Tuesday, April 30, 2013

ZenTiger Dead for Tax Purposes

The dead have a pretty cushy life. For starters, they don't work (I'm generalizing) and they don't pay tax.

According to many, the dead still get to vote, they don't have to pay local body rates, and they seem immune to CPI increases in food. The more I look into it, the more it makes sense to be dead, well, at least for tax purposes.

There is precedent of course. Hotblack Desiato, guitar keyboard player of the rock group Disaster Area was dead for tax purposes, and relied on a death-support system to keep him that way. Many famous entertainers (Gerard Depardieu, Pink Floyd, The Two Ronnies) move overseas and as far as their home country is concerned, are dead for tax purposes.

Now some people might counter that being dead has downsides. For example, whilst they often receive benefits for years after the actual event of the death, they are not entitled to collect benefits. Does the legislation actually specify the condition of being alive in order to receive benefits though?

Being dead for tax purposes would mean I no longer have to pay income tax.

Perhaps the only barrier to being dead for tax purposes would be the suggestion that my legal state should match up with the physical state. Now here's where I disagree. We see examples in society where words that once had clear meaning are "evolving" and becoming far more encompassing. Far more flexible and responsive to changing values. Far more just and inclusive. I don't see why a person should be denied the right to physical life if they are dead for tax purposes, and I don't see why dead people should be treated differently.

There are clear signs that I may have support for this idea. Just look at the euthanasia movement. People are absolutely desperate for the "right to die". Having won that right to die, I imagine many of those people don't actually want some-one to come around that week and polish them off though. No, I quite well expect that they will continue to ponce about being completely alive but bragging about their right to die 'any time they so choose'.

Is it so far fetched then to suggest we all have a right to declare ourselves dead, if we feel that way? (Or is being dead a genetic disposition. Most people eventually turn dead, so it might be something to do with genetics) Surely, it's time the government recognised that being dead is as much a state of mind as it is a state of being, and it is really pure discrimination to suggest otherwise. Mortophobes.

I can see a problem with the marriage act though. I suspect people (living or dead) are not yet allowed to marry dead people, even if they both love each other and are prepared to spend the rest of their death together. I think we'd need to update the marriage act to ensure dead people are not unduly discriminated against. Here's hoping Maurice Williamson has nothing against two loving corpses, and is prepared to support it, even if he hasn't tried it. Or am I getting confused? Does he only support things he has tried?

We'd also potentially strike a problem with the Employment Act. I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find institutional discrimination against dead people. Surely, the ability to hire dead people is a private matter between the employer and the employee? Assuming a dead person is qualified and passes the drug tests the matter should end there.

Although I'd expect a discount on ACC for workplace accidents resulting in death. But perhaps being dead for tax purposes wouldn't necessarily negate the need for life insurance? In exchange for continuance of the premiums, the life assurance company would probably be quite relieved at not having to pay out on the event of a declaration of death caused by taxes. It wouldn't take them long to insert the words "payment of insured value on actual physical death, not tax-purposes death". Perhaps there is a new market for death insurance, where a person might decide to reverse their status and come back into the world of the living. Might be handy to have some cover there just in case there are unpaid fines and so forth that might be applied to a recently undeceased person.

Now the only problem I see in all this is the tax office might move quickly to extend taxation to include dead people. They can be fairly evil in that regard, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn they have been pushing this policy for years. It is said the only thing certain in life is death and taxes. It was understood the former was always the silver lining for escaping the latter.  It's the unsaid expectation that if you cannot have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you are at least entitled to tax free death. Yes indeed, I think the Bill of Rights needs an update to ensure governments cannot overstep their bounds in this regard.

It's a matter of rights.

ZenTiger In the pockets of the Green Party

The Green Party says critics of its proposals to regulate the electricity sector should declare any financial relationships they have with industry, claiming many are "in the pockets" of power companies (source: Whoar)

If I understand the Greens properly, they are saying that anyone who has some kind of relationship with the power company are "in their pockets" and incapable of expressing their own opinion, and are not to be trusted or given a voice in this debate. A bit like Jeanette Fitzsimmons, when she had shares in wind farms and was involved in government committees and policy setting for electricity companies. Very good point.

Let's broaden it further - anyone who is being bribed by a political party with direct rebates for supporting their plans to control power pricing is obviously in the pocket of that particular political party, and cannot be trusted to express an independent opinion, let alone have the power of the vote.

In this case, in the pockets of the Greens.




Stuff: Conflict of Interest

Declaration: I don't support the asset sales; I don't support the Green/Labour policy alternative and I don't intend to buy shares in MRP when my mortgage needs paying off first and either Labour or the Greens will do their best to wipe the value of those shares. And don't get me started on National. Therefore, I'm one of the few people "allowed" to express an opinion on this.

Monday, April 29, 2013

ZenTiger iTunes runs out of music

On the eve of its 10th birthday, the online music store is dangerously close to running out of music.

"In 10 years, we've had 25 billion songs downloaded, and our stock control clerk has advised we are now running extremely low. There may only be another million downloads left in store before the disks run dry." said a spokesperson for Apple. "We are just checking the spare USB drives to see if we've missed any."

Unfortunately for Apple, it seems like the majority of the remaining songs are not particularly popular. For example, stocks remain high of 'Some girls dance (with women)' by JC Chasez, and a version of Billy Joel's 'We Didn't Start the Fire' by Carlos Santana on a banjo.

"We ran out of 'Stairway to Heaven' three days ago, and 'Bohemian Rhapsody' yesterday. We are just crossing our fingers no-one else tries to click on those links."

Apple also have two downloads left of Michael Bolton's 'Can I touch you...there', which is a pity because the iTunes store started with three copies total. Apple have a 'no refund' policy.

Some customers have offered to return Celine Dion's 'My Heart Will Go On', but thank goodness Apple has a 'no refund' policy.

As well as running out of the popular tunes, Apple have advised that there isn't much new music coming in. "We've simply invented all the tunes that can be. 80% of new music is re-sampled, which has given us kudos on our environmental cred and we've recycled quite a bit of content that way, but unless we develop a whole new genre, we are pretty much screwed."

The Apple spokesperson continued: "Some pundits have been playing heavy metal backwards, but after a while it starts to sound like rappers with an Oxford accent. Of course, a couple of people tried playing country and western music backwards, but who needs to hear about some-one who finds their love, gives up alcohol and has a dog that comes back to life? It's that bad, even that joke was one of the last we had in stock in the comedy section."

"When we decided to start selling music online, we ensured we had ample suply, but the whole thing was far more popular than we ever imagined. We've had the photocopiers going day and night but they cannot keep up.  We found some spare 1's and 0's on an old 5400rpm magnetic drive that we think we can convert to a Pet Shop Boys track. There's also a little bit left from Prince, when he was just a symbol, because we didn't have any way of filing that stuff back then."

Apple advised that they will need to start rationing music over the next few months to ensure everyone has a chance to experience the joy of song. All tracks are now available in 6 second downloads, making them ideal for the attention span of the typical teenager, and is likely to be exploited in the ring tone market, with Samsung offering to buy-up the last 40 seconds of 'A day in the Life' by the Beatles.

