March 2007

Labour Pays Back Stolen Money, Early!!!!

by Whaleoil March 31, 2007

Labour have, unbe­liev­ably, paid back all of the money they stole for the 2005 elec­tion plus interest.

Big Kudos to Mike Williams and Helen Clark for show­ing some hon­esty and integrity over the issue.

 

Link to Full Article 4 comments

Hey Beehive! Keep Section 59

by Whaleoil March 31, 2007

A com­men­tor to the blog left this link.

Link to Full Article 1 comment

Thorpe a cheater?

by Whaleoil March 31, 2007

Is the Thor­pedo a cheater?

A French news­pa­per (They’re French, so can’t be trusted) have revealed that Ian Thorpe is the sub­ject of a dop­ing investigation.

Swimming’s world gov­ern­ing body FINA has con­firmed that it had lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbi­tra­tion for Sport (CAS) over a dop­ing test con­ducted by the Aus­tralian Sports Anti-Doping Author­ity (ASADA).

FINA, which did not iden­tify the swim­mer involved, released a state­ment say­ing there had been an “adverse ana­lyt­i­cal result” that it had referred to CAS “with the aim of clar­i­fy­ing the issues sur­round­ing the case.”

Lets wait and see shall we?

Link to Full Article 2 comments

Rating the Cabinet

by Whaleoil March 30, 2007

The Her­ald has rated the Cab­i­net. Mostly falls in per­for­mance, some woe­ful, a cou­ple of rises. Phil Goff and Annette King are the out­stand­ing per­form­ers (lead­er­ship chal­lenge any­one?), the rest.….well shall we say dog tucker. (my com­ments in brack­ets) Also note David Farrar’s rat­ings , he is way more­fairer than me.

Key ones to Note are;

HELEN CLARK 7 (7 a year ago) Prime Minister

As focused as ever, if not more so, in con­trast with many of her min­is­ters. But has made a cou­ple of sig­nif­i­cant bad calls over polit­i­cal man­age­ment of elec­tion spend­ing and child-smacking issues. (You’d think with all the wax­ing lyri­cal that goes on from Jor­dan and Tony she would be a ‘10’, but alas no, she is no Bo Derek)

MICHAEL CULLEN 6 (7) Finance / Tertiary

Still the flawed genius with­out whom Clark could not oper­ate effec­tively but look­ing a bit tired on it lately.

JIM ANDERTON 6 (6) Agri­cul­ture / Forestry

Prob­lems in fish­eries and forestry. Time this old warhorse slowed down and looked to that graz­ing pad­dock beyond the Beehive.

STEVE MAHAREY 6 (7)

Edu­ca­tion His supreme self-confidence should have taken a bat­ter­ing over the 20-hour “free” child­care fiasco and the imple­men­ta­tion of NCEA. But it hasn’t because he has, well, supreme self-confidence.

ANNETTE KING 9 (7) Trans­port / Police

Increases her value to the Gov­ern­ment with each pass­ing cri­sis. Gets results. Capa­ble man­ager behind the scenes and in front.

TREVOR MALLARD 4 (6) Eco­nomic Devel­op­ment / Sport

Where is the sales job on eco­nomic trans­for­ma­tion? Wins points for auda­cious Auck­land water­front sta­dium, but loses more for insult­ing the most impor­tant elec­torate in the coun­try for fail­ing to agree with him. Val­ued inside the party but has lost some of his cred­i­bil­ity. (Mal­lard needs a big cup of shut the fuck up.)

PETE HODGSON 4 (4) Health

Peo­ple being bumped off wait­ing lists, Her­ceptin, the Med­lab fiasco, strikes that threaten treat­ment — none may be exactly his fault but all have hap­pened on his watch. So he gets a lit­tle less than the rat­ing he him­self gives the health sys­tem. (And he can’t dance to save himself.)

MARK BURTON 2 (2) Jus­tice / Treaty Negotiations

Clark must be point­ing him in the direc­tion of the exit sign next elec­tion. Not a sin­gle appar­ent suc­cess. Entire Jus­tice port­fo­lio under review. No momen­tum in Treaty Nego­ti­a­tions. No pay-off for the rates rebate pledge. (Mark who?)

