Seek - Opinions and Observations on Aotearoa

Well, seek.net.nz has been through many, many phases in its considerable lifetime.

But the time has come to focus on other things.

In some ways you could look at it as clearing out “the clutter” in a waredrobe.

For me, it is clearing out my internet clutter.

The domain is now for sale. You can email me directly at karl@karlrohde.com

Oh, and don’t worry, everything here is being copied over to my personal blog at www.karlrohde.com

It’s sad. But to focus on my goals, I need to do this. It’s too distracting to have so many web sites and blogs to look after.

www.wineforyou.info will continue, but most of the write-ups will be done by someone else.

Take care, and let me know if you are interested in the domain, I know seek.co.nz used to be, but maybe they don’t care anymore.

So, it is finally happening.

Telecom, the monopoly of telecomunications in New Zealand is being broken up. Voluntarily.

It worked for BT, and changed the face of telecommunications in the UK.

But will it work here?

Time will tell. I am okay with my 3.5/512 broadband for now, even it my connection can handle 8/1024.

What I really want though it to dump my landline altogether and have my mobile and a DSL connection all nicely packaged. Vodafone will do it, but when and at what cost both in money and inconvenience?

So, Auckland is without power again.

And guess what, the mobile network is buckling under the load.

Many of the cellsites do not have generators. So they shut down, and the remaining sites struggle with the extra load as the central city resorts to cellphones.

Will the leashing in of Telecom actually help with this third world infrastructure that is Auckland city?

Maybe, but not for some time.

Sometimes I really like living out of the main city - we have power. We have beaches. And luckily I am not out of coffee just yet as my coffee comes from a place in the city and the order is sent by email!

I’m back - and over the next few weeks you will see whats been happening over the last 9 months!

Stay tuned!

It’s a sad day in NZ politics today.

Rod Donald, co-leader of the Green Party died suddenly at his home in Christchurch.

He leaves his partner, Nicola Shirlaw, and three daughters, Holly, Emma and Zoe.

My heart goes out to his friends and family.

May he rest in peace.

So, Helen has decided to push the government a little more to the centre by brining on right wing allies?

Good move? Possibly. It may give the third term government the balance it needs.

Did the Greens get shafted? Hell yeah!

The Greens need to go away and think VERY carefully about what just happened. They need to align their economic policy with something a little more sustainable. It’s a little too radical.

Baby steps. Chip away, don’t make massive changes, or propose policy that could heart industry in NZ. Education, not policy is the way to go.

Will they be back. Yes.

Sandra Goudie, MP for Coromandel seems to think her and her cronies are above the law.

Firstly, she and her cronies illegally destroy native mangroves in the Whangamata Harbour. Obviously they are too stupid to understand the mangroves play an important part of the ecosystem. Did they not watch what happened in New Orleans and the surrounding area when you mess with natures naturaly barriers, which mangroves are part of.

And yes, I do realize calling Sandra Goudie stupid is a risky business. But really, she is an elected MP. She is not above the law, and if she and her cronies are unhappy with the law as it stands, they must go through due process like everyone else to change it.

I am sick and tired of people attacking the natural ecosystem in the name of progress. It’s happening here in Rodney as well. The Penlink and Alpurt roading initiatives. My wife overheard a woman stating “it’s just birds and a few trees, who cares”.

I care. Your children may care.

The other purpose of the mangroves is filtration. Although not an expert, I believe back in the 80s when Mt Wellington had the ICI chemical disaster, the mangroves took the brunt of the damange from chemicals. It was massive damage, but without the mangroves it would have been much worse. They have only just shown recovery in the last 5 years up and down the tamaki river.

What has that meant? For years the fish was unedible in the Tamaki. They are now clean again because the mangroves are doing their jobs.

Sandra Goudie, I challenge you to do your research before trashing the mangroves. And if after that, you still think you are right, then go through the proper channels like everyone else. You are a representative of the people in your district, but in that role you must follow the letter of the law and set a good example. Anything else is unethical, and shows poor character. And it is also illegal. If you breach the law, you should resign as you are unfit to represent law abiding citizens.

“It’s about time some punches were thrown”

This is the title of an excellent little editorial by the interesting individual Bob Jones.

He essentially says that current politician simply have no character. They are are dull. They pander to each other to ensure none stand out from the crowd.

He does state an exception, with Rodney Hide being a little more colorful.

I have to agree. I would like to see a politician with balls get up and tell it like it is. The government, both local and central, are spending up large. Their increases in spending each year is disproportionate to inflation, and impact to quiality ofe life from petrol and secondary tax is hurting the average New Zealander.

Rates, Income Tax, Petrol Tax and all the other insideous taxes are cause people to struggle. Enough.

Rodney, a little word in your ear. If you want votes, get people interested. Berate the other politicions, eat them for breakfast. Get above 5% because New Zealand needs you in parliment.

