Local ‘legal high’ laws liked in London

New Zealand leading the way in dealing with legal highs.

Britain ‘impressed’ with NZ’s legal high laws

New Zealand’s regime for approving so-called “legal highs” could become a template for British regulations, with a government committee there recommending key parts of new legislation be adopted.

A report by Britain’s All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform has recommended Westminster should adopt “the key features of the New Zealand policy” – that the onus of proving legal highs have a “low risk of harm” should be put on the manufacturers.

The British drug reform committee, chaired by Baroness Meacher, is “impressed” by New Zealand’s approach.

“They have examined the best available knowledge about the harms of particular psychoactive substances,” the British committee’s report said.

“They encourage suppliers to focus on product safety, and restriction of supply to protect vulnerable consumers, particularly young people.”

Like any product the onus of ensuring reasonable safety should be on the supplier.

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said today he was not surprised by the report’s findings with one of the committee members “making positive noises” about the approach during a visit late last year.

Other countries were also watching the new regime with interest.

“We’re getting a lot of enquiries from Britain, various states in Australia, jurisdictions in the United States, about the regime,” Dunne said.

“They all see it as being quite innovative, and a world first really, in terms of how to address the issue.”

The new pre-market testing rules for legal highs are scheduled to come into force in August.

The impact of political blogs

Like whistling in a wuthering Wellington wind…

Anthony Robins has asked Questions questions at The Standard about the impact and future of political blogs in New Zealand. At the end of the day’s commenting Anthony posted his own views which are very much in line with my own (quoted in full below).

What is the impact of political blogs in NZ? Is it increasing or declining? Why?

Political blogs have a minor impact, occassionally. Compared to mainstream media they are a small side trickle. The vast majority of people are not aware of the existence of blogs so obviously aren’t influenced by them. Politicians and their parties are aware (and wary) of blogs.

Media keep a watch but only very occassionally report on what is said on blogs. Much of the comment on blogs is as useful as public bar conversations.

To what extent are the views of the active blogging community representative of, or different from, the average NZ voter? Is it fair to say that bloggers tend to have views that are more “extreme” than the norm?

To an extent blog views represent what average voters may think but they are frequently more extreme and persistent.

Most voters aren’t interested in politics most of the time, while most in the blogging community want to be actively involved in the political discourse, they want to be heard and they want to make a difference. But most blog discussion is ignored by the wider public and futile.

Some blog topics keep coming up, they attract a lot of comment but rarely get anywhere. Flogging dead horses is far more common than useful debate. In yet another climate change debate on Kiwiblog yesterday I responded to a comment:

“I am suggesting we do not run off half cocked. There is no evidence of anything out of order with our climate”

That is not half cocked, it is cockless.

These days I usually avoid climate ‘debates’ here because they’re futile, they have been futile since well before Griff added hisn two bobs worth. Your mindless certainty and petty attacks on anyone you disagree with are the height of that futility. Nothing will be changed by what is said here.

Another regular, RightNow, replied to that:

I’m inclined to agree, and not just about climate topics.

That’s the reality of political blogs. They are a pastime, an opportunity to vent, an outlet for nastiness for some and for others a perceived political battleground where point scoring skirmishes are attempted. Usually futilely.

Blogs can be useful for discussions, and things can be learned from them if you filter out the masses of mindless meandering and mouthing off (most participants seem to be uninterested in learning, they want everyone to agree with them).

Occassionally blogs can become a part of the mainstream discourse but are likely to remain a small slice of media.

The best way of being noticed in media is to monitor Twitter or Facebook and volunteer for being a participant in a ‘new’s story, TV and newspapers are often looking for ‘ordinary people’ to pad their stories.

And it’s worth keeping in mind that a lot of people take little or no notice of much the mainstream media anyway.

Ultimately political blogs are what we as individuals want to make of them – because most of New Zealand is blisfully unaware of their existence.

Anthony Robins answering his own questions:

As requested I will at least have a go at giving my (current) answers to my own questions.

What is the impact of political blogs in NZ? Is it increasing or declining? Why?

I think the impact is relatively minor. I think it is increasing slightly as readership increases, as “real reporters” increasingly keep an eye on blogs, and due to Bryce Edwards’ NZ politics daily abstracts which make a wider readership aware of blogs. I also think that blogs may be peaking, and that other forms of media (Twitter, Facebook groups) may come to assimilate their role.