Singer Elton John was approached and asked if he knew Apple was running out of music.
"No", he said, "but if you hum a few bars, I'll improvise."


Time Magazine: Happy 10th Birthday iTunes

ZenTiger 300 Protesters March in Auckland over Basset Sales

WARNING: THIS IS NOT SATIRE.
It is just silly.  But 300 protestors?  Come-on!



A massive 300 protesters turned out in NZ's largest city to protest the imminent sale of the nation's Bassets.

Basset hound owners are up in arms over plans to sell 49% of the bassets under National Party policy.

Does this mean nearly half the bassets will be sold, or just the ears of each basset, whch represents half the size of the basset?

"Bassets are something owned by all New Zealanders" said Prime Minister John Key, so this move just opens up the opportunity for mums and dads and kid investors to have a truly great pet without having to actually pay for its upkeep.  For those unable to experience the thrill of taking a basset for walkies, we will keep all the little plastic bags of poo and declare them as dividends."

The Labour and Greens have suggested that a new government department would be created to allocate dog walking privileges fairly to the market by regulating which Bassets would be up for walkies at any given time.  "This ensures private ownership remains vested in the original owner, but allows for others to experience the thrill of walkies when the dog leaves the property." explained Russel Norman.

Gareth Morgan said mining our thriving feline industry would be a better way to go, and suggested cats be prioritized for a float.  Preferably somewhere far out at sea, in a boat with a slow leak.

The protest of 300 Basset owners has sent a clear message to the government to stop hounding them.


Sunday, April 28, 2013

ZenTiger Bleeding Heart Liberals

"When you next steal a hat or a cellphone or a jacket or a skateboard you will be sent to the High Court and there you will be sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment without parole," Judge Adeane said.

And of course, the bleeding heart liberals are complaining that this is not what the three strikes law is supposed to protect us from.

Rubbish. The quote does not convey the truth of the matter.

It's not just stealing a mobile phone, it's punching the victim multiple times in the head.

It's kicking victims to the ground.

It's the 78 other convictions that prove he will keep doing this.

It's the sexual assault convictions that they don't want to talk about.

Bleeding heart liberals need to start thinking a lot more about what even multiple punches to the head can do to a victim, in terms of anxiety, fear of leaving home, fear of being beaten up again.

This guy has a choice, his victims did not. If anyone thinks it unfair that the consequences now exceed the crime, they need to add up the sum of consequences for the victims and they will discover that 14 years means he's getting off lightly. Furthermore, it becomes a simple issue of protecting society from this person.

Now who will protect us from bleeding heart liberals?


Hattip: Oswald - So Don't Do Crime

Friday, April 26, 2013

ZenTiger Super Sizing the Council

I saw an article a few weeks ago (can't be bothered searching for it) complaining that Wellington misses out on central government funding as compared to Auckland and Christchurch.

It is a pretty short-sighted thing to say, given Auckland has a huge population and Christchurch is still suffering from the earthquake. What is even more churlish is not to recognize the amount of indirect funding Wellington receives from central government simply by being the Nation's capital, and all the associated apple pies, ice-cream cones and happy meals that  brings us.

Arguments to super-size the council (amalgamate) are frequently lacking in substance, and most of the reasons provided are emotive. No medium size meals allowed - we simply must up-size to large fries and tall coke to get a decent McValue Rates Scheme.

Never mind that super-sizing a burger combo is still no substitute for sushi with miso soup. There may be a case to be made for council amalgamation, but I'd really like to see the full menu, and check the ingredients don't include aspartame and highly processed foods with a sugar high that gives me wallet-burn.

Speaking of menus, the Auckland Super Sized Council is still an experiment in progress, not a role model for the rest of NZ. Hiding new taxes on property in the depths of obtuse planning documents, and treating churches, parks and schools as ideal locations for apartment blocks is about as sensible as renting spare coffins as short term accommodation.

McDonald's only has one clown running the show.  So why do I feel worried one clown in charge of the entire Wellington region will give me indigestion?

Fletch Indoctrination Of The Young

The indoctrination of the young continues in America, as children in a girls school in New York were told to ask each other for a lesbian kiss and to pretend they were on a lesbian date, all as part of a "anti-bullying presentation".

Parents of children attending a Red Hook, New York, middle school are outraged after a recent anti-bullying presentation at Linden Avenue Middle School.

The workshop for 13 and 14-year-old girls focused on homosexuality and gender identity. They were also taught words such as "pansexual" and "genderqueer."

Parents say their daughters were told to ask one another for a kiss and they say two girls were told to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date.

"She told me, 'Mom we all get teased and picked on enough. Now I'm going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,'" parent, Mandy Coon, told reporters.

Coon says parents were given no warning about the presentation and there was no opportunity to opt-out. Both the school principal and the district superintendent are defending the workshops and advising they will schedule more.

"The school is overstepping its bounds in not notifying parents first and giving us the choice," another parent said. "I thought it was very inappropriate. That kind of instruction is best left up to the parents."

"I was absolutely furious -- really furious," a parent who asked to remain anonymous told reporter Todd Starnes, "These are just kids. I'm dumbfounded that they found this class was appropriate."

Superintendent Paul Finch told The Poughkeepsie Journal the presentation was "focused on improving culture, relationships, communication and self-perceptions."

"We may require more notification to parents in the future," Finch said.

He claimed the sessions are required under the state Dignity for All Students Act, which prohibits harassment and bullying in the classroom.

Principal Katie Zahedi and guidance counselors at the middle school worked with Bard students to organize the workshops.
I am shuddering to think what kind of material will be imported into New Zealand school classrooms and libraries now that 'gay marriage' is legal. It is well worth concerned parents to keep an extra vigilant eye on what their children are being taught or exposed to.

I am sure NZ Conservative will keep up to date in reporting any stories of alleged homophobia and discrimination that arise after the new law is officially passed, and also the propagandising of children.

ZenTiger Civilian to quit blogging

Ben Uffindell, writer of the "The Civilian" is reportedly thinking of quitting blogging, following the hint of legal action over a recent post lampooning Colin Craig.

Whilst he has kept a brave face, insiders say the stress caused by the emails has actually hit Ben pretty hard. "He talks tough, but he is really quite sensitive.  This has hurt him more than you will know, but don't quote me on that."

His faith in satire as a comedic medium has been sorely tested as a growing percentage of the population has argued that everything he is written is substantially true.  A recent post about Bob Parker returning to [outer] space was meant to be a joke, but Bob confirmed today that he was indeed from the planet Tharx.  However, his Tharxian code of honour prevented him from suing The Civilian.  Although Bob did have the option of sucking Ben's brains out through his nostrils, if he so chooses. 

Satirical analysts have noted that the follow up posts were on average 13.5% less funny, causing them to theorize that Ben had lost his mojo.  Instead, his closest friends have revealed that he has outsourced the writing to Green Party speech writers whilst he takes time off to rethink his future as a Satirist.  Although they have simply reprinted their press releases on regulating the power industry, most readers agree that they have been reasonably hilarious and almost impossible to distinguish from Ben's other material.