DAMIEN O’CONNOR 2 (8) Corrections

Dear, oh dear. Such high hopes for this pop­u­lar min­is­ter. Has suf­fered badly from his department’s inep­ti­tude but also high­lighted some of his own man­age­ment defi­cien­cies. (Dead man walk­ing.)

DAVID BENSON-POPE 4 (3) Social Devel­op­ment Wrong man for the job but then this port­fo­lio is not as impor­tant to Labour as it was in its first two terms. Bring back Maharey. At least he was pas­sion­ate about it. (The only thing Panty Slut-Boy is pas­sion­ate about is cop­ping a good flogging.)

NANAIA MAHUTA 5 (6) Cus­toms / Youth Affairs

One law for all dogs should not be what this min­is­ter is best remem­bered for. She has tal­ent, where is it? Use it, or lose it. (I vote lose it.)

Link to Full Article

Countdown — Time Left for Labour to pay us back

by Whaleoil March 30, 2007

Labour still has not paid a cent back of the money they stole.

I have added a lit­tle counter at the top of the left col­umn to assist them in cal­cu­lat­ing how much time they have left.

Pay It Back you thiev­ing scum. 

Link to Full Article

CYFS won’t">Police might exercise discretion but CYFS won’t

by Whaleoil March 30, 2007

The lies of Duplic­i­tous Duo, Sue Brad­ford and Helen Clark, con­tinue to be exposed.

There may lie and the one being trum­peted loudly by the lick­spit­tles is that the law doesn’t ban smack­ing when it demon­stra­bly does, the sec­ond main lie is that the police will exer­cise dis­cre­tion, of course the sec­ond lie is much more insid­i­ous because what would hap­pen if the Police were informed of an incident.

Well we can won­der no more because a mother in Field­ing both­ered to actu­ally ask what no MSM so-called jour­nal­ist hasn’t, “If I lightly smacked my three-year-old for cor­rec­tion and my neigh­bour saw it and called police — would you have to come out and investigate?”

Her answer from Field­ing Police, was YES. So what!, you say. Well Mrs Elliot, clearly more dili­gent that any news reporter asked some fur­ther questions.

[quote]Police national head­quar­ters con­firmed this for the Man­awatu Stan­dard, but added the call would be pri­ori­tised, as all police calls are. It would come under the cat­e­gory of domes­tic violence.

Mrs Elliott then asked if police would pass on the infor­ma­tion to CYFS. The answer again was yes.

She was told that if police believed the child was in no imme­di­ate dan­ger they would not notify CYFS within 24 hours, but they meet fort­nightly about fam­ily vio­lence and that’s when infor­ma­tion would be passed on, Mrs Elliott said.

That’s the bit that scared me — hav­ing CYFS on your doorstep,” Mrs Elliott said.

I’ve got nice neigh­bours, but not every­one does.

A light smack for cor­rec­tion is not abuse,” she added.[/quote]

So, then, who is afraid now.…a sea of hands.….So there you have it, the lie that Police would do noth­ing is proven by ask­ing, who else, the Police, con­firmed by National Head­quar­ters and with the sting of CYFS in the tail as well.

 

Link to Full Article 2 comments

Trotter says pull the bill now Sue

by Whaleoil March 30, 2007

Chris Trot­ter per­haps the only leftie com­men­ta­tor I have admired wrote a pieve on the Dom­Post. It isn’t avail­able online and you really have to won­der whether that is inten­tional given the explo­sive nature of his piece. Of course I do not toally agree with his sen­ti­ments, espe­cially the last cou­ple of para­graphs. For the rest of it he is right on the money, the longer the left pushes this the more they will be stripped of power.

NZ Con­ser­v­a­tive have thought­fully re-typed it and I have copied it here for you to read.

[quote]With­draw your failed bill, Sue

We have failed. The opin­ion polls released this week con­firm that fact with crush­ing final­ity. It is now indis­putable that four-fifths of the elec­torate is opposed to Sue Bradford’s “Anti-Smacking Bill”. No one’s really sur­prised. The poll results were just another cou­ple of stalks in the ver­i­ta­ble bliz­zard of straws in the wind that has been blow­ing for weeks on this issue. The Left already knew the vot­ers weren’t con­vinced. Why? Because it sim­ply hasn’t both­ered to con­vince them.