I think that the impact of blogs will remain relatively minor unless they find ways of going beyond their current role as forums for discussion. For example, by becoming a focus for shared community projects like policy development (which is why I’m so sorry that Policy Progress didn’t seem to take off).

To what extent are the views of the active blogging community representative of, or different from, the average NZ voter? Is it fair to say that bloggers tend to have views that are more “extreme” than the norm?

I don’t read the right-wing blogs, but speaking for the left-wing I think the views of bloggers are significantly more extreme than the norm. For example, there’s a lot of energy and passion here at The Standard. But if I can say so without being branded a bastard oppressor of free speech, I think too much of that passion is turned destructively inward, instead of looking for solutions and positive contributions. What goes on here at The Standard is not the way the average NZ voter sees the world.

Bearing in mind the answer to the above, how should blogs relate to political parties in NZ? How should political parties relate to blogs?

Maybe the first part of that question doesn’t make much sense, but the second part does. How should political parties relate to blogs? In an ideal world I would like to see parties and politicians actively engage with blogs, each contributing to, and bringing out the best in each other. Labour MPs have popped up here occasionally (most recently Annette King) and as far as I can tell it has always been appreciated and often been productive.

But I don’t think it’s an ideal world, and I don’t think the engagement between parties and blogs is likely to develop further. Because it’s a dilemma to parties. To win office they need to win over the majority of “averagely engaged” voters (I hate the term “center left”, but there it is, that’s what wins elections). Labour, for example, almost certainly can’t win over the center, and win over the (significantly more left wing) Standard community too. That limits the extent to which they are willing to engage here, and motivates the publicly dismissive attitude that some of them profess about blogs. Sadly, the audience of The Standard can’t win Labour the election, they are after the audience of the 6 o’clock telly. In short, I think the tension between parties and blogs is likely to remain.

A blog disseminates information and opinion, a successful blog builds a community. Could or should a blog / web based community do more?

There’s no “should” about it, each blog charts its own course. “Could” blogs to more? Probably, but not with their current resourcing and volunteer writers. Again in my ideal world, I would love to see The Standard much more engaged with left-wing parties, with the MSM, and with developing policies and ideas. But I just can’t see how it can happen with a part-time volunteer crew.

I also take the point of BLiP’s comment at 11:43 AM. We should recognise the limitations of blogs, and that writing or commenting here isn’t enough. I hope that we are all actively engaged with the political party of our choice.

What is the role of blogs in the run up to the next election? What can the community here at The Standard accomplish in that time?

I don’t think it will change match – forums for information and discussion, a minor but definite voice (or cacophony of voices!) in the national debate. I think there is the potential for this community to accomplish much more, but that would require a significant rethinking of attitudes both on our part, and the part of left-wing parties. At the moment I don’t think there is any realistic chance of that happening, which is a pity. But, steady as she goes, it is enough.

The major political blogs will need to vastly improve their quality to noise ratio if they want to be seen as serious political commentary and make themselves influential and newsworthy.

Christianity and Atheism

A ‘Faith and reason’ column in the ODT – Census results show changing religious views – looks at changing attitudes to religion.

There was controversy in Britain over a census question on religion, with campaigns to “say no”. The end result (which may or may not have been signifiocantly influenced by the publicity) showed a marked drop in Christian numbers in the latest England and Wales census.

  • 2001 – 72% Christian, 15% no religion
  • 2011 – 59% Christian, 25% no religion (Muslims almost doubled to 5%)

It’s difficult to know how much this reflects a change in how many people identify with being Christian, and how many people are more willing to say they have no religious beliefs.

A similar shift is occurring in New Zealand, and faster than in Britain. Our census next March will probably reveal another rise for ”no religion”, and for the first time since the 1840s Christians could drop below 50%.

But it’s not a clear cut yes/no type question. In England the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science  commissioned a survey of people who had identified as Christian in the census to probe what they meant by that.

  • 31% of the Christian sample said they ticked the box because they tried seriously to follow the teachings of Christianity
  • 50% did not think of themselves as ”religious” at all
  • outside of a church service, 37% never prayed, 15% never read the Bible – and 49% hadn’t been to church in the preceding year

About half who said they were Christian were hardly or not religious. Not surprisingly there are degrees of being Christian.

And there are degrees of being Atheist. Research by the Christian think-tank Theos found:

  • 23% of atheists believe in the soul
  • 15% of atheists believe in life after death
  • 14% of atheists believe in reincarnation.

