Someone just forwarded me this:

Twas The Diet After Christmas

Twas the day after Christmas and all through the house, nothing would fit me,not even a blouse!
The cookies I'd nibbled,the eggnog I would taste at the holiday parties had gone to my waist.

When I got on the scales there arose such a number! When I walked to the store (less a walk than a lumber),
I'd remember the marvelous meals I'd prepared; the gravies and sauces and beef nicely rared,
the wine and the rum balls, the bread and the cheese... And the way I'd never said, "No thank you, please."

As I dressed myself in my husband's old shirt and prepared once again to do battle with dirt.
I said to myself, as I only can"You can't spend a winter disguised as a man!"
So away with the last of the sour cream dip. Get rid of the fruit cake, every cracker and chip!
Every last bit of food that I like must be banished." Till all the additional ounces have vanished.
I won't have a cookie - not even a lick. I'll want only to chew on a long celery stick.
I won't have mulled wine, or mince tarts, or pie, I'll munch on a carrot and quietly cry.

I'm hungry, I'm lonesome, and life is a bore. But isn't that what January is for?
Unable to giggle, no longer a riot. Happy New Year to all and to all a good diet!

At 4pm Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, was executed.

Saddam deserved to die. I do not think anybody believes he was innocent of serious crimes. This dictator murdered and tortured thousands of innocent people including women and children. I have had the misfortune of reading some of the accounts of Saddam's atrocities from firsthand witnesses. Few things have disgusted and sickened me more.

No doubt some groups like Amnesty International will denounce his hanging as unjust. They would prefer a world where innocent unborn children are slaughtered for any reason but where bloody brutal murderers and dictators do not get their just desserts. I do not share their sentiments.

It is true that there are questions about the process of Saddam's trial and legitimate criticisms may be raised. However, Saddam was not an innocent man framed for crimes he did not commit or some innocent third party in the wrong place at the wrong time victimised by a corrupt system. Saddam did commit these crimes and many more and he deserved to die.

The government is planning on introducing a new tax on drivers, a tax on distance travelled. Similar to the road user charges already inflicted on diesel drivers.

This is apparently to help reduce the junk science concept of 'global warming' - please!

Of course National now buys all that crap about "global warming science" thanks to its new leadership.

We are over taxed. We don't need more taxes. Cut our taxes. Global Warming is an historical part of Earth's life, it will cool down for centuries at some point in the future then it will warm up - look at history.

Waterworld was just an 3rd rate movie with actors in it, its not a real prediction of future water levels.

I thought it was one of those urban legends, you know when you keep hearing something that sounds so ridiculous it can't possibly be true.

I am speaking of the reports I have heard about people phoning into talkback shows or strangers overheard making comments to the effect that religious people are trying to take over Christmas, they should stay out of it as God has nothing to do with it.

Now this may well be true for a lot of people but it reeks of historical ignorance, so much so that like I said, I thought it was an urban legend.

Well over at, aptly named it appears, Rob's Blockhead Blog I found this gem "I'm not a fan of the modern Christmas. Once upon a time, it was something purer and simpler. Sheer self-indulgence and bacchanalian feasting. I don't hold with this modern trend of bringing religion into it." [emphasis mine]

Rob goes on to give a brief historical account of Christmas songs of note to him. It seems he does not realise that Away in a Manger, Hark the Herald Angels, Silent Night and Long Time ago in Bethlehem were written before his modern account of secular Christmas songs.

We took the kids to the beach this morning since the sun came out and our 5 year old son had a new red bucket and spade he was eager to make sandcastles with.

We found a spot between the flags as close to the water as we could sit, about 8 m, while still being dry. We set up our shade tent, got the kids sorted and sat back and relaxed.We were sorting out lunch and had just sent the youngest to the water to wash the sand off his hands when suddenly the lifeguards began calling people out the water.

We figured that whatever it was our son, ankle deep, would be fine but we watched him intently to be sure. Then the lifeguard went to him and clearly wanted him out of the water, simultaneously we saw a seal come out the water directly in front of us.

Matt ran to get our son as the lifeguard was not getting through to him about moving quickly and did not seem like she was about to pick him up and move him herself. In the mean time the seal came straight at out sand tent. I gathered up the other kids and ran to the sand dunes.

The seal was fascinated with out sand tent and spent the next 45 minutes next to it, in it, travelling around it, biting it, throwing Matt's sandal around, putting the red sand castle bucket on its nose and biting Matt's wetsuit. It would wander off and sniff at the flags and at one point tried to bite the surf rescue boat but it kept coming back to our spot. If anyone went near it it would turn, show its teeth and charge - especially whenever a dog came near, but also when a lifeguard drove up on a 4 wheel bike - he had to jump off and get away.