Con­sider the last great suc­cess­ful bat­tle against against ingrained pub­lic prej­u­dice: the legal eman­ci­pa­tion of gay and les­bian New Zealan­ders. How was that achieved? By a pri­vate member’s bill, yes, but was that all? No. The fight for gay and les­bian rights had been going on for years before Fran Wilde intro­duced her Homo­sex­ual Law Reform Bill to Par­lia­ment in 1985.

The strug­gle against homo­pho­bia had gone on in stu­dents’ asso­ci­a­tions, unions, gov­ern­ment depart­ments, pri­vate busi­ness, and on the streets. There were jour­nals and news­pa­pers devoted to the cause. And, in the main­stream new media, a con­stant bar­rage of let­ters, fea­ture arti­cles and doc­u­men­taries steadily chipped away at pub­lic ignorance.

The gay rights move­ment had its own icons, its own heroes, and even its own “Gay Pride” week on the nation’s uni­ver­sity cam­puses. Fran Wilde’s bill came at the end of a multi-faceted polit­i­cal cam­paign for change — not at the beginning.

Noth­ing on this scale has pre­ceded the cam­paign to end vio­lence against chil­dren. Cer­tainly, there are lobby groups devoted to advanc­ing the rights of the child, but their efforts have almost exclu­sively been devoted to secur­ing the back­ing of decision-makers espe­cially MPs. No one, to my knowl­edge, has set out to secure the back­ing of the pub­lic in the way that gays and les­bians did.

And now that fail­ure to win over at least a sub­stan­tial minor­ity of the pub­lic, before pro­ceed­ing to the leg­isla­tive phase of the reform process, is gen­er­at­ing a back­lash of extra­or­di­nary power.

In a way that few, if any, of the bill’s sup­port­ers antic­i­pated, the notion of crim­i­nal­is­ing the “cor­rec­tion” of chil­dren has awak­ened fears and resent­ments from the very deep­est recesses of the New Zealand psyche.

It’s more than the New Zealand pub­lic can deal with right now: those con­flicted emo­tions toward par­ents and sib­lings; those painful child­hood mem­o­ries of sud­den and inex­plic­a­ble vio­lence; those over­whelm­ing feel­ings of guilt and shame. All the unac­knowl­edged patholo­gies of fam­ily life which Sue Bradford’s bill requires New Zealan­ders to recog­nise and address — it’s too much. They want the bill out of their faces NOW!

And, in a curi­ous way, they’re right. Because the sequenc­ing, when you think about it, is all wrong.

How can we ask peo­ple bat­tling to keep a roof over their heads; peo­ple hold­ing down two min­i­mum wage jobs to put food on the table; peo­ple strug­gling to pay mort­gages, rates, power bills and school fees; peo­ple so tired they for­get to talk to their kids, make love to their part­ners, or keep in touch with their fam­ily and friends, to do what Sue is demand­ing? To some­how locate the calm cen­tre of their beings; that strong and secure sense of self which is the key to con­struct­ing lov­ing and non-violent relationships?

Is it really fair, in a soci­ety which never stops doing vio­lence to them, to sud­denly demand that par­ents stop doing vio­lence to their children?

This leg­is­la­tion needs to be with­drawn, imme­di­ately. And its sup­port­ers (among whom I include myself) need to acknowl­edge their fail­ure. Not just their fail­ure to build a mass move­ment against the vio­lence done to chil­dren, but their fail­ure to sus­tain the move­ment which their par­ents and grand­par­ents built to end the eco­nomic and social vio­lence daily inflicted upon work­ing families.

You can­not help the kids if you will not help their mums and dads.

By refus­ing to recog­nise the sheer mag­ni­tude of the oppo­si­tion to this bill, the Left has for­feited the electorate’s trust. Sadly, with­draw­ing the leg­is­la­tion is now a nec­es­sary pre­con­di­tion to rebuild­ing pub­lic con­fi­dence in pro­gres­sive politics.

Because, mark my words, if we do not acknowl­edge our fail­ure and set about reclaim­ing the trust we have lost, it will be given to others.