So, Labour have produced a massive carrot for 70% of New Zealand families.

It’s a very, very good package I must say. But it is fundamentally unfair.

Essentialy they are saying if you have a family, and you earn below $x you don’t pay tax.

Personally, if the government wants to target that group, and also keep everyonne else happy, then why not just have a no-tax threshold? Far easier to administer, and keeps everything balanced.

Let’s take an example of someone earning $38,000 per year.

If they have one child, under the new policy for Working for Families, they would be given back $6,700. They currently pay $7,410 or there abouts. Why not just make it the first $38,000 is tax free?

While they are at it, their benefit to people earning all the way up to $110,000 (if they have 4 kids) is way too complicated. Why not just flatten the top tax to 30%

Of course, I am biased. My wife and I get nothing from these current changes, but the tax change would benefit us immensely. In fact we could actually start saving for a house of our own!

I pay $24,420 per annum in tax, excluding ACC levies. That’s $469.62 per week in tax.

Under my proposed taxation, I would pay $14,100 per annum, or $271.15 per week. But guess what, the guy on $38,000 would pay NONE! That would make them about $142.50 per week better off. I would be $198.46 better off, BUT I earn more, so using pure mathmatics, OF COURSE I would be better off! I also use less resources. I service my car regularly, meaning it causes less polution. I buy organic food, so it is better for the economy, and I pay for my own healthcare, so people on lower incomes don’t have to wait as long.

They, just as I, would not be entitled to any handouts, but they would have more money in their pocket.

Oh, under Labour’s adjusted policy, if my wife and I had a second child, we would be entitled to a MASSIVE $7 a week.
But that doesn’t pay for a house, does it. It doesn’t even cover the increase in cost of living.

Now, let’s say we simply make the first $38,000 tax free, and leave the rest of the tax base the same. Then both the person on $38,000 and I are better off exactly the same amount. $142.50 per week. Surely you can’t get much fairer than that? They earn less, but they get exactly the same benefit as I do, and I still pay massively more tax.

Anyhow, National are probably not going to do something as radical as I want. And to be honest, their position on Nuclear policy and USA will ensure they will never get my vote.

Something Labour could do however is use the household split taxation system. Essentially, if you have a couple, their income is combined and then split equally for tax purposes. So, for instance, if my wife earnt $30,000 and I earnt $50,000 the tax liability would be calculated at 2 x $40,000 meaning $8,000 would be taxed at the lower rate of 19.5% That would make us about $21 a week better off.

If you have another couple where both are already on the lower bracket, you get no benefit from it, which the lefties would decry as unfair.

Oh well… the tax regime will not change radically, so I will just have to earn more so my wife an I can buy a house. I can not expect the Labour government to reward hard work, but once you earn a certain amount, tax becomes a non-issue.

Speaking of which, I just got my commission cheque from Jim Rohn Not much, but it will pay next week’s petrol bill.

So, David Henderson is now a criminal.

His crime; using cocaine or more accurately getting caught.

His punishment, likely the loss of control of his successful international business and the inability to travel overseas ever again.

Does a conviction for personal use of drugs justify the impact of that conviction has on society? When convicted, people can lose their job, or their busines, as is the likely case for David Henderson. Does that do society any good? No.

Prohibition of alchohol was a complete failure, and the prohibition of drugs is also a complete failure. When it impacts the lives of people like David Henderson it is undeniable that the so called crime is victimless except through the application of the law. He used cocaine as part of his entertainment, in the same way many people use alchohol, cigarettes or even driving fast in their cars.

Should he have a conviction? Did he hurt any one? Was he in control of a vehicle while under the influence? Did he use machinery? Did he rob or attack someone? No.

But he is now a criminal. For enjoying himself.

Use of drugs should be legalized across the board. Would the ‘P’ problem exist today if there was no prohibition in New Zealand? Unlikely.

There are problems with alchohol in society, and there is an argument that society would have an even bigger problem with legalized drugs. But the thing is, that problem is already there, and the big difference is, because one is legal and the other is not, people often do not get help until they have truely gone down a very dark path.

I personally know several alchoholics, and I know also several drug addicts. Guess what, the alchoholics get help, the drug addicts only do so when they hit rock bottom.

Outnumbering the drug addicts and alchoholics are the work-a-holics. They do far for damage to our society than the others, but that’s their choice.

That is what it comes done to. Choice.

I can go down the road and buy beer, and get drunk in the privacy of my own home and it is nobody’s business but mine. If I go down the road and buy cocaine for my own personal use, I am technically a criminal. But for what?

The current arguments to keep drugs illegal just do not stack up. There are already problems. But they are hidden under the guise of a responsible society that does not acknowledge the drugs are already there.

Legalization and regulation of drugs is the only answer that will ensure people like David Henderson are not made to be criminals for victimless crimes.