I guess you don’t have to believe in a god to have religious type beliefs. It’s well known that the closer one smells death, the more likely one is to look for a can of air freshener.

But do any of these statistics matter? While it’s of interest we don’t need to know proportions and degrees of religion or non religion. Government policies, funding are not based on religious beliefs, and we don’t pay religion taxes (some people voluntarily donate to churches).

Perhaps we get too concerned about trying to quantify beliefs that have many variables and virtually no certainty.

It’s common for us live together hardly knowing or caring what others think of and do with religion. It’s regarded as a personal choice that is in the main invisible in governance or business or social activities. That’s as it should be.

Most New Zealanders have a range of intermingling beliefs that co-exist without being an issue in normal life. People are free to go to church or do otherwise as they please, without any general social pressure.

Being Christian or Atheist or following any other religion is the free choice of all individuals in New Zealand, as it should be.

Religion is not a competition. We really have no need to try and keep a score. There are no losers, we all win by having an open society that is tolerant a wide range of personal beliefs.

We can coexist with our own choice of beliefs as well as respecting the right of others to think differently.

New Zealand is blessed with a tolerance and freedom of choice of beliefs and non beliefs that is one of the strengths of our society.

God or not.

Human Trafficking in NZ

An Otago politics student Stephanie Lowe has set up an awareness website on Human Trafficking in NZ.

This also covers the trafficking problem worldwide (which is huge). Please at least visit the site and respond to the poll (in the right sidebar on the Home page).

The Problem - on a global scale

1. There are currently more slaves than at any other time in history – with some estimates of the number being as high as twenty-seven-million.

2. Sex trafficking is one of the three largest industries, coming after the arms and drugs industries. It is estimated to be worth around $32 billion.

(more)

The Problem - in NZ

1. There is very little information about the problem of human trafficking in New Zealand

2. New Zealand Government fully complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking – and is in tier 1 of the US Department of State’s Trafficking in Perons Report

3. The Prostitution Law Review Committee estimated that approximately 200 young persons under the age of 18 were working as prostitutes in 2004

4. New Zealand is a source country for underage girls who are forced in to internal trafficking

5. New Zealand is a destination country for foreign women and men subjected to forced labour

6. The men are usually from countries such as Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia – and are usually forced to engagd in activities aboard fishing vessels with NZ waters

7. Women who are trafficked to New Zealand usually come from China and countries within South East Asia – they tend to be recruited by people in their home counrties as ‘labour agents’ for the purpose of prostitution

8. Victims trafficked from overseas usually arrive in New Zealand to have their passports confiscated, experience physical and mental abuse, and are forced to work extremely long hours with very little or no pay

9. There is a small percentage of girls and boys of Maori or Pacific Islander descent who are trafficked internally and forced to participate in street prostitution

10. Some Asian or Pacific Islander individuals migrate to New Zealand to work within the agricultural industry. However in some cases once they arrive here they find they have to work in far worse conditions than promised or for far less pay.

For more information about human trafficking in New Zealand you can visit:

http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/people-trafficking/action-items.asp

http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/people-trafficking/people-trafficking.pdf

http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/new_zealand

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/speechpapers/NZ%20trafficking%20Paper%20-%20final%20-%203%20Feb.pdf

Human Trafficking in NZ website: http://www.humantraffickingnz.com/

Another reason to appreciate what we have in New Zealand

Living in a young and very isolated country like New Zealand it’s hard to imagine what it’s like living in countries mired in conflict for millennia.

So I find it hard to understand the rights and wrongs of the Israel/Gaza situation. I can understand anger on both sides, I can understand wanting to stand ground and fight for freedoms and for safety for citizens.

I don’t like occupations and walls and virtual imprisonments. I don’t like the rocket firing into residential areas.

But I eally wonder at the mindsets that are entrenched there. And suggestions like this in an Op Ed in the Jerusalem Post by Girad Sharon (son of an ex Prime Minister) seem to do him or the JP any credit:

A decisive conclusion is necessary

There is no middle path here – either the Gazans and their infrastructure are made to pay the price, or we reoccupy the entire Gaza Strip.

A strong opening isn’t enough, you also have to know how to finish – and finish decisively. If it isn’t clear whether the ball crossed the goal-line or not, the goal isn’t decisive. The ball needs to hit the net, visible to all. What does a decisive victory sound like? A Tarzan-like cry that lets the entire jungle know in no uncertain terms just who won, and just who was defeated.

