The Daily Show

Politicians are afraid that they are going to be ridiculed by satire made up of footage from Parliament.

It's a well founded fear - Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with John Stewart" (shown in New Zealand on C4) does just that - lampooning every Politician who says anything stupid. It describes itself as "a nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy".

In New Zealand, Jeremy Wells does a great job with Eating Media Lunch.

But the thing that Politicians should remember is this:

If you don't want to be satirised - then don't say or do anything stupid.

I have a confession to make ...

I learnt something last night after watching 10 minutes of reporters talking to commentators, fans in Auckland, the Mayor of Auckland, fans in Valencia, and any old hack who had an opinion on the Americas Cup.

I just don't give a shit about the Americas Cup.

Bring on the Rugby World Cup, and in the meantime can someone tell TV One they report news.

More Taxpayer Funded Advertising from Labour

From the will they ever learn file, comes this (taxpayer funded - Crest at bottom = paid for by Parliamentary Services) ad on Stuff today:



Such advertising is allowed under the description of commumicating the members views on issues of the day to the electorate - but you cannot ask for votes or donations, as this promoting your party, not the work of Government. Political Parties are voluntary organisations that receive no direct Government funding, except to purchase television and radio advertising in the 90 days before an election. (Some would argue that granting money to aligned organisations that then donate money to your party is sailing a little to close to the wind, but I won't go there.)

What Auditor General Kevin Brady decided was to take a more cautious approach of deciding if a reasonable person would decide if it was designed to influence a vote, and I think that this ad would be seen as being set out to influence a vote.

Clearly this advertisement is setting out to make the reader feel more favourable to Labour - it would fit the description of electioneering that

I would complain about this, except there is no point. Last year Labour passed into law an Act validating all Parliamentary Services expenditure that could be considered electioneering, up to the end of the 2006/7 Financial Year.

And that Financial Year ends next weekend.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

With a little under a month to the final Harry Potter book, I can't wait.

Harry will kill Voldemort

Well, duh! This has been evident since Harry defeated Voldemort in book one but didn't destroy him completely. Harry will destroy the known horcruxes, then confront Voldemort - he will then try to destroy Voldemort, only to discover that he is the last horcrux.

Who will live, who will die

Harry, Hermoine and Ron will all survive.

Draco Malfoy will see what the Death Eaters are really like, and will flee terrified. Bellatrix L'Strange will go after him (even though he's her nephew), and Malfoy will be saved by Neville Longbottom. And Neville will kill Bellatrix in the process.

Snape will die, probably in an action saving Harry from being killed by Voldemort and giving Harry the advantage to finish Voldemort.

Dolores Umbridge will probably get into a situation and try to bluster her way out when she should have drawn her wand.

Peter Pettigrew (aka Wormtail) will be killed by the Death Eaters after he repays his life debt to Harry.

Mrs Weasley will die somehow whild trying to protect Percy from Voldemort - no other parental figure of Harry has survived. (After all, his parents, Sirius Black, and Dumbledore have all been killed.) And then Percy will realise how much he misses his family and reconcile with his mother as she lies dying.

Dumbledore is dead. He isn't coming back.

Other Matters

Harry is the last remaining descendant of Godric Gryffindor. Despite the Wizarding world being obsessed by peoples ancestry, I've found it strange that we never hear anything about Harry's fathers family. And Harry got the sword out of the hat in Chamber of Secrets, something only a "true Gryffindor" could do, according to Dumbledore. Plus his family lived in Godric's hollow - and nothing is a coincidence in this series.

Harry will discover a secret ancestor on the Black Family Tree that the Malfoy's pretend isn't there. (Hagrid pulls Mr Weasley and Mr Malfoy apart when they meet and fight in the bookstore during Chamber of Secrets and remarks that the Malfoy's have "Bad Blood".)

Ginny and Harry will end up together, as will Ron and Hermione.

Harry will never consider suicide - JK Rowling has made him too popular with teenagers for her to include this theme.

Luna Lovegood will discover her mother and Sirius behind the veil in the Department of Mysteries, and will make it back through the veil.

The Horcruxes

Harry will realise that "R.A.B." is Regelus Black, and will think that Mundungus stole the locket that won't open when he can't find it in Grimmauld Place. But it will turn out that Kreacher will have hidden it in the attic.


I haven't read the hacked version, nor do I believe it is true. I have recently re-read all the books, and Muggle.Net and a Muggle.Net prediction book. Some of the predictions from Muggle.Net I agreed with, others I agree with but have added my own embellishments, others I don't think are likely - For instance, I think Hagrid will survive (although I've always wondered what he really was doing in Knockturn Alley when he found Harry - not even Harry believed he was buying slug repellent.)

What is there to be afraid of?

David Bain is to be retried - if anyone thinks he is innocent, then they should welcome this. It's the last chance for Bain to prove his innocence. It's also another chance for the Police to prove they had a competent investigation to the murders back in 1994.

As David Collins QC says, "Guilt or innocence of an accused person is not decided by the media, or public opinion polls."

Voting at 16

I find Sue Bradford's proposal to lower the voting age interesting, if somewhat flawed. I agree with Sue Bradford that there are plenty of 16 year olds that have more maturity than a lot of 40 year olds, and at that age they are more likely to be aware of political activity than a lot of older people.

But what I can't understand is the inconsistancy - while some legal rights are given to 16 year olds, there are many that are withheld until they are more mature. A 16 year old cannot obtain credit, cannot live away from a parents home without the parents permission, cannot purchase alcohol or cigarettes, cannot be deployed to war, and so on.

And why sixteen? You can get a drivers license at 15 - roading is a big political issue. There are legal responsibilities on 12 year olds in criminal law, so why not lower the age to 12.

