REEFER MADNESS!!

"Jail for cannabis-fuelled rampager!" scream the headlines.

Tell me, when was the last time you ever heard of a "cannabis-fuelled rampager"? [Is rampager even a word? Dictionary.com says it is but I don't know if I believe them]

Judge Gary MacAskill said Awhitu's cannabis-fuelled night of chaos began between about 11.30pm and 1am on June 15 and 16, on Bletsoe Ave, Christchurch.

Cannabis-fuelled night of chaos! Sounds like an 30's American propaganda film.

Apparently this dude stole a car and broke into some others before getting into a 4 minute cop chase, "jumping" red lights and reversing into two police cars in a last ditch attempt to get away.

Somehow, I think that just because he was found with cannabis isn't enough to blame weed for such a spree. I think we'd have to look into a different thing you smoke with a pipe. Any guesses?

One thing I know for sure is that smoking marijuana is NOT condusive to "rampaging"... quite the opposite.

However, I AM hoping we start getting some misinformative propaganda films about the dangers of cannabis-fuelled rampagers.

Palin for Prez! Whooo!

So My Gal, aka Sarah Palin, has told ABC news that she is "seriously considering" running for the White House in 2012... AND that she reckons she can beat Obama.

Yay yay yay yay yay yay yay... this news has broken something in my yay area.

Please run, Sarah! Please! 4 more years!

Nice Work, AA Insurance

Following my last post about drivers, I've started looking into insurance for my classic car.

From AA Insurance - isn't this hilarious?

"You do not have to pay an excess for theft claims if you ascertain the name and address of the person who stole your vehicle and you provide us with that information."

"Asian Drivers"

Ever since getting back to New Zealand in April, I've been constantly reminded of how ubiquitous negative comments about "bloody Asian drivers" are.

It makes me feel yukky because racism makes me feel yukky and vilifying an ethic grouping for a perceived shared fault is racism.

It also pisses me off because there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence out there to support the contention that people of Asian descent are bad drivers.

And of course they are! If you've ever been to an Asian country (having only been to Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia myself I can't generalise too much, but) you will have noticed the massive difference in the way the roads are used in that part of the world. Huge volumes of traffic, much of it on foot and more on scooters, hardly any road rules, signage or lines on the road rare, traffic cops even rarer, ad-hoc systems of giving way (first come first serve, most expensive vehicle goes first, just go and hope)... it's no wonder many Asian immigrants find themselves on unfamiliar territory on our roads.

I wouldn't DREAM of driving in any of the Asian countries I've been to, but luckily there were plenty of affordable viable alternatives. With public transport being so crap and taxis being so expensive, there are few if any viable alternatives to car ownership in New Zealand.

Basically, my point is this - many Asian immigrants arrive with licenses from their own country which are converted to a New Zealand drivers license without testing the driver. Subsequently, many immigrants who lack the experience and skills required to safely drive on NZ roads are given licenses - but is that their fault? Or is it ours, for accepting on faith that holding a drivers license means someone can automatically drive on our roads to our expectations?

I agree with Eric Thompson of the Herald that getting a drivers license should be difficult and that 3rd party car insurance should be mandatory (she says while not having it herself) but I think it's especially important that we introduce mandatory testing to convert an overseas drivers license into a NZ one.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy, Aynsley China?

So Prince William has finally started proceedings to wife up Kate Middleton - wife her up but good in royal style.

This means commemorative plates, which you can already buy from Aynsley China:

Bit of a strange choice of photo of Kate, doncha think? Emo fringe, pursed lips, preoccupied look on her face... Not particularly regal. But then, is that the point?

Ads to be turned down - TV, remote and battery industries in ruins

So TVNZ has finally cottoned on to the fact that making ads much louder than programmes is hugely annoying. Or, rather, they've finally getting around to fixing it.

Truth be told, I was assuming they couldn't do anything about it because they hadn't before now.

Turns out they were just biding their time, saving the change for a rainy day when their public profile needed a bit of a boost.

But without the constant use of the remote to turn down (or in my case mute) the ads and the show back up, how will remote-control makers, battery suppliers and TV makers (I'm assuming that there is a miniscule amount of wear and tear caused within the TV by frequent volume changes) survive? Surely it must have been in their interests that the change has taken so long. Why else would TVNZ have made us suffer for so long?

Suicide Tuesday

Thanks Monkey Fluids for this link to a wonderful short online graphic novel by Warren Ellis and Colleen Doran - Super Idol

Once upon a time, Monkey Fluids used to bring us such original gems as:

Dear Three Word Phrase: I Love You

Don't you love it?

Three Word Phrase

Revenge is a dish best served behind bars

So this 20 year old Wellington dude was pretty upset at losing his girlfriend. He broke her cellphone, sent her death threat texts, stole and destroyed some of her clothing, and hacked into her Facebook account, changing her profile picture to a naked photo.