After 45 mins heaps of people began getting as close as they dared with their cameras so it came towards them and as they backed away it followed them up the beach and ultimately over the dunes to the road!We took this opportunity to gather our stuff and take a different path off the beach to the car - though it was by then rather close to our car!

So that's our adventure for the day! Don't think we will be going to the beach again any time soon.

The Herald has run a story with the no-brainer title "Patient dies after machine unplugged".

According to the article an italian doctor turned off a patient's life support system (did the title of the article give you a clue?) at his request. The article went on to suggest that this might be illegal euthanasia, outlined the penalty for such an offence and states that the Vatican is opposed to euthanasia.

This is deceptive reporting. As the Vatican defines euthanasia, this case is clearly not euthanasia.

The Catholic Church distinguishes between failing to save a patient and actively killing a patient. It holds that there is an absolute duty to not kill an innocent human being. However, it does not hold that one must keep a patient alive at all costs and it certainly does not hold that a patient should be subjected to invasive treatment against his or her consent.

Any manual on Catholic moral theology would have spelt this out to the reporter had he or she bothered to read it. Under Catholic teaching one cannot subject a competent patient to life saving medical treatment against his or her consent. Further, any patient can lawfully choose to forgo treatment if it is excessively burdensome and unlikely to have proportionate benefit.

What this shows us is how the NZ media distort and caricature the theological positions of others to paint them in a negative light, a light easy to dismiss because it is a strawman.

In the past few days I have gotten myself hooked on a simple, online game called The Outlaw Life.

Its a rather basic RPG game where you register and become a character in the Wild West. You find gold ingots and nuggets, attack other members and gain experience points and money, you train and get promoted at your job, you do courses, you race cars, buy houses, trade on the item market, join gangs, have wars, buy weapons, etc which all helps you to go up levels and earn new rewards and access to new areas.

If you want to check it out it is really simple to sign on to, just use this link and when it asks for a promo code type in pardner.

If you can't pay for your traffic fines you will soon be able to drive at speeds like those that Helen travels at when she is late for rugby games with no fear for your wallet.

Yep folks the government's latest socialist policy is that those who cannot afford to pay their traffic fines should not have to.

This is apparently supposed to help those on low incomes who commit traffic offenses. Why should anyone get help with breaking the law? Don't want a $200 speeding ticket? Don't speed. Don't cry I'm poor, I should be allowed to speed for free...

Apparently its because a $200 fine is nothing to a rich person but to a poor person its your whole family's grocery bill for a week. Well on that rationale lets take a look at the cost of groceries - for a poor person the family grocery bill takes most of their paycheck/benefit but for a rich person its nothing... I guess the goverment should pass a law making all supermarkets inflate their prices for rich people and reduce them for the poor....

I get so frustrated whether it is in the company of others, on email lists or participating in blog and debate board debates when I see someone present their case, their reasons for holding the position they do, how they think their position defeats objections and then they throw in "its just my opinion."

Its just my opinion often means I don't want you to think I am saying I am right or that my position is better than yours, it is seen as polite to do this and arrogant not to think these things.

Its frustrating to me because its a load of rubbish.

If you hold a position that you can articulate and explain and point out how it defeats other's objections then you do think that you are right, that your position is the better one and they those with contrary views are wrong.

No one with a thought out position holds to the one they think is second rate, not as good as others or plain wrong. We all hold to our reasoned positions because after considering them we conclude that this is the correct, right and best position to adopt.

So what is the shame in admitting this then? How is it arrogant to state here is my position, here is why I hold it, here is why and how I think deals with objections and as such it is the right, better and correct position and yours is wrong?

As long as you maintain an open mind and hold to your positions on the merits of the arguments for them, their robustness under critique there is nothing wrong with saying I am right and you are wrong - there is no need to apologise for having the better argument.

Saddam will be executed 25 Jan 2007.

While I will not celebrate his execution I am pleased that it is happening.

Just now Matt brought out youngest child, age 5, down to the office. As they approached I could hear that he was sobbing and hysterical and Matt was laughing which I thought odd until I saw him.

Each of the kids have oversized, home made Christmas stockings - a stupid idea I came up with when the eldest was born, now with 4 oversized stockings to fill I go why oh why oh why every year at the cost of filling 4 giant stockings but I digress...