However this has had the unfortunate side effect of making everything produced by the Civilian beginning to look more real than the news, a bizarre form of Poe's Law.  David Shearer confirmed that he was very surprised to read in The Civilian that he had missed the ANZAC day parade, but confirmed that it was probably true because the rest of the story about his plans to middayise the dawn service were bang on.

This still leaves Ben with some hard decisions now that his confidence has been shattered.  Said Ben from the bohemian cafe he uses as a place to chill and come up with new topics: "I don't need to do just satire, you know. I could do situational comedy. I could do irony. I could do gossip.  My sarcasm skills are not too shabby.  Air NZ have contacted me about some kind of safety video. That could take my career in new directions."

Ben is also hopeful that a stint on the Ellen DeGeneres show will open new doors. Says Ben: "Ellen contacted me after reading my post on Maurice Williamson. She was very keen to get me on the show as Maurice's official biographer and hydrologist expert. I'm not sure how she got that impression, but I'm playing along for now. The chance to mix it up with a comedian of that calibre leaves me lost for words."

Fans have reacted angrily to the rumours of early retirement: "Is he mad? His popularity has sky-rocketed following that post. Ben is rapidly approaching 10,000 likes on Facebook, which will put him within a mere 479,000 likes of "Austin Powers".   Stamp Collecting has 124,000 likes, he could beat that. I just know it." said a fan who wished to remain anonymous, but we've identified as Glen Carmichael, because the internet is like that.

"Satire is funny.  Mocking people is funny.  Making shit up is funny.  Hurting Ben's feelings is another matter entirely" declared an anonymous fan who explained that people have died to protect free speech, which just goes to show how funny satire is.  

The world remains poised to see if Ben can get past his hurt feelings, and get his mojo back.

On the other hand, liberals and lefties around NZ hate Colin Craig even more, but will go ballistic when they discover his latest stunt gives him a 3% lift in the polls.



Closing remarks: Bob Parker isn't from Tharx, and I actually have no idea if Ben's feelings are hurt, but if his lawyers contact me I'll be happy to make any corrections to the required effect.  I also have no idea if he is really considering quitting, but after the pressure of receiving those emails, I wouldn't be surprised.  I think the email ran to 300 words - that's got to be tough.  Thank goodness this post is only satire (except for the bit about the Labour/Green Party's press releases being comedy gold.  I didn't make that bit up).

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Lucia Topless female gay activists attack Catholic Archbishop with water

No dissent will be tolerated, especially when a Catholic Archbishop says that Christians with homosexual tendencies need to be celibate:

BRUSSELS, April 23, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an astonshing display of gentleness in the face of a vile attack, the head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, remained calmly seated with eyes closed in prayer Tuesday as four topless women attacked him with shouts and curses and doused him with water.

[...]

The four women, representing the pro-abortion and homosexual group FEMEN, took to the stage where they disrobed to reveal black-painted slogans on their bare chests and backs, such as ‘my body my rules,’ and 'anus dei is coming.' They also held signs reading ‘stop homophobia’. The women doused the archbishop with water from bottles formed in the image of the Virgin Mary.

For most of the attack, which lasted a number of minutes before the women could be forced off stage, Archbishop Leonard sat drenched with water with eyes closed in prayer. After the ordeal, the archbishop kissed the image of the Virgin Mary on one of the water bottles that was used in the attack. Le Soir reports that one of the interveners said of the archbishop: “He was very calm and maintained a position of prayer. I have to believe he was praying for us.”

According to FEMEN, Tuesday’s attack was spurred by an interview three weeks ago where Archbishop Leonard said that when speaking to Christians who are inclined to homosexuality he suggests celibacy, as is required for all single persons.
This same Archbishop has been attacked before with a cherry pie in one instance, and a custard pie in another, and has had to appear in court on charges of homophobia, which were subsequently dropped.

Belgium was the second country in the word to re(un)define marriage and now, ten years after the fact, this is the sort of thing that is happening - an attack on an Archbishop for daring to suggest celibacy for those inclined to homosexuality!

If there is anyone who thinks the whole gay marriage thing is the end, think again.

Of course the sun will still rise in Belgium (that's for Maurice Williamson who implied that NZ passing same-sex marriage won't stop the sun from rising the next day).

Related link: Archbishop prays while topless gay activists shout curses and douse him with water

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Lucia On the need to identify satire and Colin Craig

I'm not a huge fan of satire. At times it can be funny, and I must admit that I don't mind the odd bit of it, but I'm of the opinion that if a person posts satire, then they should clearly label it as such. For that reason, we on our blog have a satire tag, and I have insisted from time to time that some of our authors also put the word SATIRE in the blog title, especially if the piece in particular warrants it. Satire could be said to be a form of lying, and as such, should be clearly identifiable.

The worry I have is that some people may not realise that a particular post is satire and take what is written as truth, when it definitely is not. For this blog, that means that there is a potential loss of reputation for perceived lack of truthfulness, and worse, is out of step with our Catholic faith.

From the Catechism, The Eighth Commandment:
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.253

It was said to the men of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn."254

2464 The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.

Offenses Against Truth:

2475 Christ's disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By "putting away falsehood," they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275

2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

2480 Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another's vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages.

2481 Boasting or bragging is an offense against truth. So is irony aimed at disparaging someone by maliciously caricaturing some aspect of his behavior.

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another's reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

Satire is not so much lying in order to deceive, as it is lying in order to be funny; therefore it can skirt on the edge, especially if it tends towards malice rather than friendly jibbing. The Catechism says that irony is an offense against truth if it is "aimed at disparaging someone by maliciously caricaturing some aspect of his behavior."

Given that satirists use irony, let's have a look at a case in the media today, whereby the leader of the Conservative Party, took issue with some satire that purported to quote him:

Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig was among the first to point out the National MP’s mistake.

“Williamson likes to talk about big gay rainbows,” said Craig, “but it would help if he understood what the rainbow actually means. After Noah’s flood, God painted a giant rainbow across the sky, which was a message that he would never again flood the world, unless we made him very angry. And we have.”

At the outset, I have to say that in my opinion, the quote above is pretty mild. There's nothing obviously malicious in it, but, it does caricature some aspect of his behavior, which is his assumed belief in the Bible and an erroneous statement about God flooding the world again "if we made [H]im very angry."  The rainbow was a promise not to flood the world again to the extent of the Great Flood, period. The statement could be considered derogatory, in that it attributes a level of ignorance to Colin Craig about what God's promise to mankind was.

The graver aspect of all of this is that The Civilian, to a person that might have just happened upon that one post and that one post only, is not an obvious satire site.  As I said above, my preference for satire when posted on this site is that it is clearly marked so that the cursory reader will not be mislead.  Looking at the title of the site, it reads The Civilian, followed by: "All the news that's fit on a page."


The About Us page likewise speaks of the posts on the site as "news".

