Murder in the High Street

If Austin Hemmings had pulled a handgun on his attacker and shot him dead, the police would have arrested him and prosecuted him to the full extent of the law. He would have been bankrupted defending himself. He was stuffed whichever way it went. The police have no affection for people defending themselves, or going on the offensive against thugs. In this way they are acting as friends and accomplices to the criminals. They are supporting criminals by attacking those against them. The police regard crime control as their province, and theirs alone. This is ridiculous given it is impossible for the police to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in matters of crime. When Sir Robert Peel created the Metropolitan Police in London he stated the police are the public, and the public are the police. The only difference between a policeman and a member of the public is that a policeman is paid to do full-time what members of the public do gratis part-time.

Political Faeces

Winston Peters must think the public is stupid. All the posturing, casuistry, and sophism is fooling no-one. The public perception of him and his party is diminishing by the hour. The big question which is being sidelined, is whether or not Peters has accepted bribes from Glenn (ambassadorial aspirations), Siminovich (Scampi enquiry) or Vela family (Racing boons), or indeed from them all. In the meantime Labour is frantically appointing party lackey's to the (independent) public service, and ramming through unpopular law before the election. The worst thing is, in the event National comes to power, they will NOT reverse the Socialist adgenda Labour has been embarking upon. This begs the question: why bother voting for National at all? By not reversing the trend they are in fact acting as an accomplice with the Labour adgenda

Dignity

I was listening to the Maori program on National radio the other morning, early. They interviewed a chap who completed a documentary on John Pohe, a Maori pilot in WW2, and who by all accounts was one of life's more memorable characters. The interviewer stated it seems unusual to talk of a Maori pilot and the documentary-maker replied that there were a number of maoris who served in the RAF, perhaps 30 or so. The interviewer's reaction?
" Jesus, that's heaps".

Helen Clark

I genuinely feel sorry for Helen Clark over the death of Gottlieb (affectionately known as "Goat Leg")Braun-Elwart. It's a hell of a position for anyone to be in.
However one is constrained to speculate that Helen was probably discussing Labour Party plans with him when the poor man raced outside and had a heart attack. One can visualise the unfortunate man lying there, in extremis, with senior Labour Party cabinet members crowded around him, and Professor Davis puckering up to give him mouth to mouth (with a slightly crooked grin on his face). That would be enough to sap the life-force from the most hardy of us.

Socialism v Conservatism

I was listening to talkback the other night and the "host" was discussing the difference between socialism and conservatism. His thought was that socialism looks after "society" whereas conservatism looks after the "individual".

I think he's only half right. The basic difference is the view each takes of the individual. Socialists believe the individual exists for the good of the State, the conservative believes the State exists for the good of the individual. It's no good debating the issue because when it comes down to it the answer will be provided by the attitude of the person, not the logic.

However having said that the question has to be asked "how good a job have the Socialists done in fostering the well-being of society? Is society in good health or not? For all their ardour for change, socialists have not understood a basic law of sociology, and that is that people do not handle change well at all, and constant change creates sociological illness. The most visible symptom of change can be seen in the immigration of races different from our own e.g. east v west. The problem is especially bad where immigrants have nothing in common with the host nation. The push for multiculturalism is a huge mistake, and one that cannot be effectiviely fixed. Look at the incredible ferment in English, especially London, society with its no-go ghetto areas.

The other area where socialist dogma puts society at risk is in the area of taxation. Everybody is clamouring for tax cuts, which the Labour-led government will only concede at the bitter end, and only in an attempt to cling to power. The socialist ideal is for everybody to pay their entire earnings to the State which then gives some back "each to his needs". We already have a form of this with the "Working for Families" initiative.

New Society

It seems incontrovertible that certain of society's dynamics have changed over the last few years, and dramatically in certain sectors. I know for a fact that generally society is much different now than it was when I was growing up in the 50s and 60s. Unfortunately it is different in an improper way, in a putresent way. I blame the teachers. When I went to primary school in the mid 50s the Nuns made it very clear to us what was and what was not expected of us. Our parents did the same. We had very clear perimeters which directed our behaviour, and there were consequences if we went beyond those boundaries.
Enter Tomorrow's Schools, the brain-child of the first Lange Labour Government. It was in fact a teacher-led initiative, a real Socialist notion. The philosophy behind the change was the idea that perimeters only hold a child back in its development. Remove those boundaries (or inhibitions) and the child will achieve much more. Drugs? How do you know they're bad if you haven't tried them? Try them, and decide for yourself. Question, nay argue with your teachers. People in authority are just imposing arbitrary limits on you. Punishment should not be seen as such, so sanctions have to be severely ameliorated so as not to offend a child's sensibilities.
The first children who developed under this regime (I will not describe them as maturing) are now the parents of the savages roaming our streets. By and large these children ( and not all have devolved in this fashion) would be described as sociopaths when I was a child, and in a lot of cases psychopaths.
Socialists as a political force exist for one reason only. They purposely change society to conform to their own political notions. I hope they are happy with the society they have created.

As natural as it may be, it's no good crying over spilt milk. The case of a 14 year old dying seemingly of exposure in Taupo on the weekend tells a sorry tale. I know when I was 14 my parents knew exactly where I was, and the chances of me staying away all night were absolutely nil. In the case of my own children, their chances of staying out all night were also nil. The aunty's response "who knows what 14 year olds get up to?" indicates to me an implicit acknowledgement the parents should have exerted more parental responsibility.