Pass­ing this leg­is­la­tion now, over the objec­tions of four-fifths of the elec­torate, will not set­tle the mat­ter. The peo­ple will pun­ish the Left and them­selves by vot­ing the far Right into power.

And how will that help the chil­dren of New Zealand?[/quote]

Link to Full Article

I got to get me some research grants

by Whaleoil March 30, 2007

Check this out for com­plete and utter waste.

[quote]National has ques­tioned how a stu­dent scooped $96,000 in research fund­ing to study the every­day lives of bogans includ­ing their prac­tices of “mosh­ing” and “headbanging”.

Ter­tiary Edu­ca­tion Min­is­ter Michael Cullen says this type of research is a “great invest­ment” which is “under­pin­ning our trans­for­ma­tion into a knowl­edge economy.”

National MP Paul Hutchi­son pointed out that money for the study was made while gov­ern­ment fund­ing for agri­cul­tural sci­ence had dropped from $63 mil­lion in 2004 to $50m in 2005/06.

Dr Hutchi­son ques­tioned whether the study was the best use of scarce research resources.

It’s not cred­i­ble that this type of research will improve our econ­omy,” he said.

Our research dol­lars are already stretched.“[/quote]

FFS sake.… “A great invest­ment under­pin­ning our trans­for­ma­tion into a knowl­edge economy”!!!!!!

Cullen has gone mad.

Link to Full Article

20Free policy in tatters

by Whaleoil March 30, 2007

Pol­icy mak­ing on the hoof is never a good look, and it just got worse for Steve Maharey and Helen Clark with news that the Early Child­hood Council’s chief exec­u­tive Sue Thorne has said a sur­vey of 1000 early child­hood cen­tres, which was com­pleted last week, had revealed “a very low uptake” of the policy.

She announced this at their annual con­fer­ence, and also said the prog­no­sis is likely to be worse.
[quote]Only 23.9 per cent of com­mu­nity and pri­vately owned cen­tres had said they would opt in to the 20 hours free edu­ca­tion pol­icy, Mrs Thorne said.

But worse than that, accord­ing to our sur­vey, many cen­tres with costs in excess of the free ECE (early child­hood edu­ca­tion) rates are opt­ing in only because they believe they are able to off­set their losses by increas­ing fees for the hours three and four-year-olds attend over and above the 20 free, or by increas­ing fees for one and two year olds,” she said.

The min­is­ter of edu­ca­tion made clear to me on Mon­day, how­ever, that this is not the case.“[/quote]

Oh dear, some one (the min­is­ter) has been telling porkies and despite his pub­lic assur­ances that all you have to do is rock on up to a child­hood edu­ca­tion cen­tre and demand the 20Free the exact oppo­site appears to be the case. If you do rock on up you are likely to be shown the do

Link to Full Article

Watch out.…here comes Rohit!

by Whaleoil March 29, 2007

I have been asked to help out a mate.

His name is Rohit Singh and he has just come back from Fiji after lift­ing the Fiji Box­ing Association’s Heavy­weight Title on the 23rd of March from Mosese Kavika, knock­ing him out in the 3rd Round. Mosese Kavika is cur­rently ranked 10th in the WBF Asia Pacific rank­ings . Rohit will fight any­one from Shane Cameron down in that list.

Rohit trains at Buck’s Genet­ics Gym in Manukau and is there every­day. We often are chat­ting about train­ing and that is where I found out abit about him.

He has won every­thing there is to win in Fiji both Ama­teur and Pro­fes­sional. This is his record.

Ama­teur: 27 bouts Super Heavy­weight, all won by Knock­out, no defeats. 4 medals, 2 trophies.

Pro­fes­sional: 14 Heavy­weight bouts, all won by knock­out, undefeated.

Rohit is now based in New Zealand and is look­ing for a pro­moter so he can have a crack at Shane Cameron for the New Zealand Title.

Some things you should know about Rohit, he gives half of his fight win­nings to char­ity. The Char­i­ties he cur­rently sup­ports are the Dis­abled Children’s Hos­tel, The Lau­toka School for Spe­cial Edu­ca­tion, the Bayly Wel­fare Foun­da­tion, which helps with poverty assis­tance and an old­folks home run by the Min­istry of health in Fiji. All of these char­i­ties are based in Lautoka.

