News
I'm still angry
reporter: Jonathan, 10.8.05
In fact I'm more angria!"He then spoke to the Prime Minister and after a brief conversation, which I was not privy to, advised me that they needed to make the 16.50 hours flight."
"The Prime Minister passed the comment at the end of the trip that it was a very heroic drive. I believed she was happy that she had got somewhere to keep her schedule.
"I wasn't aware until two and a half hours or three hours later when we got back to home that she was sitting at the rugby in Wellington, which brassed me off a bit.
I can't believe that only 3 people care enough about this to comment!
10:46:- This post was edited to make Strong Bad happy.
33 Comments:
I can't believe you violated the unwritten laws of internet ettiquite with such a big anchor tag!
Do you know how many laws you just violated?
One...
Don't use big anchor tags.
reporter - 
, at 10:42 am, August 10, 2005
I'm not sure that voting based on how fast the leader of a party has their car driven is a very responsible use of my vote.
This whole issue is ludicrous and is being blown out of all proportion. WHO FLIPPIN WELL CARES that some government vehicles went too fast?! Everyone involved should be told not to do it again, that such behaviour is inappropriate, and then everyone should get on with life. There are bigger issues out there... African children are starving, companies are using third world slave-labour, families are breaking up, children are being abused... and a government motorcade speeds, and that makes you angry? Get serious, and get over it.
reporter - 
Andrew, at 12:18 pm, August 10, 2005
Andrew,
Firstly, you're so far wide of the point that 'missing it' is an understatement.
Secondly, if it's not such a big issue, and this isn't your blog, then there's really no need to yell (unwritten law of internet etiquette, and all that).
What makes Jono - and others including myself - angry is that the Prime Minister has consistently lied about the incident, and is far from willing to offer any apology, nor accept any responsibility, despite her position of seniority and responsibility.
She's barely willing to acknowledge that she was even in the car.
And again, you might say that even a one-off lie by a Prime Minister is something we should 'get over', but this is merely another one of many lies that Helen Clark has told regarding issues (some serious legal issues) during her term as Prime Minister.
One may care to recall a forged painting, which became the subject of a police inquiry and was subsequently destroyed?
Forgery and destroying police evidence are both serious crimes.
And, to go from bad to worse, these acts again pale into comparison against the socially criminal legislation her government has been inventing and implementing.
And you're telling us in all seriousness that corrupt governments such as ours aren't contributing significantly to the fact that "African children are starving, companies are using third world slave-labour, families are breaking up, children are being abused"?
Or are you going to single handedly feed all the starving African children, buy up and restructure companies so that they won't use third world labour, run marriage guidance seminars for every single troubled family, and stand in every family's living room with a big stick to prevent child abuse?
Didn't think so.
We're just doing what we can, where we are.
reporter - Dan, at 12:50 pm, August 10, 2005
Thanks Dan. Brilliantly answered so I don't think i'll bother.
reporter - Jonathan, at 12:56 pm, August 10, 2005
Socially criminal legislation? What, like raising taxes and thus threatening democracy? ;)
reporter - Andrew, at 2:36 pm, August 10, 2005
1. Prostitution Reform Bill
2. Civil Union Bill
3. Relationships Bill
Also the Care of Children - Parental Notification Amendment (Where parents must be nofified of underage abortions) failed to recieve enough support.
Things like the anti-smacking legislation and death with dignity bill are also being brought up as good ideas!
But i'm getting the impression, andrew, that these kind of things wouldn't bother you anyway.
reporter - Jonathan, at 2:52 pm, August 10, 2005
Well, I agreed with the Prostitution Reform Bill and Civil Union Bill, I don't know what the Relationships Bill is. Parents ought to be notified of abortions, and anti-smacking bills are stupid. There's a place for a death with dignity type bill, but it would need to be carefully done (I have no idea what the suggested one said).
reporter - Andrew, at 4:15 pm, August 10, 2005
I care Jono! I just agree with you so I don't really know what to say
reporter - Anita, at 4:16 pm, August 10, 2005
Perhaps you haven't thought about the positive side of some of those bills...