To accomplish this, you need to achieve what the other side can’t bear, can’t live with, and our initial bombing campaign isn’t it.

THE DESIRE to prevent harm to innocent civilians in Gaza will ultimately lead to harming the truly innocent: the residents of southern Israel. The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren’t hostages; they chose this freely, and must live with the consequences.

I agree with this:

There is no justification for the State of Gaza being able to shoot at our towns with impunity.

But this sounds way over the top:

We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.

That sounds sick, and I don’t see how it will heal the deep wounds in the Middle East.

Treaty of Waitangi – the Littlewood version

And excellent view of the ‘Littlewood Treaty” by archivist Greg J as posted at The Standard (with some links added):

Speaking as an Archivist and someone who has actually worked with the document in question the “Littlewood Treaty” – like so many things around the history of the Treaty is badly misunderstood and full of all sorts of red herrings and false assumptions (the Internet is great but it does allow a lot on unmitigated rubbish to be put up for people to read).

Despite the various conspiracy theories and ravings of loons like Ian Wishart the “Littlewood treaty” is not suppressed, hidden or ignored – it has been subject to quite intense study and investigation since it was “discovered” or rather “re-discovered” in 1989 by the Littlewood family in family papers. Once it was handed to Archives NZ (National Archives) it was unavailable for a short time while it received standard conservation and preservation treatment then went on permanent display in the Constitution room for anyone to view it.

Digital copies have existed since at least the late 1990′s and an online version has been available for at least the last 5 or 6 years. During the time it has been in the custody of the government it has been subject to fairly vigorous analysis by historians and academics.

Essentially, its proponents argue that a scrap of paper in Busby’s handwriting dated 4 February 1840, is the elusive “Final English Draft” which was given to Henry Williams to translate into Maori and contains phrases virtually identical to the Treaty, but that certain key words differ, thus giving an entirely different meaning to the Treaty.

For example, the accepted version of the Treaty (incidentally also drafted by Busby, on February 3) mentions “forests and fisheries”, whereas the February 4 “Littlewood” version does not. Its supporters cite this as evidence that most Treaty claims relating to forests and fisheries are therefore invalid.

First, on the matter of the dates, Busby’s 3 February 1840 (English) draft of the Treaty was handed to Hobson to comment on and amend as he saw necessary. Busby helped with the draft because Hobson had been too ill to work on it the previous day, but was recovering by the 3rd. What Busby may have written on February 4, or any time afterwards, is immaterial.

This is because he handed over the version he prepared on the 3rd – which includes the phrase “forests and fisheries” – to Hobson. Hobson approved that version, and it became part of what we now know as the Treaty of Waitangi. Hobson, not Busby, was the person with final authority to sign. In all likelihood, the “Littlewood” treaty is little more than a rough and hastily-written copy of the Treaty of Waitangi which Busby subsequently made for his personal records (no photocopiers or scanners in those days) and he dated it incorrectly.

There is NO evidence that the “Littlewood Treaty” it is some sort of final English draft which was then given to Henry Williams to translate into Maori (and which was subsequently signed on the 6th February). However even if it was the speculative “final English draft” it isn’t the English Version that was presented at Waitangi on the 6th – alongside the Maori version (which is what everyone signed).

And just to clarify further (from the Green Party Website):

The international legal doctrine of contra preferentum means indigenous language versions of treaties between indigenous peoples and colonising powers are the ones that must be adhered to where there is disagreement. Added to this, both Governor Hobson and most of the Maori chiefs signed the Maori language version. It is significantly different from the English. It guaranteed tino rangatiratanga at hapu level – the authority for a hapu to manage its own affairs.

The other thing which normally comes up is a claim is made by the supporters of the Littlewood Treaty that the phrase “all the people of New Zealand” – which appears in the Littlewood document – was surreptitiously written out of the Treaty.

This is based on two incorrect assumptions: that someone deliberately removed phrases from the Treaty, for which there is no evidence at all; and that this particular phrase should be interpreted as having applied to every person living in New Zealand in 1840 – both Maori and European.

The Littlewood proponents believe that this removes any possibility of Maori claiming sovereignty, because the rights ascribed exclusively to Maori in the Treaty would therefore be applied to everyone in the Littlewood version.