Several months ago, however, I came upon a small, promising but possibly illegal business venture that allowed me to accrue enough funds to return to life in a moderately well equipped apartment building in the heart of our nation’s cultural capital, Greymouth. It was from here that I decided to spite my wife by doing the one thing she told me that I could never do: start a newspaper.

The inspiration for said newspaper came one afternoon as I was sitting in my apartment watching popular television show The News. Did you know the news is watched by more than one million people every week? That makes it one of the most watched television programmes in all of New Zealand, only slightly behind such favourites as Border Security and that one with Alison Mau. And I was thinking on this as I watched it, and I suddenly realised “Wait, why doesn’t anyone put the news on the internet?”

It was that idea that gave birth to The Civilian, and it is that idea that is at the very heart of it today.

The Civilian is not just a newspaper. It is a newspaper on the internet.

It is here that you will find the news in a format that you are unlikely to have ever seen it before: online. And so I encourage you, and all those who believe in the common decency of me, to read and share what you find here, to tweet it and like it on Facebook. Together, I believe that we can better inform the public and, much more importantly, make this newspaper New Zealand’s pre-eminent source of news.

The Civilian misrepresents his site as news, but it is satirised news, and should be clearly identified as such so that there is no misunderstanding.  News implies an attempt at reporting the truth, (even though we know that many news outlets fall short of this standard) and by using the word news without any explanation other than what he has said, he risks fooling people and possibly annoying his targets enough to use lawyers, as has happened.

Sure, in reading his site, the more switched on readers will immediately realise that they are reading satire and treat it as such.  Not everyone will however, and so some sort of disclaimer or explanation is prudent, preferably on each page itself.


As an example of what a much larger satirical website does with regards to informing readers on the nature of what they publish, I give you The Onion, who have an explicit statement explaining that what they publish is satire in their Frequently Asked Questions page:
The Onion is a satirical weekly publication published 52 times a year on Thursdays. The Onion is published by Onion, Inc. The contents of this material are © Copyright 2010 by Onion, Inc. and may not be reprinted or re-transmitted in whole or in part without the express written consent of the publisher. The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.

The Onion uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases where public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental.

While there is no disclaimer on each page, The Onion is famous enough that most people will know that is a satirical look at the news, while as The Civilian cannot claim quite that sort of fame, in spite of the boost Colin Craig may have given him.  However, The Onion also state that they are satirical,  which may be what many consider the obvious, yet they've still done it.

You only have to look at fiction books to see that disclaimers are par for the course.  From the inside of a Dean Koontz novel, I find the following:
All characters in this publication are ficticious and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Just in case some person out there thinks that Dean Koontz is writing all about him and goes bonkers and sets fire to the author's letterbox in retaliation (unlikely, yes) they have this statement in the beginning of most, if not all fiction books.  And not just Dean Koontz's novels, all the others, too.

Colin Craig has also said that people actually thought that what was quoted on The Civilian was what he said, which shows the satirical nature of The Civilian site was not obvious to all readers:
Mr Craig said he knew the post was satire, but others had not recognised it as such.

"I've had people say, 'Gee, I'm surprised you said that Colin'. Not everybody is able to tell the difference.

"I take these things pretty seriously. We are a serious political party and want to go a long way, so making sure that what is reported on what I have said, is accurate is important."
That's pretty significant, having people think that what they've read was actually true.  Maybe those people are morons, as David Farrar says when referring to the types of people that wouldn't realise that The Civilian's site was satire, but sometimes you have to cater for all types when publishing and not discriminate against morons.  However, I think it's more likely that there are more people out there who are not morons, that are very trusting of websites that call themselves "news" sites, not expecting that there are people around that don't have that same regard for truthfulness as they themselves do.

Colin Craig's reaction to being misrepresented by The Civilian does seem heavy handed to some in the Blogosphere and the media.  Personally, I'm not sure a kindly email would have done anything, except maybe generate another satirical post, while as the letter from the lawyers got an immediate reaction and a change to the post.  Not only that, but it generated a whole lot of media attention, which would have then potentially informed those people who didn't realise that The Civilian was a satire site, of the true nature of the site and the posts.

The Civilian couldn't help but throw in another dig at Colin Craig in his amended post, however, when he says, he apologises for potential harm to Mr Craig's "impeccable reputation".
This article is the subject of a legal dispute between The Civilian and Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig, which came about as the result of a legal notice that you can read in full here.

In this article, The Civilian published a statement which it attributed to Colin Craig regarding Maurice Williamson, “big gay rainbows” and the passing of the gay marriage legislation. We accept, upon further review, that Mr. Craig never made the statement attributed to him. We retract the statement and apologise to Mr. Craig for any harm we have caused to his impeccable reputation.

We would like to note that we have also taken the additional measure of bolding the statement in question so that everybody knows which thing it was that Mr. Craig did not say.

Colin Craig has now also withdrawn the threat of legal action.

So, in conclusion, I hold truth to be important, and I think that Colin Craig was justified in the reaction he had to being misrepresented on a satire site that wasn't necessarily obviously satirical.  I think that if he had been satirised in one of Tom Scott's cartoons, he would have just taken it like any of Tom Scott's other targets.  That it was the nature of the post and the site that didn't clearly identify itself as satire that was the problem.  However, politically, it might have been better to handle it differently, as not everyone in New Zealand believes in truth, and as a conservative, Colin Craig to them is fair game.  But then, the outcome was probably as good as can be expected.

And yes, I somewhat disagree with ZenTiger.

Related links:
Maurice Williamson looking pretty stupid after floods ~ The Civilian
Colin Craig warns on satirical quote ~ NZ Herald
Chapter Two:"You shall love your neighbor as yourself : The Eighth Commandment" ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church
Colin Craig threatens The Civilian with Defamation ~ KiwiBlog

ZenTiger Justice system accidentally convicts killer

SATIRE - Just barely.

I join in commiserations with the government today, who accidentally convicted a convicted murderer, in spite of trying to hide the information so he could continue to kill with impunity.

I think though that we have to view this unfortunate finding of "guilty" as an aberration, because many other criminals manage to rack up multiple convictions without actually having to spend time in jail, repay fines, or be restricted from further criminal activities. The numbers are actually huge, but of course, are private, protected and privileged information. Here is an actual quote to do with the case, which is apparently true, but hopefully will be redacted, censored and given name suppression before the public wise up:

Today, Christchurch police confirmed that they knew of McLaughlin's dark past, but were unable to tell anybody about it - even Jade's mother, Tina who had become worried about McLaughlin's behaviour after ending a four-week relationship with him just weeks before he killed her eldest child.

The story is worse than I portray, but this is not my last post on the subject.

Killers dark past accidentally revealed

The trend in the UK is the same. Crusader Rabbit points to the tip of the iceberg: British Justice

ZenTiger Craig in the kitchen

If Craig can't handle satire, he is unsuited to be a Party Leader.

And it seems like my choice of political parties that would be capable of representing my views is moving from near zero towards absolute zero.

I hope Craig can move the Conservative Party from being about him to being a full blown party, which could bring some balance and help enable common sense.