While this article doesn't give a breakdown of the prison sentences for each charge, he has been sent to jail for four months, part of which was for the photo.

He also changed her password on the account and changed her privacy settings so that the photo was available for the whole Facebook world to see.

I for one am rather glad to see this little asshole get what he deserves.

I'm also glad that the girl got her comeuppance for being stupid enough to put naked photos in the hands of a guy she'd only been going out with for five months, and hope that message is taken on board.

If you want naked photos of yourself, make sure you are in control of them. That lovely guy who treats you like a princess now could easily turn into a jealous, backstabbing child if you two part ways. While it's no excuse for him (or her) to distribute naked photos, you've willingly exposed yourself to the risk by letting someone else have such sensitive photographs.

Good... Yes... More...

Bankers, hedge fund and investment managers and stockbrokers must have their mobile calls taped from November 2011 to help crack down on market abuses, Britain's financial watchdog said on Thursday.

So apparently in Britian, it is already a matter of course to tap the landline phones of bankers, hedge fund and investment managers and stockbrokers - now they're going to tap their cellphones too.

Knowing traders etc, they'll just turn to email or web-chat services to avoid the scruitiny and continue their unethical profiteering ways.

Can we please have this in New Zealand? And a little bit more besides? And also everywhere else? I'd really love for the wankers, sorry bankers, to not fuck up the global economy again, because recessions suck.

Police Minister not responsible for Police...?!?

As reported, yesterday saw Marijuana Law Reform protesters lighting up outside Parliament to protest the current prohibition.

I must say I was stunned to see this in the New Zealand Herald:

Police Minister Judith Collins said she did not notice anyone smoking cannabis outside Parliament but said it was not her place to tell the police how to do their job.

Is anyone else wondering what the fuck the Police Minsters job is if it's not to tell Police the manner in which they are expected to carry out their duties?

Now I'm not a militant athieist, but...

Oh, wait, I am. There are enough militant religious people that I figure the world needs a couple of militant atheists to say the things religious apologists would rather not hear.

New Zealand Jews are up in arms over changes to the Animal Welfare Code which require all animals to be stunned before slaughter. For some strange reason, kosher meat must be killed while fully awake and aware via throat-slitting. Further research indicates that animals must be pretty much perfect for a kosher slaughter, or shechita, and that stunning animals "marks" them so they are flawed and not kosher.

Jewish groups are saying that "Few Jews will want to migrate here. We will be seen as a country where ... our traditions and beliefs are not respected or valued".

You know what? That argument works both ways - it's just not cool to put the shoe on the other foot. This is what happens when you turn the argument around: "Few New Zealanders will want Jews to migrate here. They will be seen as a religion where our traditions and beliefs are not respected or valued".

What makes their tradition and belief of cruelly slaughtered animals more important than our tradition and belief in animal welfare? Why should they get a special pass to treat animals in a way which our society has deemed cruel and unnecessary just because they've been treating animals like that for a long time and they think God thinks that eating animals which don't feel their death will make them unclean?

Is it religious discrimination when you're against all religions?

So I was watching a piece on 20/20 last night about a rather unconventional family unit with two gay mums and two gay dads.

When the lesbian couple wanted children they advertised in gay mag Express, an ad which was answered by a gay man who contributed his genetic material to two lovely healthy boys.

The man and his partner have a very friendly joint custody-type relationship with the boys, leaving the kids in the priviledged position of having two mums and two dads - without the acrimony commonly seen in comparable straight arrangements.

They are happy healthy boys with loving parents and a great support network. They have access to both male and female role models, and get to see adults engaged in healthy relationships - when you get down to the daily nuts and bolts of a relationship, it makes no difference if the partners are same sex or not.

Of course, none of this mattered to the Catholic representative who took the opportunity to repeat the bigotry and hate speech the Church regards as official policy. Why do we put up with it? Why do we let huge, powerful, rich organisations spread discrimination, mistrust and fear within our community? Why don't we put such statements on a par with racism, say? Why is it different just because you invoke a deity?

I'm starting to think I'm going to have to start a "religion" for atheists so we get the same allowances as religious whack-jobs do.

A Win for Dakta Green

As you know, I'm a big advocate of Marijuana Law Reform in New Zealand for a variety of reasons.

While I'm very pleased to see that Police once again turned a blind eye, as it were, to around 50 protesters lighting up joints and pipes on the grounds of Parliament in protest, it also rubs me the wrong way. Via their actions, the police are basically acknowledging the harmlessness of the herb and the majority of it's enjoyers.

It just really pisses me off that people aren't doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law by toking away on the grounds of parliament, but they are if they enjoy a quiet weekend smoke in the privacy of their own home.

Enough with the hypocrisy - and by that I don't mean arrest the protesters.

Fuck you, Ken Daniels!