Prostitution... it's bad, but it happens. Having it be illegal for the prostitutes themselves is simply asking for the prostitutes (many of whom will be relatively vulnerable women) to be exploited as they can't reasonably go to the police. I agreed with the prostitution reform bill because I see it as our Christian duty to care and protect vulnerable women... do you disagree? In order to do this, it was necessary to make it legal for the prostitutes to do what they did. If you think that prostitution ought to be criminalised (I can see arguments either way on this issue... it ought to be discouraged as immoral, but ought something to be criminalised simply because it is immoral?) then we ought to have done what European has and criminalised the men who solicit prostitutes rather than the women themselves.
Civil Unions... It's simply a fact that lots of people live together in permanent homosexual relationships. The government ignoring facts is just silly. It was right for the government not to call this "marriage". Marriage is a religious event, defined by Christians as between a man and a women. A long term relationship between two people that's relevant to the government's interaction with its citizens is exactly that - a civilly recognised union. What's relevant to the government is which of its citizens are living together in long-term relationships. What's relevant to religion is whether those unions meet with religious criteria. Hence the Bill did exactly the correct thing to label civil unions as civil unions and marriages as marriages.
Death with dignity... modern medical science can keep a person "alive" even when they have all the mental capacities of a potato. If they are like that, they might as well be dead, and the fact that they are plugged into a machine that keeps them "alive" doesn't actually make them alive in any worthwhile sense. In those places in the world without technology, people who can't survive, die. It should be up to the (carefully regulated) discretion of doctors whether to let a person go rather than keeping them "alive" indefinitely.
reporter - Andrew, at 5:21 pm, August 10, 2005
There is a positive side to each and every thing.
There are so many positive sides to car accidents you just wouldn't believe it:
- They keep emergency services staff in their jobs.
- They keep hospitals in business.
- They mean that there are one (or more) less cars on the road
- They keep statisticians in work.
- They keep panelbeaters busy.
- They often teach the people who survive a valuable lesson.
Does this mean that car accidents are right, good or desirable? Please.
What is more important is whether or not such things are good for society (since we're talking about legislation here).
A good perspective from which to measure this is by the Word of He who designed and ordained society.
So if these things can be considered counter-biblical, or even 'non-biblical' (ie: 'neutral', and i propose that there is no such thing), then they are more than likely harmful to society.
reporter - Dan, at 8:08 am, August 11, 2005
My beef with this issue si the fact that Helen has dug her heals in and set u this whole court case sham.
Issue the tickets, slap the wrists, pay the fines (from their own pockets!) and get on to the election. But wait... she doesn't want people thinking about that.
Even the bad publicity of the court case is being used to her advantage.
reporter - , at 10:20 am, August 11, 2005
Andrew,
Prostitution... it's bad, but it happens.
Fraud... it's bad, but it happens.
Prostitution is an offence to God. making it legal is legalising offending God! How is there a good side to that?
I see it as our Christian duty to care and protect vulnerable women... do you disagree?
Yes I do agree. But this help should be helping them out of prostitution. Not legalising it so they they're safer doing it!
then we ought to have done what European has and criminalised the men who solicit prostitutes rather than the women themselves.
Yes definately better that legalising prostitution! Which of these two options would you rather see?
Civil Unions... It's simply a fact that lots of people live together in permanent homosexual relationships.
Again... lots of people doing something doesn't make it right!!!
It was right for the government not to call this "marriage". Marriage is a religious event, defined by Christians as between a man and a women.
I used to think this way. But at the end of the day this also is legalising offending God! How is there a good side to that?
Death with dignity.
What you were talking about is keeping someone alive who would naturally be dead. This is different to taking the life of someone who would naturally still be alive.
reporter - Jonathan, at 12:18 pm, August 11, 2005
Prostitution is an offence to God. making it legal is legalising offending God!
I would suggest that the point of God telling us not to do it was because it was bad for us, not because it offended him. It's like a parent telling a child not to run across the road, they say it because they don't want to see the child get hurt rather than because they find the action offensive. If part of the point of God telling us not to do it was out of concern for the well-being prostitutes, then we need to take that into consideration.