Another angle to this story



Update 26/4/13 - Maybe my initial impression above was wrong.
I'm having second thoughts: If a man brings a knife to a fight, bring a lawyer

ZenTiger At the end of the day, the sun will rise

Our society seems to think all change is good. Everything old is v1, and useless and anything that is worth anything has to be new and v2.

Because a progressive thinks, “Well, you know, we must progress. We can make changes and all this discussion only slows us down. We must always remember that, at the end of the day, the sun will rise.”

But, at the end of the day, the sun sets.



PS: A useful guide to conspiracy theories
(Hattip - Your NZ Blog)

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

ZenTiger 9 Out Of 10 Taleban Prefer to be Killed By An Atheist

Christian symbols from an army chapel on base in Afghanistan were removed after an American atheist soldier complained.

He didn't like the cross markings on a door and claimed it made him feel like a second class citizen. (He's probably the type of guy that thinks Christian marriage isn't threatened by the existence of gay marriage, but these doors...)

I note though that all other doors on the base were marked with absolutely nothing - the sign of secular atheism.

In any case, the Army agreed: “It inflames this Muslim versus Christian mentality,”

Yes indeed, the army is working off the assumption that the Taleban will not be so inflamed if American soldiers are shooting to kill on an equal opportunity basis that stresses secular adherence and atheism.
 Go USA.

Story: Army removes crosses

The caption relates to a different story: Army Removes Bible Reference from Rifle Scopes. The enemy can now be killed in an non-denominational way. Glad we sorted that out.

ZenTiger There With Lust is the Sin of Greed

When millions of dollars are handed out in settlement of sex abuse cases involving thousands of people, it is increasingly likely that some priests will be the victims of false accusations. Rev. Gordon MacRae is one of them.
On September 23, 2012, Rev. Gordon MacRae will mark eighteen years in a cell in the New Hampshire State Prison. Father MacRae is 59 years old. The crimes for which he was accused and convicted are claimed to have occurred when he was between 25 and 30 years old. Brought with no evidence or corroboration whatsoever, the claims were accompanied by lawsuits settled by his Diocese for hundreds of thousands of dollars despite evidence of fraud. [link]

People riding the money bandwagon is very common on court actions involving massive settlements:
After the disastrous 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, damage and loss settlements by British Petroleum (BP) have swelled to $8.5 billion. In the wake of those settlements, however, federal prosecutors have thus far charged 125 people across the United States with defrauding the BP fund. And they are currently examining over 4,000 other suspicious claims referred to the Justice Department for further investigation...Some of the convictions and guilty pleas in the BP case have involved settlements of $1 million or more.

If you care about truth, then inform yourself: Why the Catholic Abuse Narrative Needs A Fraud Task Force


Monday, April 22, 2013

Lucia The Dinosaurs may have lost, but the Barbarians won last week


The above cartoon by Tom Scott was published in the Dominion Post on the Thursday morning last week following the final vote in Parliament to re(un)define marriage.

Tom Scott's bias is obvious.  He refers to the bill as the "Marriage Equality Bill" rather than the Marriage Amendment Bill, and those 44 MPs who stood firm against the forces of imaged progress are drawn as dinosaurs, ie, of the type that will soon become extinct.

Except, societies that don't restrict sexual activity to marriage (real marriage between a man and a woman) are the ones that will die out.  Really, Tom Scott's cartoon should have also shown the supposed "champions of progress" as barbarians, people who have inherited civilisation but don't really understand it and so will destroy it without even knowing they are doing so.

From Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality:

Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man's life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.

The above article needs to be read and memorised and assimilated by every single person who cares about real marriage. He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it. Real marriage acts as constraint on mens' nature and protects women and children. Without that understanding, the barbarians can mock and jeer and redefine words, but they can't destroy real marriage if we don't let them.

We have entered a dark age.

Related link: Tom Scott Cartoons

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Lucia Kim Hill interview with John Lennox on God and Science



Kim Hill is one of those interviewers that seems to delight in tying up her victims in knots, while seeming to remain objective. However, when she tried this technique with John Lennox, he showed her up by pointing out what she was doing and bringing her back to the point, while also in a very nice way, exposed her ignorance. It was a delight to listen to.

I would especially recommend this interview to those that would like to understand the necessity of faith for science to flourish.

Related link: John Lennox's books on Amazon
Saturday Morning with Kim Hill ~ Radio New Zealand

ZenTiger Hulk Smash

I was somewhat surprised when Labour and Greens announced their plans to regulate the electricity prices.

The timing of this announcement (i.e. now) will take millions, if not billions off National's partial asset sale pricing, meaning the tax payer loses out.

They will blame that on John Key pushing ahead with the sale, which he's mad enough to do because listening to the public no longer seems to be a requirement for anything our government does.

And the flip side for the Greens and Labour, is they are offering an early election bribe to low income earners that the price of power will be lower after all of their bureaucratic manoeuvrings.  It wont be.

The whole plan boils down to Labour and the Greens combining to form some kind of "Hulk". And what does hulk do?

Hulk Smash.

MacDoctor is back with a short lesson on economics.
No Minister: J'accuse 
Homepaddock: 70's socialism 
Hulk's friend: Iron Man 3

Saturday, April 20, 2013

ZenTiger Gay Rights Supporters Oblivious to Their Own Prejudice

From people that profess sincerity around granting 'marriage equality' to homosexuals, is the implicit suggestion that they are respectful of different lifestyles, and this respect is partly what justifies their support for redefining marriage. And yet, sometimes their arguments reveal a total lack of respect for certain groups in society that shows them up to be hypocrites.

Consider Matt McCarten reporting back on a Priest who spoke to him:
The irony of having a young virgin man in a frock, not permitted to marry, employed by what many would say is an anti-women institution riddled with suppressed homosexual men and paedophiles, preaching to me on the threat of gays to heterosexual marriage, was lost on him.
Well, the irony of Matt mocking the priest by suggesting that a man wearing a frock is somehow demeaning whilst he professes to stand up for transvestites was lost on him.

The irony of mocking some-one for taking a vow of celibacy, whilst arguing that "each to his own" with regard to anal sex was also lost on him.

The irony of arguing that the Church is riddled with suppressed homosexual men, whilst arguing that there is nothing wrong with homosexual orientation appears lost on him.

Should it really matter what a person choose to wear, where he works, and what his private sex life is about when he voices an opinion?  And is it right to make jokes at the expense of transvestites or people who choose to struggle with same sex attraction?  Liberals would argue no.  And yet, in the final analysis,we see gay rights supporters like Matt often using this line of attack towards priests and the religious.  Seems hypocritical to me.

ZenTiger Congratulations to the NZ Gay Community

Well, the debate on the redefinition of marriage is over, and gay people, under the eyes of the state are able to use the word marriage alongside hetero-sexual couples. At an individual level, I can understand the joy and comfort this brings to many sincere people on the other side of the debate, and especially to gay people who have entered into a lifelong commitment with one person in the full sense of "for better or worse, until death do us part". I am happy for you.

I am also grateful, that in spite of many bad things about the quality of the debate, we at least had one. There is much to criticize (and that might be explored in future posts), but for this post, I think it is also worth acknowledging that there was at least a little bit of effort to discuss this issue.

