrase in their speeches, do they deserve "four pinocchios" from the Washington Post for quoting Obama’s biggest campaign gaffe so far and shoving it up his arse?

When Obama snuck around the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reforms by granting a work requirement waiver to states, wouldn’t you say that was undoing the whole point of the reforms? When Romney points this out in TV commercials, can Politifact call "pants on fire" with any credibility?

When Romney criticized Obama for not visiting Israel as President, while running around half the Middle East, did Obama actually visit Israel? Did he deserve "two pinocchios" from the Washington Post for saying Obama didn’t visit Israel when he didn’t visit Israel?

Apparently Slater thinks that while left wing journalists can’t be trusted in New Zealand, they are saints in the United States who can do no wrong. But it is amazing what you will say when you have money and your reputation riding on the outcome. A Romney victory would deplete Slater’s wallet from the ill-advised bet he made, and make him look very foolish for some of his statements, so he is content, along with the NZ Herald and all those papers who just publish whatever the Associated Press give them, to feed misinformation to the New Zealand public. Fortunately, New Zealand has no votes in the electoral college.

I’ve been scathing of Romney as a nominee myself, and he has some real flaws (none of which seem to have been exploited by the Obama campaign so far, inexplicably). But he also has a lot of strengths, and in choosing Paul Ryan for his VP, he has shown that he will be a reforming President determined to limit the size of government and reduce the national debt. It is vital for Western civilization, for the world economy, and even for New Zealand, that Romney wins and the GOP takes the US Senate. I sincerely believe that four more years of Obama will see the US economy collapse – and take the rest of the world with it. The US will be destroyed as a global superpower, and the world will descend into chaos. The stakes are too high for even a big Whale in a small pond to make silly little bets and bat for the other team.

“Almost Exclusively White”?! More Disgraceful Journalism From the NZ Herald

I don’t know why Anne Penketh is writing stories for the New Zealand Herald when it is clear she must be blind as a bat.

Writing on the Republican National Convention, she says "The woman known as Romney’s "secret weapon" brought the almost exclusively white delegates to their feet, as they shouted "Let’s Go Mitt"."

What utter bullshit.

Anybody with eyes to see can watch the Convention on C-Span and tell you that this is just not the case. All manner of different races and ethnicities are represented by the GOP delegates. Anne Penketh is a filthy fucking liar.

It’s even more disgusting when you compare Republican elected representatives and candidates with the Democrats. Despite all the smack that Democrats talk about race, unlike the GOP they have no Hispanic Senators or Governors, and all their Senators are white. All their minority congressmen come from gerrymandered minority-majority districts.

When the party has people of the quality calibre of Mia Love, Susan Martinez, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Condoleeza Rice, Marco Rubio, Alan West and Luis Fortuno, all of whom had speaking slots at the convention (though Jindal had to pass his up), it is ridiculous to write such appalling crap in a biased attempt to demagogue an incredibly racially diverse party. The Herald can do better than this woman.

Well Done John Banks

I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t support the government redefining marriage. But paradoxically, I am very pleased and proud of John Banks for saying that he will vote for it.

I don’t know how many people are left in the ACT Party – I suspect all sane people who aren’t within shot of a high list position have departed by now. But it is a stark reality that most people in ACT would be fully supportive of the government sanction of gay marriage. It would be crazy and foolish for Banks, the party’s sole representative in parliament, to vote against something his party wholeheartedly supports. I don’t believe Banks personally supports the idea for one second. But he is an ACT MP, and he has recognised that ACT MPs should vote in a way which reflects their party. And I admire him for that.

It seems to me to also be further proof that John Banks is everything in a party leader that Rodney Hide was not. Hide voted to ban freedom of expression in Wanganui, directly against the sentiments of his party, encouraged a double standard on Maori property rights, supported Nick Smith’s RMA reforms that made the removal of those property rights more efficient, gave Consumer Affairs greater power to ban products, and turned Auckland’s local government upside down, to no great positive effect. There’s no classical liberal legacy there. And yet Banks has given us charter schools, and is voting against his own views to support the views of his party! Who is has helped ACT’s cause more?

If there are people still wishing Hide was ACT’s leader instead of Banks, this move should disabuse them of their fantasies.