Master 5, was in his sister's stocking, it came up to his hips and his own stocking was stuck on his head - quite a comical sight which explained why Matt couldn't help having a chuckle as we attempted to rescue him.

Matt explained, while our son sobbed that he was stuck, that both of them were unable to get the Christmas stocking off his head - the lining had bunched together so they couldn't just pull it off without hurting him.

I fiddled with it and got the one off his head off then we got him out of the one on his legs. He sat there looking very sheepish as he then tried to explain that the only reason he got stuck in this manner was because there were no presents in the stockings - otherwise he wouldn't have been able to get his head and his legs into them.

We explained the necessity of going to sleep first and waiting til Christmas morning (something we had already explained at bedtime and I think at least 5 times in the past week). He sheepishly agreed that perhaps that was smarter than staying up for hours and getting stuck in the Christmas stockings so now has finally gone back to bed and things are starting to sound quiet - yay!

Of course the older two kids are still up watching the Nightmare Before Christmas so it looks like it may well be Christmas Day before Matt and I get to go to bed as we can't do that til we have filled the stockings and we can't do that til they are all asleep.

Still, nothing beats Christmas through the eyes of children - brings all the wonder and excitement of childhood back.

We have been a bit quiet the last few days as like most people we are kinda busy with Christmas preparation. We are going away at some point but not til after New Year so do keep checking in as I am sure we will find something to rant about - its a pretty safe bet with us LOL!

We hope everyone has a safe and happy Christmas. Enjoy your friends and family, be merry and most of all remember that its not about the size of the presents Santa brings you but about remembering the birth of a baby.

The guy fawkes just past started out rather uneventful for us, we did out fireworks thing then came inside and watched some movie on TV - I forget what now. A bit before 11pm our 11 year old son began shrieking something unintelligible and ran downstairs - we finally worked out he was yelling "Fire!"

Suddenly we saw that the gap in the curtains behind the TV was not black with the night sky as it should have been but was glowing orange - the neighbour's big tree, 2 stories high was completely engulfed in fire - right next to our wooden fence and less than a metre from their house. I ran for the phone and called the fire department while Matt and our visitors and our oldest two kids ran for the hose and buckets to throw on the fire - I followed with the kitchen fire extinguisher, other neighbours followed suit.

It turned out that the fire had been started by a teenager pointing a firework at the tree which had a lot of dead leaves on it. The teenager was seen standing near the fire taking photos of it on his mobile phone and had to be yelled at to move out of the way and help.

This of course made many of us in the street rather angry as potentially all of us who lived close and the people whose property the fire was started on were put at risk because of some idiotic teenager mishandling fireworks. What annoyed us the most though was when the fire fighters were told by witnesses how the fire had started and who the teenager was they just had a chat with him and left it at that because "he felt really bad about it"! The guy very nearly burned down someone's house. The owners of the house were very traumatised, the woman was crying and screaming at one point. It was only the quick actions of the neighbours attacking the fire with hoses, buckets and fire extinguishers that prevented the fire from spreading - the fire department took 15 minutes to arrive.

As I see it, the problem with fireworks and reckless use of them is not the fact that fireworks are available but the fact that there are no consequences for people getting caught using them stupidly if what happened that night is anything to go by.

For this reason I am not hugely impressed by the recent decision to impose restrictions on the supply and sale of fireworks. I am pleased that they will not be banned as banning penalises the majority who do use them safely for the actions of the few who do not but the problem does not lie with the age of those buying them or the time period they are available for. Sure over-eighteens will probably be more sensible with them than teenagers - though the fire at my neighbours was started by an 18 year old and the time frame restrictions will probably lessen the time period the fire departments go into busy season but there still has been nothing done to impose tough penalities on those who do stupid things with them.

The teenage 'adult' who started the fire next door to my place should have at the very least been made to pay for the costs of the fire department call out, the damage the fire caused even though it turned out to be minimal and the replacement costs of the neighbours fire extinguishers. But all he got was a quiet word with the fire chief.

My kids get taught about sex when I decide to teach them about it. As their parents I get to decide what and how I tell them about it.

No one else gets to infringe my right to educate my kids, not the state, not family planning and not the local pizza company.

I used to buy your pizza's but since you decided you could override my rights as a parent, you will never, ever, ever see any of my money, ever again.

Further, I will encourage anyone who claims to be right wing to join me in my boycott of your business. Hell Pizza are right up there with the worst of the nanny state lefties and do not deserve to prosper.

PS. Your pizza's were never that great anyway and my kids always preferred Pizza Hut and Dominoes.