To me, the debate, in the simplest form, was a debate where one point of view focused on defining marriage as something based on mutual love and commitment between any two people OR that the definition of marriage was defined and necessarily restricted to something very profound about the complementarity of sexes.

Those two positions have very little overlap, and that was why the debate was so polarizing.

Very old fashioned thinking perhaps, but as old fashioned as not wanting to redefine the word "boy" to also mean "girl". It just seems a pointless thing to do, no matter how much comfort it might bring to all that believe to label boys or girls by their sex is to create boundaries for discrimination. Furthermore, holding to that point of view was never meant to attack either boys or girls simply for holding that those particular words mean something specific, and should not (could not?) be changed simply by passing a law. New words will probably arise if such a thing ever comes to pass, and I suspect this may now happen with the word 'marriage'. Time will tell.

Anyway, that whole debate can wait for another day. Today, I am simply saying that I understand your point of view, and what you argued for and why, and I am happy for you.

Friday, April 19, 2013

ZenTiger The sun will rise

It's a very stupid argument to pretend that your opposing party thinks the sun will not rise if x or y happens.

I have NEVER heard anyone use this argument, although I hear the reverse plenty from people who are avoiding making serious points by dancing around with comments like this. So let's get this clear:

The Aztecs occasionally missed a sacrifice, and the sun did rise.
The Roman Empire withered and died, and the sun did rise.
Hitler killed 11 million or so in concentration camps, and the sun did rise.
Stalin worked another 30 million to death, and the sun did rise.
17,000+ abortions in NZ last year, and the sun did rise.
Children killed in mass shootings, and the sun did rise.
Friends and family diagnosed with cancer, and the sun did rise.
A piece of legislation passed, and the sun did rise.

No-one really expected otherwise. Seriously.

The actual argument being made is "I don't foresee any negative consequences in action x", or perhaps "whatever the consequences are, I don't care as much as I want x". That's an OK argument to make, because it sets out a position that then can be discussed. The former approach just seeks to denigrate the other person by combining mockery with exaggeration. Let's try and lift the game a little.

ZenTiger Maori language is compulsory - or be killed!

Lucia wrote a post countering Willie Jackson's call to make the Maori language compulsory in schools. In essence, she said:
"I grew up bilingual. I also did very well at school, much to the surprise of many of my teachers....However, I would never call for learning any language to be made compulsory...When it comes down to it, the choice of a language ought to be decided by the parents, not by the State."

In response, this comment threat was left on our blog today:
"Fuck you ur such a racist bitch I'll stomp your face in u ugly dirt mouth rat I will shove a knife in ur sons throat and cut his lungs out so he can't speak like you."

Firstly, it should be very clear that Lucia's words are not racist.

Secondly, these are the words of a sick person. What kind of character acts like this? Who knows what other sorts of things he thinks he is permitted to do? Who knows what he will go on to do with his life? The newspapers are filled with stories of casual violence and brutality - is this young man on the same road?

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Lucia The HandMirror has a post on what's next now that same-sex marriage is out of the way

LudditeJourno starts her post with this:
So now we’re beyond Marriage Equality, what next? The indicators of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are still all around us. Who gets bullied at school? Who disproportionately wrestles with mental health issues, depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide? Who has hate graffiti on their walls? Who is targeted for violence on the streets, in their workplaces, from their families? Who is not able to look at any media, anytime, and see someone who looks a bit like them, wrestling with some of the things they think about?

That last bit is about heteronormativity, for when we look at the media, most of the time it shows heterosexual relationships. 

Then the post goes quite a bit into personal experience, some of which is to do with kids being kicked out of home when their parents discover their homosexuality, or more to the point, just whom their son or daughter loves. That's awful, in my opinion to turf a child out of the home for inappropriate relationships, unless those relationships are physically dangerous to the family. Far better to keep them close, than to just abandon them that way.

After explaining a number of problems that same-sex attracted persons have, she then continues:

That’s the beyond marriage equality I’m interested in talking about. Moving now into educating our communities. Gathering information – like say, by using the census – about the kinds of experiences queer and trans* people have based on our sexuality and gender identity. Gathering information about victimisation – like say, by recording sexuality and gender diversity – in crime stats about street violence. Expanding the Human Rights Act to protect trans* folk from cis-gender based discrimination.

A good starting point would be a national queer and trans* resource centre, funded to identify exactly what beyond marriage equality might mean. Able to develop queer and trans* specific materials for schools and our national curriculum. Able to work with the Human Rights Commission to ensure experiences of queer and trans* discrimination are named, understood, responded to appropriately. Able to intervene in social institutions which are responding to queer and trans* people – New Zealand Police, mental health systems, healthcare more broadly – and ensure processes are transparent and well-equipped. Able to develop completely new resources – emergency housing for young queer and trans* people who need somewhere safe to stay; social work and prevention resources around suicide and self-harm, intimate partner and sexual violence which are specific to the queer community.

The bit about creating materials for schools and the national curriculum is very worrying. So is the bit about the Human Rights Commission, which right now is helping in the prosecution of the Sensible Sentencing Trust for naming a paedophile, because he wasn't named in the media back when he was prosecuted, so he must have had name suppression.  With logic like that, who would trust them to be impartial and fair with regards to responding appropriately to discrimination?  Not me.

Related link: Going to the chapel to educate the congregation ~ The HandMirror

Lucia Purpose of undefining marriage is to destroy it

I said that this was the end-game of same-sex marriage on Face Book last night on a conversation on Pat Brittenden's page, and since then, Brendan Malone has found (or created) this wonderful graphic that proves this is the direction that activists (not your general garden variety supporter), want to take marriage - to it's destruction.


Audio of the talk.

Personally, I think any country that have undefined marriage have destroyed it already in that country, for marriage is no longer marriage when you say two of the same-sex can get married. The reality and the definition no longer match, therefore marriage no longer exists in law.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Lucia Well, they've done it!

Marriage no longer exists legally in New Zealand. We just have an undead corpse hanging around.

Lucia Winston Peters warning Parliament that the same-sex marriage vote is a game changer


That's what I think as well - on NewsTalkZB today, the afternoon show was about the manner of our democracy and how it's not working for us. Parliamentarians should be worried that this is the issue that is triggering that type of conversation.

Here's the link to the YouTube page of other speeches.  Just refresh every once in a while for more.

Lucia Politicians undefining marriage have a "God complex" and the Ontology of Marriage

I was looking for something that described marriage as being an ontological change and found the following comment by The Chicken on WDTPRS from last year on same-sex marriage and how it is not based on anything real, as marriage is. It's just brilliant, so I thought I'd post it here. I especially like how he calls those who would change marriage to be two of the same-sex to have a "God complex".

God made certain immutable laws (from our perspective) called, in toto, the Divine Law. These are usually given through revelation – principally, from Scripture. He also created Nature according to those laws so that the so-called Natural Law is a manifestation of the Divine Will (Law), but only a subset of it, since Natural Law is finite and Divine Law is, essentially, simple, infinite, and eternal.