So Jareth James Graham Fittall, 23, of Pahiatua, has been found guilty of the rape of a virginal 16-year-old friend of his girlfriend in the backseat of his car behind the rugby club rooms. She had reluctantly agreed via text to meet him for sex but (understandably) changed her mind.

As the prosecuter rightly said: There was absolutely no doubt that some of the victim's actions were immature and perhaps even dangerous, but that was no excuse for someone to rape her. Even though the teenager agreed reluctantly by text to have sex, it did not mean she had lost her right to change her mind -- which she did.

However, according to defence lawyer Ken Daniels, clearly one of the biggest FUCKING BASTARDS on the planet: The girl was not in the back seat of a car "to play tiddlywinks". She had said she wanted to talk and have a cuddle and kiss. "The Tui billboards say 'Yeah, right!'," Mr Daniels told the jury, adding that he did not think his client was "going there for a talk either".

Fuck you, Ken Daniels. You're what is wrong with our treatment of rape victims in this country. A 16 year old had her virginity taken away by force in the backseat of a car behind a rugby club and you have the utter fucking cheek to say that just because she got herself into a pretty damned stupid situation (helped by Fittall's promises of love and marriage) that she didn't have a right to say "no"? FUCK YOU.

What a difference hair and makeup professionals make!

Like all females, I find it hard not to compare my physical appearance to others - especially those in the media.

I think it's super important that more ladies (especially young girls and teenagers) see photos like these, of Victoria's Secret model Alassandra Ambrosio, for a quick reality check.

Before:

After (on the left):

And the moral of the story - hugely successful international models don't wake up looking like hugely successful international models! At least, not to the layman.

Slow day in The Dominion

So The Dominion Post has decided it is newsworthy to tell the country that a troublemaking Year 10 student in Wellington was told to pull her skirt down because she looked "like a slut" by her dean.

First things first, I submit to you the below - a photograph of how short her skirt was. Please note that this photograph has been SET UP by the girl and her mother.

The girl claimed her skirt was "10cm above the knee" - so clearly, aside from all else, the school is failing to teach her about measurements. That skirt is damned short and she DOES look like a slut.

So the girl's mum couldn't believe her darling little angel, who last week got in a fight with a dude and has had "ongoing problems" with her uniform, attendance and attitude towards teachers, was spoken to like that by a school official. "You rely on teachers, you have no reason to believe when you drop your daughter or son off at school that they will be abused, particularly from a dean," she said.

Abused, huh? For fucks sake guys! This isn't news! The dean apologised to the girl, but that wasn't enough. The mother thinks the whole country needs to know because the principle wouldn't issue a written apology or discipline the teacher.

Amethyst's father, Michael Staladi, said he wanted the teacher disciplined. "If the kids step out of line they have to go to detention ... so they should have the same standards for the adults." Amethyst's father, who has been clearly unable or unwilling to do anything about her behavioural problems, seems to think that the teacher should have to stay after school or give up her lunch break writing lines as penance for giving this little squirt a reality check. THIS ISN'T NEWS!!!

My boyfriend used to teach 17-year-olds who didn't wear uniforms, and had issues with getting the girls to dress appropriately. Aside from wearing too much makeup and shoes with high heels, the girls would often wear very low cut tops and short skirts. They were well aware of their budding powers and would often find excuses to show him their breasts. Often girls in short skirts would sit with their legs apart until he was forced to embarass them by asking them to preserve their modesty. Point is, we are letting our young women turn into hoochie little skanks and it's disgusting.

That girl looks like a slut in the photo because it is highly inappropriate for a (presumably) 14-year-old girl to wear a skirt that short outside the beach, especially to school. For the mother to insist that to tell a girl she looks "like a slut" is "abuse" but letting her walk around looking like a whore is somehow protecting her daughter from the evils of this world is simply delusional, no?

EDIT: This story is at #1 on the Stuff.co.nz "Most Viewed" AND "Most Shared" lists. I think I'm gonna have a little cry.

Worry not - Homophobia is alive and well!

So a 15 year old girl in Melbourne wanted to take her girlfriend to the school formal, but wasn't allowed.

The all-girls school says homophobia had nothing to do with the decision, but rather that "all the girls would bring other girls if they were allowed to" and that the dance was designed for girls to socialise with boys.

The girl talked to the school about her disappointment in the decision, but they wouldn't budge. The girl's friends made up posters of support which were ripped down by teachers. The girl's parents had mediation meeting with the school and loged a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission, but the school refused to back down. THEN the principle of the school had the utter bloody cheek to say ''I don't think it's appropriate they feel discriminated against".

Now, a friend of mine's high-school aged son has just come out. My friend doesn't see any reason why people keep congratulating him on having such a confident son, or on their obviously healthy relationship, as he doesn't think it's a big thing to come out or be gay these days. "It's 2010!" he says. I wish to god he was right.