Such a postulation is demonstrably wrong, but the mistake is easy to make for anyone unfamiliar with the language of the period. The phrase “all the people of New Zealand” – in the setting of New Zealand in 1840 – would simply be another way of referring to Maori. There are several documents from this era in which this sort of phrase is used specifically to refer exclusively to Maori. It does not apply to Europeans, who are nearly always referred to in this period separately from “the people of New Zealand”.

The Littlewood documentation is historically interesting but in terms of the ongoing discussion of the Treaty it is irrelevant – the Treaty is the one signed by Hobson and the chiefs at Waitangi (the rat eaten one in Archives NZ) written in Maori and the subsequent copies sent around the country to be signed by other Chiefs (most in Maori – except for one sheet which is an English translation of the Maori).

That’s it – the “Littlewood Treaty” isn’t a Treaty because no one signed it – it is, at best, a draft and more likely an early (and slightly inaccurate) copy.

Thus, no further discussion about its treaty status needs to proceed.

(eg. The mortgage contract you sign is the one that actually holds legal force not an earlier draft that may have read before hand or a subsequent copy).

References:

Treaty of Waitangi (English version)

Treaty of Waitangi (Maori version)

Differences between the texts

View the Treaty

Text of the Littlewood draft

The “Littlewood Treaty”: An Appraisal of Texts and Interpretations (PDF)

Arguments for and against the ‘Littlewood treaty’

Treaty 2 U

Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

Poverty, wants and needs

Bryan Bruce made a documentary on poverty in New Zealand that was controversally broadcast Inside Child Poverty just before the election last year. He is currently making a follow-up doco, although it could be mistraken for a crusade:

As some of you know I am working on my follow up documentary to INSIDE CHILD POVERTY . It’s about the growing gap between the rich and the poor – why inequality damages ALL of us and what we might do about that.

He has posted about it on Facebook, along with a graphic that possibly provokes more thought than he intended:

Want and Need

Bruce explains this…

We all NEED good food, clothes, medical care, education and a warm dry place to live. It’s the responsibility of our community to make sure that everyone has those things.

Everything else is a WANT which the community has no obligation to provide – and certainly not though a taxation system that permits 5 % of our population to want far more than they will ever need.

And also makes it clear what his political preferences are (and aren’t):

30 years of neo-liberal economics has made us a ” Me” society rather than the ” We” society we once had.

We can have that “We” society back . Yes, by telling our politicians we’re sick of “free” market crony capitalism, but also by looking to ourselves and instigating our own quiet revolution – by taking action to make sure that everyone gets what they NEED before we entertain the things we WANT .

He doesn’t quite get to calling it a socialist revolution but seems to be getting close to that.

But the depiction of WANT versus need may also be seen from many middle class eyes as excessive wanting of an easy way out of their problems, by wanting more given to them by others, rather than doing more to get better lives for themselves.

Communism failed because it encouraged and enforced more people having a more equal less.

Capitalism and consumerism have serious flaws, especially when unchecked and unregulated.

The state can and should provide some things, especially adequate levels of health care and education. But self help must be an individual’s main focus for achievement.

If we really WANT to lift the standard of living for many struggling individuals and families we NEED to get the rest of New Zealand on the same positive side rather than alienating and dividing.

Longstone’s letter

Outgoing CEO of the Ministry of Education asnd Secretary of Education Lesley Longstone’s letter to staff prior to the announcement of her resignation:

Dear colleague, at noon today Iain Rennie, the State Services Commissioner, will be announcing my resignation from the position of Chief Executive of the Ministry of Education and Secretary for Education. This has been an extremely difficult decision for me and one that I want you to understand.

2012 was, without doubt, a very challenging year for the ministry. The extent of change has been great and in more than a few cases, controversial.

At the same time, we can look back proudly on a number of achievements that would not have been possible without the commitment and hard work of so many talented people working here in the ministry. I know that so many of you have gone the extra mile and I am so grateful for the support I have had over the past year.

Just to re-cap some of those achievements: continuing increases in participation in early childhood education, the reporting to parents of National Standards data for the first time and continued improvement, particularly for our priority groups, in NCEA outcomes.

The changes to the Resource Teachers Learning and Behaviour service and the expansion of Positive Behaviour for Learning programmes offer real promise to some of our more needy learners and the development of the intensive wrap-around service offers new opportunities for children with special needs to be supported to learn in their home communities.

We have spoken out about the social inequity inherent in our education system and begun to re-focus the work of the Ministry and our support for ECE services, schools and other providers on those children and young people who are not realising their potential.