Man, being made in the Imago Dei with free will is endowed, in a like manner, to construct or “posit” laws to govern the Earth and all therein that he was given to “subdue.” It is understood that these so-called positive laws (posit -ive) are subsets of both the Divine and Natural Law and derive their rights as laws from them. To the extent that a positive law contradicts either Divine or Natural Law, it ceases to have any force as law, just as a contradiction in a mathematics proof invalidates its right to be called a proof.

In Divine Law, marriage implies a definite ontological change of two flesh (a man and a woman) becoming one by following a certain prescribed process (a teleology). Once this ontological change happens, it can’t be undone except by an act of God who ends the union at death. All valid derivative positive laws of man relating to marriage must start from that ontological reality or they fail, by virtue of being inconsistent with Divine Law, to be really and truly accorded the status of a law. Real, consistent, positive laws that are in accord with Divine Law give specific real rights; disordered and inconsistent acts of the imposition of power rather than authority over another that one simple chooses to call, ipse dicit, a law, do not confer real rights, because they are not, in reality, laws. Behind every valid right, there is a valid law, so the process is symmetric under implication (i.e., biconditional: laws imply rights; rights imply laws).

The so-called, “Equal Marriage Rights,” idea, however, implies that a law must exist behind it permitting same-sex “unions” to be equated, somehow to marriage and this is a direct contradiction to Divine Law, since marriage has a specific definition outside the power of Man to change or to make equal to it something else. Thus, any “law,” equating same-sex unions to marriage is invalidated from the start and cannot ever, properly, be referred to as a law, nor recognized as such except by the insane – since people who seek unnatural power over others are either following a distortion of reality that puts THEM at the center of the universe (make no mistake – behind every argument for same-sex marriage there is someone with a God complex) or they cannot recognize reality to begin with. Man cannot give what he does not have. To give equal status to same-sex civil unions as any other natural union would give man a power reserved to God.

Now, some people simply do not believe in God. They believe, as Hobbs does, that all laws start with Man. Of course, even Hobbs did not believe that you could pass a law saying that, “henceforth, all circles shall be squares,” – but that is exactly what the same-sex laws are trying to do. Divine Law and Natural Law both invalidate a positive law allowing same-sex unions. In fact, these “laws” are so abhorrent that, in my opinion, they may be resisted by violence, if need be (that will some day come to pass, but not yet). Certainly, they can never, except by the morally insane, be mentioned in the same breath as real and true laws.

So, in the case of same-sex permissive, “laws,” we are left not with authority, from which all laws properly flow, but, rather, blind, naked, power. Rather than creating peace, it creates chaos. Such laws are a form of abuse. The CCC says:

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”23

As to the Church using equivocal definitions of marriage – that simply is not true. The Natural, Canonical, and Sacramental aspects of marriages are all nested within the one true ontological and unequivocal definition of marriage. This is true even in the Old Testament, except when God chooses to temporarily suspend the definition – and, He, being the author of the Law, is the only one who has that right.

Related link: The Chicken's Comment on WDTPRS

Lucia Today New Zealand will undefine marriage

I'm not overly disturbed, because this is the issue that will get it all out in the open and the only way to clean wounds is to expose them first.

This undefining of marriage is pretty much at the end of the destruction of the understanding of marriage over the centuries in Christendom, starting with Henry VIII when he wanted to be able to divorce his wife in order to "marry" the woman he was having an affair with. It's only been in recent times, however, with no-fault divorce and the widespread use of contraception, thus separating procreation from sex in all instances and therefore also from marriage, that we as a society have really lost our way. Undefining marriage is just one of the final steps.

We are going to have to rebuild from here.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

ZenTiger Boston Marathon Bombing

The internet and twitter is flooded with news that one or more bombs have gone off at the Boston Marathon - a world famous, and international event that is going to impact many people across the globe. There are deaths and many injuries. Who did this evil? Unknown at this time. My thoughts and prayers go out to those affected.

CNN - Boston Marathon Explosions near the finish line

Sunday, April 14, 2013

ZenTiger Secular System very keen on hiding pedophiles in our midst


The Sensible Sentencing Trust is in trouble with the NZ Government (Sunday Star Times, A2, April14)

You see, the NZ Government believes it is important to release known pedophiles into the community and then move them around in secrecy so as to allow them to have a greater chance of re-offending on the hapless public. [like here]   Of course, this isn't a page one story, and the focus is on reporting on the actions of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, not broadcasting NZ Government policy on hiding and protecting pedophiles.

The interesting thing is that the man doesn't even appear to have legally obtained named suppression. Without any evidence to say otherwise, in spite of requests for this information from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, the government has sided with the pedophile without any sort of due process.

Not only that, the government believes that making payouts to pedophiles is more important than victim compensation. He's already received $15,000 and in line for more tax payer money.

No-one wants to admit our government is corrupt and puts the rights of pedophiles ahead of public safety, but the evidence is staring at us in the face. The advantage of using a big bureaucracy is to ensure no ONE person is responsible for public safety, but yet some-one in the government has put their signature on the cheque for $15,000 and some-one in the government has decided to prosecute the Sensible Sentencing Trust, and some-one in the government has declined to produce any evidence that name suppression was granted, and some-one in the government has declined to explain why name suppression for a pedophile should trump the public's right to know.

Thank you Kevin Hague. Pedophile hider. Thank you Lousia Wall. Pedophile hider. Thank you John Key. Pedophile hider. Thank you every other MP. Pedophile hiders. You are the government, are you not? You are letting this by on your watch are you not? If you can change laws to redefine words, to approve spying on the public, to raise taxes, surely, you can change laws to protect the public from this?

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Andrei The happiest day of a girls life...

When she becomes a joint applicant and unites with her applicant in unholy legal matrimony. Or is it the other way around and she is the applicant and it is the other who becomes her joint applicant? It is all so confusing

On the other hand in most other lands a girl can still aspire to be a bride and most beautiful besides.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Lucia John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews talking in Auckland on Same-sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Freedom


He's a very good speaker, and having heard him tonight talk about his conversion from atheism back to Catholicism (yes, he's a revert like me), I urge all of you interested Aucklander to get along and listen and support him with numbers. There will be protestors, apparently, as well.

Lucia Same sex marriage will make acceptance of homosexuality compulsory

David Farrar gives examples of some anti same sex marriage correspondence to Parliamentarians so commenters can point and laugh at the crazies. Except the real craziness is occurring around what happens to those who oppose to same-sex marriage. If you don't agree with it, expect to be ostracised, or worse, fined, because of your views. One of the leading neurosurgeons in the world, is being ostracised for his views on traditional marriage, which now make him an unacceptable graduation speaker for the modern American university.

BALTIMORE, April 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Famed pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson announced Wednesday that he will not speak at graduation ceremonies for students at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and School of Education.

Dr. Carson, who rose from poverty to become one of the leading neurosurgeons in the world, was slated to give the commencement speech at Johns Hopkins, where he has practiced since 1977. But homosexual activists, angry about comments Carson made in favor of traditional marriage, mounted a campaign to force the university to disinvite him.