Dr Kevorkian, we need you!

In case you were in any doubt, THIS is one of the very good reasons why we need assisted suicide.

A jury has found 48 year old meat worker David Bourke guilty of manslaughter rather than murder due to his defence of provocation - his depressed brother Timothy begged David to end his life so David ended up shooting him 3 times.

Now, let's be clear here - we don't need assisted suicide so that Timothy could have ended his life in a more dignified way without anyone being guilty of murdering (or manslaughtering) him. We need assisted suicide because the availability of the service and the process of meeting the conditions of eligibility for assisted suicide is actually a deterrent to ending one's own life.

Given his age and lack of terminal illness, it is highly unlikely Timothy Bourke would have been eligible for assisted suicide. However he would have gone through specific counselling sessions talking with a specialist professional about his wish to die. That professional, while denying him assisted suicide, would now be in the position to get help for Timothy.

Once we start chipping away at the stigma of suicide (thanks, Catholic church, for telling grieving loved ones the deceased is going straight to hell) and accept that one has a right to end one's life if one wants to, we can build much stronger support networks for people who want to die.

Truth be told, I find the ideological arguments against assisted suicide to be pretty flimsy and hysterical. The slippery slope to mandatory death at a certain age or with certain illnesses is ridiculously unlikely in a democracy advanced enough to have in place assisted suicide policies. If you don't like suicide because of your religion, then don't commit suicide - your choices have nothing to do with other people and theirs have nothing to do with you. Of course the operational problems are a big challenge - how to make sure the service is not abused, what to do in cases of patients being unable to communicate their wishes etc. But those challenges are not insurmountable and are much better than the alternative.

The Bastard Child of 0800 SMOKEY

Turia aims to make vehicles smoke free

So a couple of months ago, the price of a pack of roll-your-own cigarettes (or "rollies") went from around $20 to around $25 overnight. It was a very sad day for those of us on low enough incomes that we can't afford to smoke pre-rolled cigarettes (or "tailies") and, as ususal, it hurt most those very people it was trying to help, by taking money straight out of the pockets of the lowest earners. Why tailies shouldn't have been increased by anywhere near as much (a packet of cigarettes rose by 10%, loose tobacco by 24%) was never discussed, probably because there isn't a good reason for it.

The Association of Community Retailers (ACR) says that since the price rise, there have been more robberies of dairies and the like. The government says "bunk". Here is one of my main sticking points with the New Zealand media, and indeed most media outlets - this is a situation where they are arguing about FACTS, not opinions. That means one side is right and one side is wrong. If there have been more robberies, the ACR is right. If they haven't, the government is right. Deal Lazy Ass Fucking Journalists: please, for the love of god, follow this shit up! Ask the police about the robbery statistics and get an answer, don't just tell me that one person says "the sky is made of glass" and another person says "the sky is made of gas" - where there are empirical facts involved, tell me which one is mistaken and which correct!

Anyway. A Select Committee report has called for lots of changes to try and make "NZ Smoke-Free by 2025" - though they are at great pains to stress that by this they mean that no Kiwis will CHOOSE to smoke by 2025, not that tobacco products will be illegal. They want to do this by methods such as forcing cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging with graphic warnings, removing in-store cigarette displays, upping the tax (further), making cigarette companies pay for smoking cessation aids (gum, patches etc), lowering the amount of tobacco products imported into NZ, using PR and marketing to make smoking "uncool" etc etc.

AND possibly banning smoking in cars.

Now, I'm a smoker, as you can tell. Despite what you may think, I don't believe that cigarettes should be legal at all. I don't think that massive multi-national corporations should be able to make ridiculous profits by selling products which are physically addictive, have no positive benefits whatsoever, and are poisonous to people around the person smoking - giving it the widest death-reach of any drug (though secondhand P smoke can be a problem).

I love smoking in my car. I don't have children or drive children around, and I always ensure that the finding and lighting of a cigarette is easy enough to not impact on my driving - so I don't see the slightest reason why it should be illegal. If the authorities want to stop parents smoking with children in the car, it needs to be target. Maybe if a parent is caught smoking with children in the car, then the care of those children should be scrutinised. Maybe a fine (though, again, it is most likely to be those without the disposable income to pay a fine that smoke in the car with children) or some other punishment. Maybe they have to drive around with a bumper sticker on their car saying "I was caught smoking in the car with my kids", I don't know. What I do know is that every parent I know is dead possessive of their right to parent as they wish, and will bite your head off if you critique their decisions. To pass a blanket law across us all because some selfish parents don't care if they poison their children with second hand smoke is unfair overkill.

If you want me to quit smoking, Government types, then make cigarettes illegal. Don't just try and make it more expensive and annoying while gleefully spending all that yummy tax that cigarettes bring in and pretending that you want me to stop.