The development of new pathways to support transitions from school to tertiary study or work is a very significant achievement. We have begun to build better links with communities, iwi and social sector agencies, to ensure that in focussing on these young people we bring everyone to the table that has a contribution to make.

These are important foundations that will position us well to achieve the Government’s Better Public Service goals for education and vulnerable children.

Internally, we have re-structured and appointed four new Regional Directors. We have established task forces to drive ahead on our key outcomes and are working ever closer with other agencies in the education sector as well as the wider social and economic sectors. I am very pleased to have made four new appointments to the Leadership Team, bringing in different areas of expertise to complement those of existing members and strengthening our leadership of the Ministry going forward. With our regional change programme in its early stages we are poised to make significant change to our service delivery model, designed to support better outcomes for learners and a more streamlined service offering for providers.

But despite our best endeavours, and I do really appreciate the efforts of those involved in these areas, not everything in 2012 has gone smoothly and there has been real disquiet relating to a range of issues including Budget 2012 proposals, Christchurch and Novopay. The accumulation of these and other things has led to deterioration in relationships with a number of important stakeholders.

This isn’t a sustainable position and following very careful thought and discussion, Iain and I have decided that the best interests of the ministry would be served bythe appointment of a new chief executive unencumbered by the difficulties of the past 6 months who is able to focus on, and re-build those relationships.

I hope that you will see and embrace this as the opportunity it is. I will return from my Christmas break on 22 January and will continue in my role until 8 February next year when a new interim Chief Executive will be appointed.

All that really remains is for me to thank you for your support over the past year or so and to hope that you, like me, will find real peace in the Christmas season. I look forward to thanking as many of you as I can personally, before I depart and I hope you will welcome Peter in the same generous way as you welcomed me.

 

Christmas – crashed and crushed by consumerism

Christmas has had different meanings to different people. For some it’s one of their most significant religious occasions. To others it’s a time for families to come together, to share presents and to feast.

But increasingly Christmas is being crashed and crushed by consumerism. And families are under increasing financial and commercial pressure.

There are many signs of a corrupted Christmas occasion. I’m not religious, but ‘Toy Story’ advent calendars seems like a super tacky conflict with of the concept of Christ.

Advertising pushes the modern Christmas message hard – buy, buy, buy.

My temple should be a house of prayer,
But you have made it a den of thieves.

And there’s an insidious addition this year – loan sharks advertising cash loans for Christmas, one offering two weeks interest free, another giving you the chance to win yet another consumerist trinket, an iPad or something. Just as the Christmas/New year hangover subsides the exorbitant interest rates kick in, and kick naive borrowers in the guts.

After celebrating the birth of Christ there was a wait of 3 moons before the story was crucified.

Now it only takes three weeks to hammer the poor, who desperately borrowed as they succumbed to commercial seduction, to the money lenders cross.

I got heaven and I got hell.

And what does all this buy us? Apart from battery driven plastic mountains and technocrazy bombardments it buys more and more parental and family stress, and for many it adds to household crippling debt.

What do parents get in return? I know some despair at getting drawn in more and more into the commercial overkill, trying to feed the insatiable hunger of modern consumerism.

And the kids? The more they get the harder they seem to please. If yet another present doesn’t meet demanding expectations it is quickly discarded. Brand names rule, it has to be cool or forget it.

Christmas seems to have become an accelerating commercial treadmill that is very difficult to get off.

Is anyone actually satisfied by this?

Or do we just keep allowing ourselves to be drawn back in to an annual Christmas crushing.

The Temple
(from Jesus Christ Superstar)

MONEYCHANGERS AND MERCHANTS

Roll on up Jerusalem,
Come on in Jerusalem,
Sunday here we go again,
Live in me Jerusalem.
Here you live Jerusalem,
Here you breathe Jerusalem,
While your temple still survives,
You at least are still alive.
I got things you won’t believe,
Name your pleasure I will sell.
I can fix your wildest needs,
I got heaven and I got hell.
Roll on up, for my price is down.
Come on in for the best in town.
Take your pick of the finest wine.
Lay your bets on this bird of mine.
What you see is what you get.
No one’s been disappointed yet.
Don’t be scared give me a try,
There is nothing you can’t buy.
Name your price, I got everything.
Hurry it’s going fast.
Borrow cash on the finest terms.
Hurry now while stocks still last.
Roll on up Jerusalem,
Come on in Jerusalem,
Sunday here we go again,
Live in me Jerusalem.
Here you live Jerusalem,
Here you breathe Jerusalem,
While your temple still survives,
You at least are still alive.
I got things you won’t believe,
Name your pleasure I will sell.
I can fix your

(fade, screaming)

JESUS

My temple should be a house of prayer,
But you have made it a den of thieves.
Get out! Get out!
My time is almost through.
Little left to do.

