Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Firefox blocks sportsfreak.co.nz as an "attack site", BTW.
Personally, I'm not sure if wearing my Reaktor Pyongyang shirt is entirely wise, even on a Friday.
-
I thought ACT was supposed to be the Liberal party
On alternate Tuesdays outside election years. The rest of the time it's Property Rights For Rich People / Jail For The Poor.
-
the best story yet written on how the methamphetamine trade works in New Zealand, courtesy David Fisher. It really is that good.
But how do I know it's true? Very little else in the Listener is, except maybe the TV listings. Most articles on drugs in the NZ media are a farrago of prohibitionist sensationalism, "researched" by talking to a bunch of cops, drug testers, social authoritarian politicians and others with a vested interest in keeping the "War On Some Drugs" going.
I'm certainly not paying $2.50 or whatever the Listener costs to find out. (I haven't paid money for an NZ periodical in over a year - I'm sure the National Party will drop some leaflets through my door in the coming election without my having to pay for them).
-
Number 8 (which is probably as far as we need to go)
How many are there? And have they all been asked first? ISTR one minor party where it was news to some of the list candidates that they were running?
-
I want SOMEONE to start asking some serious questions about the affordability of National's tax cuts.
What, discuss policy? Never!
Apart from cutting tax, there are all the Nats other expensive promises and semi-promises - more cops, more money for the defence force, pork for the telecoms industry (sorry - I mean a world-class fibre infrastructure), new motorways, nuclear power stations, sports stadia, etc.
I reckon if they cut taxes it'll simply be using the credit of NZ to borrow on behalf of the wealthy (who will get a *much* bigger share of tax cuts then ordinary workers. If somebody on $50k gets $50, then someone on $200k is going to be getting $400 - at least). They'll also be eroding the Working for Families scheme (which cuts the income tax for a family on average wages to *zero* percent at the moment).
It's the political equivalent of Hanover Finance and the like, really.
-
A committee of politicians is always going to take a partisan rather than judicial view when asked to judge an issue, much like the US Congress and Senate in impeachment/trial proceedings.
Once could argue for the privileges committee to be replaced by a judge and jury with the power to fine/expel/execute members (ok, maybe not the last one).
On the other hand, there's merit in the concept that the voters have the final decision. Banning an MP surely interferes with the right of the voters to elect whosoever they want as their representative.
-
$700 billion of mortgages on their books that are basically valueless
What, they're not secured on any property at all and the mortgagee has no income and no prospect of any?
I suspect that isn't the case and it's more that they're underperforming and are maybe worth 50-70% today and potentially more in the future.
(The 80's S&L bailout cost the taxpayer around 25% of the total asset number).
-
I'm fairly confident that the late Idi Amin wasn't doing much P, though.
-
New York has a flag, a logo and a seal.
-
Hillary Clinton is a Man U supporter
I thought it was only UK politicians that had to feign interest in soccer?