Let’s Cut the Crap: This is What Gay Marriage is All About

I got married in 2009.  Let’s just assume I married a dude instead of a monster woman.
There were three aspects to this marriage.  I have some questions for gay marriage proponents on these aspects:

Aspect A:

Aspect B:

Aspect C:

Now the questions.  Which aspect do you thing was most important to me?


That’s right!  Aspect A was far more important to me than the crappy bits of paper I got from it.
Second question:  Which aspect would be legal if my ex wife was a dude?

Answer:  Got it in one!  Aspects A and B would be just fine and dandy under New Zealand law.  So all the important bits of the marriage/relationship were covered.

Question:  Is it a human rights issue that two dudes can participate in aspect A, receive the certificate in aspect B, but, boo freaking hoo, can’t get the elusive bit of paper C, with the word “Marriage” on it?

The answer is “hell no”.

Cameron Slater thinks that this is the most important thing in the whole wide world.  I beg, just slightly, to differ.  A little bit.

To me, it was far more important to make vows in front of all my relatives and friends.  That is the essence of marriage.  Government was not a part of my love life and my commitment to the one I loved.  And gay people can do that too!  They have been able to do it, just like I did, since 1986.  So there is no issue here.

The real issue is whether the government should make moral judgements on the issue of marriage.  Should they redefine an institution which is thousands of years old?  Should they change what marriage is so that half-arsed homosexuals who still feel slightly guilty about bumming each other, can feel better about themselves (if you have no moral issue with what you do, why do you give a f*ck whether the government endorses it?!).

However you want to spin it, this is the government, an outside force, with guns and laws, deciding what should be “normal” between two individual people, and what w0rds should mean.  There is nothing civil, moral, or libertarian about that.

I support freedom, I support civil rights, and I support people being able to live with, and have sex with, and commit to, whoever they want.  But I do not support the government making arbitrary decisions in favour of one person’s morality over my own.  The government should not be deciding what marriage is.  That is a decision for me, my partner, my church, and my God.

Pharisaical Veneer of Impartiality at the BBC

Is there any bigger joke in the world of television than the idea that the BBC is “impartial”?

I remember watching BBC News in the UK when I lived there about ten years ago. It was pure propaganda emanating straight from the government of the day. There was no way they were giving us “fair and balanced” coverage. As for their world news reporting, nobody could watch their coverage of Middle Eastern issues and claim that the Israelis were getting a fair shake.

Yes, there are a lot of camels being swallowed at the BBC. Meanwhile, the gnats get strained out:

When the George Orwell Memorial Trust proposed a statue of the writer for outside the BBC’s new headquarters it expected an enthusiastic response.

However, not everyone appeared enamoured of the plan.

According to Baroness Bakewell, who is backing the campaign, Mark Thompson, the Corporation’s outgoing director general, said the statue could not be erected on BBC premises because Orwell was “too Left-wing”.

Orwell worked as a BBC journalist, producing radio programmes at Broadcasting House during the Second World War before leaving to publish Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Mr Thompson’s remark will surprise critics of the BBC, who have long accused the corporation of liberal bias.

Lady Bakewell said the exchange took place earlier this year.

“I met Mark Thompson at a BBC reception and mentioned the project. He said, ‘Oh no, Joan, we can’t possibly. It’s far too Left-wing an idea’,” she said.

Orwell is a hero to freedom-loving people of all political stripes. His ill-advised ventures in Catalonia, and his advocacy of devolved socialist collectivism are far outweighed in most minds by both his towering anti-totalitarian works of fiction, and his dogged advocacy of plain English, quality English and plain speaking. In fact, I cannot think of anyone better to sit in effigy outside the Beeb as an intellectual and moral guardian than Eric Blair.

I’m not sure what to make of the BBC thinking that Orwell was “too left wing”. Sounds like newspeak to me. While the defence of the Beeb’s “reputation” is ultimately farcical, I can’t think of any person or groups that might possibly find the idea offensive. In fact, as someone who completely disagrees with Orwell’s political philosophy, I think it sounds like a bloody good one. They should stick him out the front.

I Am Right And You Are Wrong

I couldn’t agree more with this essay, which simply tells it like it is.  Click the link to read the rest:

Your side lies shamelessly. Your leaders just make things up. And you just follow them blindly, like sheep — like blind sheep. You hang out with people who think just like you, and listen only to shows where you’ll hear your own views repeated. It’s an echo chamber of lies!

That’s how your side wins elections. It whips gullible people into a frenzy about supposed threats to their freedoms and livelihoods, and it deceives everyone else into thinking it’s more moderate than it really is. Once the election is over, though, your side starts pushing its extreme agenda behind the scenes.

Todd Aiken Must Be the Stupidest Motherf*cker To Walk the Planet

What part of "stand down now" does Todd Aiken not understand?

We already know that Aiken is a moron for believing that women’s reproductive organs have some sort of spidey-sense that stops rape babies from being conceived. And if there was any doubt as to his mental retardedness, it has been removed by his subsequent actions.

Firstly, with his apology, he seems to think the only thing he said wrong was the word "legitimate" instead of the word "forcible". No, dumbarse, you do not get it. That’s not what was wrong with your statement, although yes, it was a bad choice of words. What was wrong was that you made a ridiculous and unscientific statement about female reproduction which minimised the problem of pregnancy through rape. It’s not something that you can just bat away with an apology. You’ve proved beyond all doubt that you are unfit to be a US Senator through your outlandishly antediluvian beliefs.

Then, when even feral Republicans like Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are calling for your head, when Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Mitt Romney himself want you to call it quits, and the only person of any note left supporting you is Mike "I pardoned a murderer who went on to kill three more people" Huckabee, you refuse to quit! This is not a beatup, Todd, this is not a case of Democrats and "liberals" bullying the GOP into forcing you out, this is pretty much a unanimous verdict on the length and depth of your dumbarsedness. You have decided to be selfish, and become the posterboy for Democratic demagoguery on women’s health issues all through to November – putting the possibility of a GOP Senate and Presidency pickup in jeopardy. And even if you do win your Senate seat, what would be the point? Nobody would touch you with a barge-pole. You’d be like Joe McCarthy post censure.

You didn’t even win the Missouri Primary on your own effort – you won because your Democratic opponent Claire McCaskill ran dog-whistle ads falsely calling you the "most conservative" candidate in the race. You won because she wanted you as her opponent. Take the hint – the Republican Party does not want you as the US Senate candidate for Missouri. Quit now. You cannot bully the GOP into supporting you again. They are done with you. You are not welcome. P*ss off.

Refuse the Mark!

I don’t know who is more stupid in this story – the guy who refuses to wear a badge with a consecutive number on it, or the company which fired him for refusing to wear it.

A Georgia factory worker is claiming he was fired for refusing to wear a sticker celebrating how many days the plant had been accident-free.

Billy E. Hyatt is now suing his former employer for religious discrimination: He could not wear the number 666 because it’s the Mark of the Beast in Revelations.

Arrrrgggghhh… so… much… stupid…  That’s gotta be worth a double facepalm:

The Book of Revelation is filled with symbols and metaphors.  I don’t think the literal number 666, symbolising the number of accident free days at a plastics factory, is also the diabolical Number of the Beast, guaranteeing eternal damnation to those so marked.

I’m a little concerned about barcodes though…

See what I mean?  😀

 

Bring Jack Tame Home

The NZ Herald continues to be woefully inadequate in its coverage of the world’s largest superpower.  It’s biggest faux pas has got to be its reliance on correspondent Jack Tame.

I’ve seen Jack Tame on the television.  He’s a 98lbs metrosexual who looks like he’s 14 years old.  He looks like he would get culture shock simply crossing to the south side of the Great North Road.  I think he would be uncomfortable living among ordinary heartland New Zealanders, let alone the cultural WTF that is the United States of America.

It’s pretty clear from his columns that he neither has any understanding of American culture, nor makes an attempt to understand.  He spent most of his column on the Chick-Fil-A controversy criticising American fast food chains.  Clearly he’s never had a chicken burger from Chick-Fil-A, because they are freaking delicious, and after filling your belly with one it is impossible to hate anyone.

His latest column is his most retarded.  It’s on the reality TV show Stars Earn Stripes.  He sees fit to criticise the very institution which caused New Zealand to remain a free country to this day – the US military.

In an open letter to NBC, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Jose Ramos-Horta, and seven other Nobel Peace laureates said the programme “pays homage to no one anywhere. It continues and expands on an inglorious tradition of glorifying war”.