Having it be illegal hadn't succeeded in stopping people doing it. The problem was the exploitation of the prostitutes. I agree that the government should discourage prostitution. I am not sure that making it illegal is the best way to do this. Certainly if it is illegal, then it ought to be done in such a way as to avoid the exploitation of the women. Hence I would be happy with the European system of having it illegal for men to solicit prostitutes, but not illegal for the prostitutes themselves.
I agree we should help women get out of prostitution, and I think the government should support initiatives with that in mind. However, women are unlikely to come forward and use such government supported services when what they are doing is illegal.
Again, on "legalising offending God". Just because we believe something is wrong, doesn't mean we ought to force our opinions on others. The point of governmental law is to have a functional society in which its members are free to live. We can't justify making something illegal just because some of us believe its immoral.
And, yes I am only talking about the fact that keeping someone alive who would otherwise be dead, is often not the right thing to do. Killing someone who wouldn't otherwise be dead is a far more difficult issue.
reporter - Andrew, at 2:39 pm, August 11, 2005
So we are seeming to agree on the principles but not on the strategies.
I would suggest that the point of God telling us not to do it was because it was bad for us, not because it offended him.
So if God knows that things like prositution and civil unions (sex outside of marriage) are bad for us, then wouldnt it be sensible for us to push for that to be reflected in our countries laws?
This is where democracy fails. If the majority thinks a certain way then it doesn't make that the right way nor the best way.
God created us and He knows best. Whether that is believed by the popular thinking of the day or not.
reporter - Jonathan, at 3:28 pm, August 11, 2005
"I would suggest that the point of God telling us not to do it was because it was bad for us, not because it offended him."
Some biblical support for your suggestion would be helpful.
Prostitution goes against God's created order, in that he intended sex to be within a monogamous heterosexual relationship that had been forged in a covenant before Him.
How would breaching this not offend him?
reporter - Dan, at 4:39 pm, August 11, 2005
...with our heads buried firmly in the sand!
hmmm... not a good look alex!
reporter - Jonathan, at 2:34 pm, August 12, 2005
And, yes I am only talking about the fact that keeping someone alive who would otherwise be dead, is often not the right thing to do. Killing someone who wouldn't otherwise be dead is a far more difficult issue.
Yet Andrew that is exactly what Death with Dignity includes...it encompasses both sides...and if it was made legal then you would have people who are alive and fairly well having the option for their lives to be taken from them, all in the name of "dignity". Who are we to determine when a person should or shouldnt die? did we choose when and where we would come into the world, and whether we would be healthy or have some sort of defect? No. its up to God and God alone as to when he gives and takes away life.
reporter - Priscilla, at 10:26 am, August 16, 2005
We can do something about it though!
It's just whether we care enough to!
reporter - Jonathan, at 8:44 am, August 17, 2005
What was that?
Vote Snoopy?
The same thing posted in several different places qualifies as spam. See Nato's blog for the reaction to spam.
reporter - , at 5:55 am, August 19, 2005
Vote Destiny. National's killing people. And by the way Allen,ever heard of humour? I don't listen to lazy people!
reporter - , at 10:36 pm, August 19, 2005
If you simply want Labour out, a vote for CHNZ or Destiny is just as good, if not better (as a Christian), than a vote for National.
reporter - Dan, at 7:45 pm, August 21, 2005
A vote for a CHNZ is a vote against Labour yes. But it will only count (in a literal sense) against Labour if CHNZ get an electorate seat or the get above the %5.
reporter - Jonathan, at 10:24 am, August 22, 2005
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
reporter - Scotty, at 10:35 am, August 22, 2005
For me it comes down to the abortion issue. I cannot as a Christian condone the inaction of political parties on this issue without becoming partially guilty along with them.
If Christians held this issue as strongly as they should a Christian party would ROMP into parliament. But Christians by and large are apatehtic and gutless, and do not hol in high enough esteem the law of God.
reporter - Scotty, at 10:37 am, August 22, 2005
I care.
But what can we do?
reporter -
Dan, at 10:15 am, August 10, 2005