Carson, 61, discussed his views on same-sex “marriage” last week last month on Fox News, expressing his concern that a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples could be a slippery slope.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman,” Carson told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”

He clarified his statement was not aimed “against gays; it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”

Last week, medical school dean Paul Rothman released a statement calling Carson’s remarks “hurtful, offensive,” and “inconsistent with the culture of our institution.”

He agreed to meet with student supporters of same-sex “marriage,” who said Carson’s views made him an unacceptable graduation speaker

The comment that I made on KiwiBlog was,
So, even a leading neurosurgeon, if he doesn’t have the “right” opinions on same-sex marriage, will ostracised in this brave new world where black becomes white, dogs become cats and idiots think that women like anal sex.

When people say that we shouldn't worry, that homosexuality won't become compulsory, they're deflecting the argument from where it is actually going - compulsory acceptance, so ipso facto homosexuality becomes compulsory. We won't be allowed to act in any way that shows that we believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, nor state these beliefs publicly as Dr. Carson is finding out. Nor will we be allowed to act in any way that shows that we believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong, either.

Even the silly argument on KiwiBlog around women apparently liking anal sex shows that homosexual sexual behaviour is being pressured onto women through pornography, which is really homoerotica (made by men for men). There is a lot of stuff that men learn from pornography that they then take into the bedroom with their girlfriends or wives that women just don't like, but put up with, because they think they have to, and some of that is homosexual in nature and women are being pressured to participate in unnatural acts because they have been normalised through the watching of porn.

Connected to all this is the fact that men who watch the most porn are the most likely to support same-sex marriage, yet pornography is a marriage destroyer and causes post-traumatic stress in their wives when they find out about their habit.

Other recent stories on how people are being affected by their views on same-marriage are these:
  • A woman taken to court for refusing to do flowers for a male/male "wedding"
    “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”

    The state of Washington is seeking $2,000 in fines for every reported violation, as well as a permanent injunction requiring the shop to violate its conscience or stop selling flowers for wedding ceremonies.
  • A priest whose Catholic views on homosexuality, marriage and abortion have resulted in gay students trying to get him removed as chaplain for an American university
    The students complain that Fr. Greg Shaffer has spoken out against gay “marriage” and abortion, and has counseled homosexual Catholic students to embrace celibacy. They said they were disturbed when Fr. Shaffer quoted the Book of Romans and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
As you can see, acceptance of homosexual behaviour will become compulsory, especially once same-sex marriage legislation is passed.  No opposition will be tolerated.

Related links: Dr. Ben Carson steps down as college speaker after furor over his defense of marriage ~ LifeSiteNews
Some anti same sex marriage correspondence ~ KiwiBlog

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Lucia I'm going to work till I die song annoys me no end

Many of you may have heard the annoying KiwiSaver advertisement that plays on the radio, that sounds like a happy song, but is in effect a song of doom. It basically repeats with, I'm going to work till I die, over and over again.

I actually don't know how it finishes anymore, because the ad offends me so much that I turn off the radio every time I hear it now. So, whatever advertisements are after it, I don't hear them, because the radio is off and sometimes doesn't even get turned on again. You hear that, NewsTalkZB!!!

It offends me on multiple levels. The first, the implication that working until you die is not good. But working is good. People who retire and have nothing to do tend to die faster than if they just kept working. Retirement can be a death sentence.

Then there's my dad, who died at age 65/66* of cancer. He got the diagnosis, retired and then died six months later. He effectively worked until he died.

Finally, there's all the money I lost in compulsory superannuation payments in Australia. I don't believe that there will be any super money there for me when I'm old enough for retirement in just over twenty years, because chances are the super companies would have gone bust by then, but in the meantime they make a killing for all their investors and keep many people employed. So, I do not want superannuation. Period.

So, yes, that ad makes me turn off the radio. Congratulations, KiwiSaver, your ad is one of the very few that I do that with. The others have generally been disgusting, advertising "adult toys".

*I can't remember how old he was. I keep getting confused between his official age and his probable actual age.

Lucia No moral arguments wanted, we're past that already


Fr Barron's comments on the breakdown of our ability to even converse on moral issues. He quotes a new Justice just recently appointed by Obama, who said of the same-sex marriage arguments made at the Supreme Court in America something like this: Whenever a lawyer makes a moral observation in a case such as this, for me the red flag of discrimination goes up. Not a "bad" moral argument, but the very fact that a moral argument is being made is what she objects to.

That's pretty similar to Green Party Parliamentarian Kevin Hague's objection to the word "virtue". He said the use of the word virtue "makes his hackles rise", that he finds it "offensive". How can you even have a conversation with a person who finds virtue(ie moral excellence) offensive?

Fr Barron goes on to say that because many people can't even have a coherent moral argument or debate, then all they can do is hurl invective such as bigot at their opponents. I constantly experience that, though for me, it doesn't put me off because I'm used to it, but the shallowness of it does frustrate me at times.

Once a people no longer wants to listen to moral argument and can't stand being reminded of virtue, then the next logical step is always shutting down opponents.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Lucia More on offending mountains and pagan blasphemy



Remember those young men who took their couch and their BBQ up Mt. Taranaki? ZenTiger wrote a satirical piece about it, which didn't go down well with everyone, but hey, we should be allowed to not think of mountains as ancestors or gods. They're just mountains. In fact, thinking of them as ancestors would be somewhat sacrilegious, and thinking of them as gods would be in violation of the First Commandment.

Anyway, the ensuing conversation on ZenTiger's post is interesting from the perspective that DOC has gone from issuing serious warnings to transgressors of Maori religious beliefs to now being able to take those who aren't believers to court and have them fined. In two years, that is how fast things have moved.

Basically, New Zealanders now risk the equivalent of blasphemy fines for treating mountains like nothing more than large mounds of dirt and rock.

See also my post from this morning: When a person can get fined for offending a mountain anything goes

Related links: Summit cook-up offends ~ 2011, Stuff
Hovering helicopter 'gravely offensive' ~ 2013, Stuff

Fletch 'The Bible' Mini-Series Big Seller


According to Breitbart, HBO’s mini-series The Bible has just gone on sale in the U.S on DVD and is the biggest selling mini-series in 5 years, and on blu-ray, the biggest ever. This is after huge viewer ratings on the television network itself.

The History Channel’s just-wrapped miniseries The Bible isn’t done changing the pop culture landscape quite yet.

The program’s ratings gave the cable channel a massive boost, holding firm against even the season finale of AMC’s The Walking Dead.

Now, the miniseries’ home video debut has become the biggest selling TV on DVD in the last 5 years and the biggest miniseries of all time on Blu-ray, Digital HD and DVD in its first week of release.

According to the Association for Christian Retail, The Bible is the fastest pre-selling faith based title in its 60-year history. It also ranked first across digital stores including iTunes, Amazon, VUDU, Xbox, PlayStation, CinemaNow, and GooglePlay.


That can’t be right, because no one is religious anymore or cares about The Bible right?

That’s what the media tell us.