I’m not sure exactly what gave the laureates that impression. Perhaps it came just a few minutes in, when a soldier-cum-trainer boasted on camera of his wartime sniping tally. “I’ve got a confirmed kill count of 160 people.”

…But it wasn’t the inclusion of celebrities or competition or even Hollywood effects that so blatantly sanitised war, but the noticeable exclusion of sobering facts.There were only vague mentions of the almost 8000 coalition troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no mention of the more than 100,000 civilians killed in the same wars…

Blah blah blah.  No mention by Jack that it is the very readiness of the US military which saved New Zealand’s freedom at the Battle of the Coral Sea sixty years ago.  It’s a fact that most anti-American bigots like to forget.  Those Japanese warships were on their way to invade New Zealand, and our allies – these American soldiers – stopped them.  And yet people like Jack see fit to criticise the militaristic gun-ho attitude of American society, when really they should instead be saying “Domo Arigatoo Gozaimasu!”, which is in the language they would have been talking had America not been such a crazy, redneck, warmongering, gun-toting place that likes freedom and democracy lots.

Come home Jack.  Go back to your safe Grey Lynn villa and your cushy TVNZ job on the breakfast show where you can report on cats up trees to bored housewives.  Let the Herald send someone in your place who actually likes it here and appreciates these wondrous United States.

What the H*ck?! Blatant Democratic Party Propaganda Published in NZ Herald

I don’t know who Peter Huck is, but his propaganda piece on Pennsylvania voting laws beggars belief. It is a sham story.

When Dorothy Cooper applied for a free voter identity card in Chattanooga, Tennessee, she supplied a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her birth certificate and her voter registration card to prove who she was.

Voter ID is mandatory to prevent fraud under a new state law passed by Republicans, despite scant evidence fraud exists.

But the 96-year-old, who was on the voting roll, left her marriage certificate behind. Cooper was denied the ID.

Boo freaking hoo. Unless you are going to use your maiden name to vote, you need your marriage certificate to get an ID card. Sure, if you’re 96, it’s easy to forget these things, but this is not a draconian requirement. If she left it at home, all she has to do is go and get it, and come back, and they’ll give her her card.

At least this story passes the sniff test. The next one is pure bull:

Wilola Lee in Pennsylvania has a similar story to tell. The 60-year-old has voted in most national elections since the 1970s, worked at her local Philadelphia polling station and is retired from the city’s education department. She has a social security card and a state identity card.

But a new law, passed by a Republican-controlled legislature, says voters must use an ID card issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

To get one you need a birth certificate. Lee’s was destroyed by fire. Efforts to get one from Georgia, her birthplace, have been frustrated for the past decade.

Nothing about this crap rings true. First of all, the story says she has a State ID card already. If you check the Pennsylvania State Government website, it says she can use that to vote. It is not true that you can only vote with a card from the PADoT.

Secondly, you do not need a birth certificate to get a PADoT card! If you don’t have your birth certificate, you can swear a declaration and get an ID that way.

So the story is bogus. These people are generally Democratic Party activists attempting to agitate. And Peter Huck has fallen for their crap without doing any proper research.

Huck regurgitates that standard line that there is "scant evidence fraud exists". Which is a bit like holding a rock festival without bothering to put up a fence and then saying there is "scant evidence that some people didn’t pay for admission". How could you possibly tell?! But there is significant conjecture that Al Franken won his Senate seat through Democratic Party activists "bulking up" the vote, and even more to suggest that John F Kennedy won Texas and Illinois by less than legal means. The integrity of the vote is important. What possible reason would you have for not checking if someone is eligible to vote?!

On top of all this nonsense is the lawsuit brought in Pennsylvania against its voter ID laws:

This week a challenge to that [Pennsylvania] law by the American Civil Liberties Union and other plaintiffs, who argued the state had erected "unconstitutional barriers to the fundamental right to vote", failed. "I just can’t believe it," said the chief plaintiff, 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite. "Too many people have fought for the right to vote to have it taken away like this. All is I want is to be able to vote this November like I always have."

Another bizarre case of people not using their heads to ask some obvious questions. In any court in the world, it is standard practice to ask whether a person has standing to bring suit. How do you prove standing? Why, with a form of identification, of course! You can’t sue anybody without some form of ID, so why should you be able to vote without it?

About 11 per cent of Americans – more than 21 million – have no government-approved ID. Pennsylvania says 750,000 registered voters are in this category.

This is just bullshit. The writer is pulling these figures out of his arse. There is no way that there are 21 million eligible voters out there who don’t have a drivers licence or some other form of identification. It is practically impossible to get by in American society without a picture ID. You can’t even get a bank account without one. Are you telling me none of these people drive, or have bank accounts?!

It is one thing to publish blatant propaganda in an American newspaper when there are alternative sources of information, but this was published in the New Zealand Herald. For most New Zealanders, this is the only story they will hear about the voter ID laws, with no right of reply from the other side of the argument. The Herald is not doing its job of giving New Zealanders fair and impartial journalism with this crap.

Coming Soon: A Monument Erected Where Obama Sold His First Gram Bag of Coke

The sycophancy of some people has no limits. I expect Cameron Slater will blog on it as more proof that Obama is beloved by the masses, Romney is doomed to failure, and his bet on the outcome of the race is all but secure…

Raping the Taxpayer

Amidst yet another controversy regarding the dubious way that Hell sells its pizza in New Zealand, and the fallout which saw them donate ten grand to Rape Crisis, I found this quote both fascinating and appalling:

Wellington Rape Crisis manager Natalie Gousmett this afternoon confirmed her organisation was accepting the offer on the condition Hell senior executives, managers and staff going through sexual violence awareness and ethical bystander training run by her agency.

Ms Gousmett said she was disappointed at having to accept the donation, rather than relying on guaranteed funding.

"They’ve made a mistake in a way that treats sexual violence as a joke. I feel as an agency that works with survivors of sexual violence it’s really troubling for us to be in this position of having to decide whether to have to accept money from a person who’s done something like this when we should have consistent Government funding."

Um… no you shouldn’t. What a terrible attitude.

Firstly, the organisation name has always weirded me out. The use of the word "crisis" in itself evokes panic and trauma. Is it saying that there is a "rape crisis" in society – too many rapes? Of course, one is too many, but the term suggests an epidemic, and there is no epidemic of rape in New Zealand, any more than any other crime. Or is it saying that rape is a "crisis" in the life of someone raped? If so, that seems awfully negative. When you deal with a rape victim, you are supposed to help them grieve and recover from what happened to them so that they can heal and restore themselves. With a name like "Rape Crisis", it conveys that victims are supposed to stay that way – in a state of crisis with no escape. Frankly, I want to help rape victims recover, not keep them in crisis. Why would I support a rape crisis with my donation?!

It seems like Rape Crisis has been pestering us for donations for a long time, and we just don’t want to give it up for them. They think when we say no, we really mean yes. They think that just because we wear tight jeans with our big fat wallets BULGING out of our pockets, that we are teasing them, and we deserve what we get. They’ve gone and humiliated Hell Pizza, accused them of things, called them dirty in public, and now Hell have given them a little something in the hope that it will satisfy them. But no, Rape Crisis are "disappointed" that they have to resort to doing this to get what they see as theirs to take. They want to be able to have it without asking, whenever they want it, whether we like it or not.

We’re such dirty, tax-paying sluts, and they’ll show us what’s good for us.

It’s not like Rape Crisis are bad people. They do really good things and help people out, and that makes them kinda cute. If they were gentle with us, respected us, said the right things, who knows what we might be able to give them? 😉 But Rape Crisis don’t seem to be interested in consent, and that’s a shame. Lock your doors, hide your wife, hide your kids…

Leave Nadezhda Ostapchuk Alone!

The amount of vitriol towards a certain butch Belarussian shotputter is getting embarrassing.

I can understand the joy at Valerie Adams receiving what was rightfully hers – a gold medal.  I can also understand that people don’t like cheats.  But FFS, there is a limit!  It’s only the f*cking shotput!  Nobody cares!  It’s not that important!

Yes, Ostapchuk is a cheat and deserves to be disqualified, but Eric Young is a wanker.  So are certain fast food chains.  There is nothing uglier than an ugly one-eyed New Zealand sports fan (except maybe a Cantabrian one), and rather than getting a chip on their shoulders and treating it like some personal mob vendetta, New Zealanders should celebrate what Valerie Adams has achieved, accentuate the positive, and leave it at that.

Giuliani Gives Bumbling Biden the Smackdown

Joe Biden is even more retarded than Cameron Slater’s analysis of US politics.  “America’s Mayor” tears him a new one:

Midwives Kill

Yet more evidence. The midwife profession is a regression to the dark ages of childbirth deaths – something which has no place in the 21st Century. Births should be supervised by DOCTORS.

Leave Stewart Murray Wilson Alone!

There comes a point in everyone’s life that one needs to stop whining like a little bitch, accept the reality of a situation, and move on.

I put it to Tariana Turia and the good people of Wanganui that now is such a time. Stewart Wilson is not a piece of radioactive waste, he’s simply an ape-creature who has served his time at Her Majesty’s pleasure, and now gets to live in a proper house like us humans do. You know exactly where he lives and what he looks like, so there can be no excuse should you decided to drop by for a cup of tea, or let him babysit your kids.

I suggest you ignore him, get on with your lives, and let him get on with his.

I cringe every time I hear the words "the community has not been consulted". Usually they come from the mouth of some Leftist trying to stop somebody exercising their basic human rights. In this case, it is crazy to consult anyone – what are people going to say? "Yes please, let’s have a sexual predator live in our neighbourhood!" The problem is that the simian has to live somewhere, and as GI Joe used to tell us, knowing is half the battle. It is far better to have a sexual predator live on your street and know exactly where and what he looks like, than to be blissfully unaware. It means that scaremongering is unnecessary.

I live ten doors down from a man who raped a three year old – the same age as my daughters. I know this because Texas has a sex offenders’ register, and while I am horrified that such people exist, I am grateful that I know who he is and where he lives, so that I can keep my daughters safe from him. New Zealand has no such register. NIMBY Tariana Turia should be less concerned about the pervert she knows about, and more concerned about the ones she is currently forbidden to know about under New Zealand law, because there are plenty of those.

NZ’s Pathetic Judiciary Shows Why Judges Should Be Elected

The sentences that get handed out in New Zealand are embarrassing. First we had the comedian who got a light sentence because he "made people laugh", now we have the sentence discount for abusing children while being young and white. It’s a disgrace, and contributes to the ridiculous crime rates by ensuring a revolving door in our prisons.

In Texas, we don’t have that problem. County Judges are elected, and are very tough on crime as a consequence. This poor schmuck here in San Antone got sentenced to 35 years for simply pretending to be a cop to get some action. That’s twice as long as David Bain got for murdering his family. Now I don’t agree with this sentence either – it’s just as ridiculous as some of the light sentences doled out in New Zealand. But I’d rather have the problem of Judges being too tough, and living in a much safer place like Texas, than Judges failing to put people away, and live with the high odds of being a victim of crime that exist in New Zealand. It’s a much better problem to have.

There are strong arguments based on the New Zealand tradition of an impartial judiciary that is above politics, and that electing a Judge somehow cheapens the position and degrades the integrity of the position. However, I would argue that Judges who are appointed by the Queen/Attorney General already degrade their position by giving out these light sentences. And it is naive to say that the judiciary is above politics – every judicial decision is a political one based on the Judge’s jurisprudential philosophy. It is far better to simply have the argument in a public forum so that the public can decide what sort of justice system they want, what sort of jurisprudential philosophy they prefer, and who they want sitting in judgment of themselves and their fellow citizens. Having witnessed elections for Judges here, the system seems to work well.

In fact, I think one of the reasons why the US Supreme Court is such a broken institution is precisely because We The People have no say in who gets to sit on that Court. It is ridiculous to have Justices appointed at the whim of whomever happens to be President at the time – it actually politicises the Court even more. You get a situation where Justices will not retire unless they have a person of the same party in the White House. You also get Justices who get to sit on the bench because they are regarded as "non-controversial" and more likely to be confirmed by the Senate, but whose judgment is wishy washy. While an elected Supreme Court would still not be perfect, it would be more legitimate. You would reduce the likelihood of John Roberts changing his mind on healthcare, say, for simple political reasons. And it would give people a chance to vote on that big question that the American people currently have no say in: Should we view the Constitution as something that lives and breathes and evolves, or a document which must be applied exclusively as its framers intended?

Hey Girl, It’s Paul Ryan

I’m no expert, but it seems that Paul Ryan heats up knickers in the same way that Sarah Palin pitched trouser tents four years ago…

Site here.