Is Sue Bradford drafting a law that will allow 16 year olds to get credit cards, buy booze and baccy, leave home and go to war?

Dear Mr Henry

Dear Mr Henry,

I hear you are short of locks. I feel obliged to help out.

At a mere 1.92 metres, I may be short by international locking standards. But I see you've managed to play Troy Flavell at lock sucessfully. I could also wear inserts in my boots to add a couple more centimetres.

You may also think my age will count against me, but a I will only be the same age as Lawrence Dallaglio, and the Poms think he's still capable.

I know you should be concerned about by knee, and my ankle - but I have been bicycling all year so have plenty of strength. On the plus side my jaw works fine, my wife isn't pregnant, and the calfs are pretty good at the moment.

I'm not sure any videotape remains of my playing days for the Paekakariki Senior Reserve, or for the Tawa Reserve Grade team, or Tawa Presidents, but I know you are pretty desparate.

All the best for Sunday.

Michael.

Labour doesn't like prisons

Found this objection in the Summary of Objections published on the elections website. (Have to go to page 38 of the file)

Objection by New Zealand Labour Party
Objects to the name ‘Rimutaka’ for the proposed electorate as the name is only relevant for the northern part of the electorate and has negative associations with the name of Rimutaka Prison. Suggested solution: Name the electorate ‘Hutt North’.

There you have it - Labour thinks "Rimutaka" stinks as a name because it's also the name of a prison. No wonder they let Corrections get so bad with an attitude like that.

RIP Toyota. Hello Subaru!

Okay, sharing the one car got a little tiring, so we bought a replacement for the Toyota on Saturday. Chaucey now runs around in a 99 Subaru Impreza, and I get the old Ford to drive around in.



The other good news is that the insurance company we've been dealing with over the bus that wrote off the Toyota made an acceptable offer of compensation and have towed it off to Turners.

And I also got a call from the bus company about some other issues where they revealed that the bus driver needs to see the police about the accident. That'll make a few bus drivers think twice about driving away from accidents without leaving their details.

"The harder I work, the luckier I get"

This post started as a comment on Just Left, got to big, so it goes here. Jordan Carter blogged how Labour policy is about achieving a society that is "fair" because it's a matter of luck that determines "differences" (born with different abilities, family wealth, etc.) and it the responsibility of society to make those differences not count against people.

I went to a college that had a cross section of New Zealand that is unusual and probably unique - my classes had poor kids from Cannons Creek, rich kids from Redwood, middle class from Titahi Bay; kids from large families, only children; polynesian, maori, white, asian - if you can name the population slice, there was someone in my class who fitted. (The only common thing we had was we were almost all the same religion - it was a Catholic College.)

And today, all the kids have had varying careers - a couple went into the army, a couple became nurses, bankers, graduated from Uni and became lawyers, accountants or some other professional, one became a cartographer, a couple are policemen, a few bankers, and so on. However, a few have not been sucessful, or had periods of little sucess before getting somewhere.

But I can't think of any link between social-economic status, ethnicity, or any other box you could tick and how sucessful mu classmates have become. The only thing I can think of is that the ones that have worked hard have done the best. A quote attributed to both Samuel Goldwyn and Gary Player is this: "The harder I work, the luckier I get."

One thing few can dispute is that the Labour Party has worked hard to obtain and hold on to power - if they fail to see the link between making incentives for hard work and good outcome, but think of anyone that has a good outcome is just "lucky", then they are buying into a mentality that New Zealand should not strive to achieve.

Why pay for Auckland Trains?

Having been up in Auckland for a training course I took the oppurtunity to have a look at the massively expensive rail network that my petrol taxes are paying for. (Name one Hutt Valley road project that has started in the past 5 years!)

So, after all day stuck in an office on to catch a train from Britomart to Newmarket and walk back.

Like the Wellington services, trains departed every 10 minutes on each line. But unlike Wellington services, there was no crush to get on the carraige, no racing to grab a seat, and nobody standing - in fact everyone got their own pair of seats to themselves as there were 16 people on my carraige when it left Britomart. (There were four carraiges, so that would be about 64 people on board - about enough to fill one carraige to seating capacity.)

All that energy used to haul such a small amount of passengers in a heavy train is more polluting that if all the passengers drove their own cars. A decade on from the 'if you build it, they will come' arguement, rail has failed in Auckland.

As an aside, there are so few passengers on the train the guards can sell ten trip and monthly tickets on board. If this was tried in Wellington the guards would only be able to check the tickets of half the passengers as they would spend so long selling tickets.

There is no Wellington service that departs at 5.30pm that isn't packed beyond capacity - even getting on some services around this time is an excercise in gymnastics - and most have six or eight carraiges that would carry at least 80 people in each, sometimes up to 120 passengers can be crammed in. So an average peak time Wellington train would have ten times the passengers of an Auckland train.

If the Government was serious about upgrading passenger rail, it would urgently replace the English Electric units (aka the "Red Rattlers"). If they need to find some carraiges, there are plenty of under utilised units in Auckland.

Bloody Bus Companies

As anyone who regularly travels down Waiwhetu Road may have noticed, progress on getting the car repaired or a compensation payment is going very slowly.

I know that the insurance company doesn't want to pay out to us - what insurance company does - but they seem to be dragging their heels, be slow to respond, and reluctant to do anything helpful.

While we are not a customer of theirs, we spend a fair amount of money on insurance for our home, contents and vehicles every year - so the bad impression they are creating would now make it very difficult for them to win our business in future.

Perhaps we will have to resort to desparate measures by sending a letter demanding remedial action to the bus company within fourteen days with the threat of taking them to the small claims tribunal if they don't fix it up.

P.S. I'm not willing to name and shame the insurance company just yet - but watch this space.