Rohit has moved here with his wife, Ash­wini, and his son Krish­neel (11) and Neha (4) his daugh­ter. They are liv­ing in South Auck­land and Rohit is look­ing for a job so that he can con­tinue to train. He has his HT licences and is multi-skilled and of course handy with his hands.

If any­one can assist Rohit in achiev­ing his goals then con­tact me at the fol­low­ing email address wha­le­oil­beefhooked at gmail dot com.

Link to Full Article

Lying like flatfish

by Whaleoil March 29, 2007

Labour through their lick­spit­tle mouth­pieces and the Greens con­tinue to lie like flat­fish about the effect of their Sec­tion 59 repeal Bill.

Jor­dan and Tony both spew the Politburo’s talk­ing points about the bill not ban­ning smack­ing when in fact it clearly does.

The fact remains that when Sue Brad­ford was ques­tioned whether it would be pos­si­ble to smack chil­dren after her amended bill becomes law, the one Tony Milne has on his web­site, she said no.

Gooner (Nick) shows exactly how her bill bans smack­ing, through weasel words and deceit is how.

Fuck­ing liars and frauds that’s what they are.

Oh and another point, if the exist­ing law already bans smack­ing then why are we even hav­ing this repeal when there is no need for it?

Link to Full Article 4 comments

Tough Love vs. Smacking — A Conundrum

by Whaleoil March 29, 2007

The Gov­ern­ment thinks it improper to smack chil­dren, so I have tried other meth­ods to con­trol my kids when they have one of “those moments.”

One that I found effec­tive is for me to just take the child for a car ride and talk. They usu­ally calm down and they stop mis­be­hav­ing after our car ride together. I’ve included a photo below of one of my ses­sions with my son, in case you would like to use the technique.

Link to Full Article

Ministry wants to restrict maggot packs

by Whaleoil March 29, 2007

Embold­ened by an increas­ing nanny state the Min­istry of Health wants to limit mag­got packs and choco­late bars for school chil­dren to once a month.

Quite how they will mon­i­tor that and enforce it is incon­ceiv­able, nev­er­the­less they are rec­om­mend­ing it. 

I can imag­ine the legions of inspec­tors check­ing ration books to see that chil­dren are not claim­ing more than their allot­ted 1 mag­got pack per month and refer­ring default­ers and their fam­i­lies to CYFS for some “re-education”

Ohhh…gone are the days when you got a third for­mer to stand in the line for you and buy sev­eral mag­got packs and a coke for lunch.…sigh.

School tuck shops must now be enjoy­ment free zones.

Link to Full Article

Council largesse extends

by Whaleoil March 29, 2007

Manukau City Coun­cil has approved a 40% increase in Direc­tors’ fees for two of its Coun­cil Con­trolled Organ­i­sa­tions (CCOs) Manukau Water and Tomorrow’s Manukau Properties.

The increased fees were approved by the Coun­cil Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance Com­mit­tee behind closed doors ear­lier this month, but have only just become public.

People’s Choice have demanded answers.

[quote]“Peoples Choice says it’s hard to under­stand why such large increases were rec­om­mended by Coun­cil offi­cers. It’s not as if the busi­ness envi­ron­ment for these two monop­o­lies has become any more dif­fi­cult over the past twelve months. We’re call­ing on the Coun­cil to out­line its reasons.”[/quote]

Link to Full Article

ERO Report">Edukayshun a shambles — ERO Report

by Whaleoil March 29, 2007

The wheels just keep falling off of the trolley.

The lat­est seri­ously wob­bly wheel is an ERO report that slams hun­dreds of schools that have no idea how well, or poorly, their stu­dents are achieving.

[quote]The review also shows only half of the schools assessed are keep­ing par­ents informed of their children’s progress.

The report, released today, showed teach­ers at nearly half of the schools invested time and energy in assess­ments “that did not result in use­ful infor­ma­tion about stu­dents’ achieve­ment and progress”.[/quote]

NCEA, now this, the gov­ern­ment appears to have lost con­trol of the Edu­ca­tion sec­tor and our schools becom­ing noth­ing more than glo­ri­fied babysit­ting factories. 

Of course the unions in their quest for medioc­ity have denied there is a problem.

Link to Full Article