But some people do have something left to do. Judy Callingham has found her solution:

Hiding from Christmas

Maybe more of us can find our own Christmas we can live happily with.

Bizarre attack by Standard drug pushers

A post at The Standard that’s bizarre even by their standards appeared yesterday – Late night Twitter. It may have been more of a late night post – except it wasn’t very late anyway, the original post was at 7.20 pm and the responses and reply were just before and after 9 pm.

It appears to be an attempt to diss Peter Dunne but it’s more of an own goal by what appears to be a pothead attacking alcohol, even though the reference to ‘end of year drinks’ would be normally be expected to include non-alcoholic options plus food.

One comment, by ‘higherstandard’:

Indeed the phrase ‘sanctimonious cock’ comes to mind….. and surprisingly not in relation to Peter Dunne

It hasn’t been attributed to an author so must have been contributed, but a site author or administrator must have accepted and posted it. One author, ‘karol’, commented on it soon after it was posted which may suggest a connection.

The screen shot was taken immediately after the last tweet (2 minutes after) which suggests the post was initiated by the person tweeting Dunne. The whole thing may have been a setup.

Late night twitter

There’s some other odd and interesting things about this post. The screen shot image of the Twitter exchange has been altered to deliberately remove the name and Twitter ID of the person attacking Dunne. But the ID has been left in Dunne’s reply – @KappaMuTheta.

That would have been easily found by searching anyway.@KappaMuTheta – calling themselves Mu – follows one and has five followers. They have only tweeted twice before, both in May this year, and with one follow up tweet has a total of five. So it’s a virtually inactive account. To have seen Dunne’s tweet they must have been following him using another Twitter account.

This is a very odd and weak attempt at an attack by The Standard.

Alcohol is involved in many problems but it is most often harmless – and end of year drinks for a few ministry officials is hardly the biggest story of the year.

UPDATE: there were two virtually unused Twitter accounts attacking Dunne – one of these accounts had a link to a site promoting the use of drugs – legal highs and party pills. So the motives are obvious.

Another person joined in the Twitter attack:

Kemikal @TripMe@kemdotcom

@PeterDunneMP You as a Health Minister happily parade “end of year drinks”. Mr Dunne, how can you expect to be taken seriously?

It’s easy to not take this one seriously too. @TripMe more than hints at the motives, this Twitter account has only one other tweet, also yesterday, which links to a party pill and legal high site Trip Me. Included on this site are ‘reviews’ of party pills that link to sales.

Party Pill Review: Hypnotic

Written by Drael

Okay, this is my first time on a pill with Glaucine. Glaucine is a yellow horned poppy extract said to be very mildly psychedelic and quite sedative. I dropped two of these hypnotics (which is the recommended dose for a bigger person).

Starts off more relaxed, with some stimulation. Little urge to do anything. As it first starts, I’m thinking, this is nice, smooth relaxed, and have high hopes this is smoother feeling.

As it kicks in more fully, I feel kinda spacey, waves of relaxation and stimulation, quite strong and light headed….Kinda giddy relaxed feeling hit me like a wall, couldn’t keep writing the reveiw for a bit, mangled, spacey, sedated & had to just sit! So the come up is very quick…

Click Here to Buy Online or …

Almost cant be bothered with doing things, even with the stimulated feeling, although some energy picks up later in the peice, its still very lethargic in waves. Seems to tail off even slower than some other pills. Did perhaps notice slight colour or perceptual differences, but nothing concrete.

Definately different, far more sedative, which makes some parts of the relaxed stimulation of dmaa feel quite nice, though not really more euphoric, just more at ease. But also made me yawn a lot, and I didn’t really know where to put myself, relaxing or moving or what?

Would be useless for a rave, not enough energy for dancing, not really ideal at home either, I think. Maybe a concert or similar? Party? Interesting pill, but I’m not sure if id have much use for it. Perhaps with a little less glaucine, and more stimulants it would be better. Before the relaxation became super strong, it did feel smoother.

You can Buy Hypnotic Party Pill Online from our Sponsor

Reviews that have multiple links to sponsors selling the products are not impartial reviews.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers