Hattip: Scoop
“Politics is a public business and it requires transparency. National is opposed to that because they want to repeat their 2005 rorts next time, which is why they are hostile to every initiative to ensure our political system is open to all, transparent, and clean,” Pete Hodgson said.
What can you say? That Delusions of Honesty quote comes to mind as the only cogent answer.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Tax cut affordability
This snippet from the CIS report "Why tax cuts are good for growth"
is too important to leave "isolated" on Kiwiblog
One could lower the corporate, top and middle rates to 30% and the lower-middle rate to 18% for just $3.15 billion per annum
This one statement helps to reveal the Left wing rhetoric for what it is; inflamatory and empty.
Their defensive cries of tax cuts requiring service cuts are just not true; even Michael Cullen has admitted to there being "only" $3 billion (of the $11 billion surplus) that could be attributed to tax cuts. And this $11 billion surplus is after his ferriting away $19 billion in "unallocated" spending.
And it further debunks that tax cuts are for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Show me a middle class household that wouldn't greatly benefit by a 14% reduction in their taxation rate.
is too important to leave "isolated" on Kiwiblog
One could lower the corporate, top and middle rates to 30% and the lower-middle rate to 18% for just $3.15 billion per annum
This one statement helps to reveal the Left wing rhetoric for what it is; inflamatory and empty.
Their defensive cries of tax cuts requiring service cuts are just not true; even Michael Cullen has admitted to there being "only" $3 billion (of the $11 billion surplus) that could be attributed to tax cuts. And this $11 billion surplus is after his ferriting away $19 billion in "unallocated" spending.
And it further debunks that tax cuts are for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Show me a middle class household that wouldn't greatly benefit by a 14% reduction in their taxation rate.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Sign petition now!
At PetitionOnline
Why? (Hattip: KiwiBlog)
Helen Clark has explicitly voted to kill off a lawsuit in which she is the prime defendant.
[edit] Yay - well, at least just watched the petition crack 10,000 votes so at least that is a start; but I can't see it meaning anything at all without a whole lot more. Get the word out there people, and to your less politically and information technology astute peers as well!
[edit] And it appears to have managed to generate enough publicity that even some of the MSM are picking up on it:
Petition calls for legislation to be blocked
To: His Excellency, Anand Satyanand, Governor General of New Zealand
Why? (Hattip: KiwiBlog)
Amendments which they defeated include:
Clause 6A(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the High Court proceedings of Darnton v Clark dated 29 June 2006 (Civ No. 2006-485-1398) in which the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the expenditure on the “pledge card” and related brochures by the Labour Parliamentary Party is a breach of the Constitution Act 1986, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Bill of Rights 1688.
This means Labour have explictly voted to kill off a lawsuit against themselvesHelen Clark has explicitly voted to kill off a lawsuit in which she is the prime defendant.
[edit] Yay - well, at least just watched the petition crack 10,000 votes so at least that is a start; but I can't see it meaning anything at all without a whole lot more. Get the word out there people, and to your less politically and information technology astute peers as well!
[edit] And it appears to have managed to generate enough publicity that even some of the MSM are picking up on it:
Petition calls for legislation to be blocked
Animal activists, defend the pie!
OK - I know I'm about 2 weeks behind the story on this, but needed to vent a little on it as it's still floating around. (Hattip: Stuff, Stuff)
Proposed changes to the rules on what can go into meat pies means that snouts, tongues and lung material may be on the way out.
The question I have to ask is why - who really cares? Is it not actually a good thing that all those parts of a beast that you would not normally purchase nor eat have actually found a way to be made appetizing and be used? Surely this should be something that people are behind - as long as these parts of the animal are rendered in such a way as to be unrecognisable, I really don't care whether they are in there - and if that is what tastes good in my pie then I'm happy that I'm not wasting a perfectly good steak in there which would have cost a further animal its life.
While in Europe I had a number of meals from animal parts that I would not normally touch; pig trotters, pig head, horse, etc. And each time my only question before trying these things was to make sure that they were not going to come out in a recognisable fashion (IE the trotters had been deboned, the head comes out as just meat, didn't actually worry about the horse...) - and they were spectacular. As most people who can bring themselves to eat well cooked offal will tell you - it really does tend to be the most flavoursome parts of the animal; it just isn't easy to eat them when you know what they are.
Step in that wonderful encasement of pastry and sauce and those less adventurous can still join in the culinary journey. Until they can only contain "flesh".
Proposed changes to the rules on what can go into meat pies means that snouts, tongues and lung material may be on the way out.
The question I have to ask is why - who really cares? Is it not actually a good thing that all those parts of a beast that you would not normally purchase nor eat have actually found a way to be made appetizing and be used? Surely this should be something that people are behind - as long as these parts of the animal are rendered in such a way as to be unrecognisable, I really don't care whether they are in there - and if that is what tastes good in my pie then I'm happy that I'm not wasting a perfectly good steak in there which would have cost a further animal its life.
While in Europe I had a number of meals from animal parts that I would not normally touch; pig trotters, pig head, horse, etc. And each time my only question before trying these things was to make sure that they were not going to come out in a recognisable fashion (IE the trotters had been deboned, the head comes out as just meat, didn't actually worry about the horse...) - and they were spectacular. As most people who can bring themselves to eat well cooked offal will tell you - it really does tend to be the most flavoursome parts of the animal; it just isn't easy to eat them when you know what they are.
Step in that wonderful encasement of pastry and sauce and those less adventurous can still join in the culinary journey. Until they can only contain "flesh".
Monday, October 16, 2006
James makes some sense
After getting over my surprise about that I had to point it out; (Hattip: Urbancast)
Otherwise, reconsider that donation to cover Labour's misspend, donate here instead - and then tell the PM about it.
Help to make a difference to poverty from lack of free trade and choices - not that which is brought on oneself through theft and arrogance.
Otherwise, reconsider that donation to cover Labour's misspend, donate here instead - and then tell the PM about it.
Help to make a difference to poverty from lack of free trade and choices - not that which is brought on oneself through theft and arrogance.
A bit too precious about culture
A pity I missed watching the painful experience of our getting thumped by the Aussie League team on Saturday, as mentioned before we cannot justify the expense of Sky.
However one incident, that of Willie Mason slagging off our team during the Haka, has highlighted one important aspect of Maori culture with its latter coverage - that in general we are far too precious about it.
Face it guys - what is the Haka at the start of the game, what is its cultural meaning? It is a challenge from one warrior tribe to another - so what is more appropriate than the other side giving you their cultural challenge in reply? In fact you are probably lucky the Aussies didn't take the chance to give their real cultural reply to black men inhabiting ground they want - raising a musket and firing.
The Aussies just managed to outwit you again, as you predictably rose to take the bait and lose the composure that we desperately need to take them down a notch. Want to know the best way to respond next time? Get a grip and and win the game that you are there to play.
However one incident, that of Willie Mason slagging off our team during the Haka, has highlighted one important aspect of Maori culture with its latter coverage - that in general we are far too precious about it.
Face it guys - what is the Haka at the start of the game, what is its cultural meaning? It is a challenge from one warrior tribe to another - so what is more appropriate than the other side giving you their cultural challenge in reply? In fact you are probably lucky the Aussies didn't take the chance to give their real cultural reply to black men inhabiting ground they want - raising a musket and firing.
The Aussies just managed to outwit you again, as you predictably rose to take the bait and lose the composure that we desperately need to take them down a notch. Want to know the best way to respond next time? Get a grip and and win the game that you are there to play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