"But isn't this just endorsing a wholly outmoded and discredited fundamentalism,
that condition than which, according to many academics, none lesser can be
conceived? I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to
stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first
look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary
academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like
'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at
least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on
matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch'. When the term is used in this way, no
definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would
you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the
meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use): it isn't simply a term
of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content,
and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it
more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch'
simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its
cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend
on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example,
it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine,
Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like
Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there
is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain
indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to
the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full
meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like
'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of
mine'. It is therefore hard to take seriously the charge that the views I am
expressing are fundamentalist; more exactly, it is hard to take it seriously as
a charge. The alleged charge means only that these views are rather more
conservative than the objector's, together with a certain distaste for the views
of those who express them. But how is that an objection to anything, and why
should it warrant the contempt and contumely that goes with the term. An
argument of some kind would be of interest but merely pointing out that they
differ from the objector's (even with the addition of that abusive emotive
force) is not"

Matt

A notice to all those who commonly write on internet blogs: "Matthew Flannagan is an ignorant, stupid, illogical, irrational, backwards fundamentalist, moronic bigot, blah, blah, blah."

As of 3pm today please amend your insults to the following: "Dr Matthew Flannagan is an ignorant, stupid, illogical, irrational, backwards fundamentalist, moronic bigot, blah, blah, blah."

Matt will graduate today from the University of Otago with the title Doctor of Philosophy for his thesis "Is Historic Christian Opposition to Feticide Justified in the 21st Century?"

Examiners of his thesis spoke of his "remorseless logic," "his substantial contribution to his field," "[his thesis being] one of the finest I have had the privilege of examining." Matt was commended for his fairness in presenting and critiquing opposing views, the thoroughness of his work and substantial encouragement was given to seek its publication. Yet not one examiner shared his philosophical views.

I am immensely proud of Matt today. He has worked so hard for this moment and to have earned it with all the praise and accolade that he has received from academics he admires and respects is truly an achievement.

Madeleine

Kiwiblog was pointing to this on Apricot Flan .

Michael Crowley, Washington political journalist and Yale graduate wrote an article criticising Michael Crichton's appointment by the Bush administration to provide advice on climate change.

Chrichton's works include State of Fear which trashed a lot of the theory behind climate change science and a lot of the aspects of the environmentalist movement.

Crichton's response to being criticised in this manner was appalling - see this extract from his latest book:

Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers. Crowley was a wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate and heir to a pharmaceutical fortune. ...
It turned out Crowley's taste in love objects was well known in Washington, but [his lawyer]--as was his custom--tried the case vigorously in the press months before the trial, repeatedly characterizing Alex and the child's mother as "fantasizing feminist fundamentalists" who had made up the whole thing from "their sick, twisted imaginations." This, despite a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley's penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler's rectum.)

Far out! Seriously try to avoid crossing Michael Chrichton!

I felt sorry for Michael Crowley til I read his response:

It’s impossible not to be grossed out on some level–particularly by the creepy
image of the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in
pornographic detail the rape of a small child….

I’m looking forward to the choice Crichton will have to make, when asked about the basis for Mick Crowley, between a comically dishonest denial and a confession of his shocking depravity.

So basically, 'he called me a paedophile so I can call him one too.' Grow up both of you.

I read am amusing letter to the editor in the Otago Daily Times yesterday. The writer was discussing the coup in Fiji. Halfway through the letter he expressed outrage at the suggestion that democracy should be preserved. This, he noted, is what George W Bush believes *shock* *horror*.

Here we have a reductio ad Bushium:

Position a) is believed by George W Bush, therefore Position a) is flawed and must be rejected.

Now I knew that many New Zealanders had a pathological dislike for the current White House incumbent but this borders on the ridiculous. I assume that this letter writer is a card carrying member of the flat earth society, afterall George W Bush believes the world is round.

Perhaps the writer should join Al Quaeda, afterall George W Bush has a wee bit of an issue with this organisation so they must be good.

To make matters worse the correspondant went on to suggest that democracy should not be preserved if it meant going to war and people dying. Thank goodness these anti-Bushites were not in control of England and other European countries in 1939. (There was a big war then for the post 1990's publicly educated)

The writer's logic entails that we should reject democracy whenever we see a gun.

Here is a common argument for gay marriage that I have heard multiple times.

[1] Justice requires that all people be treated equally by the state.
[2] Homosexuals are people.
[3] The marriage act does not treat homosexuals
equally to heterosexuals unless it is amended to allow for Gay marriage,

Therefore

[4] Justice requires that the marriage act should be amended to allow for Gay
marriage.

This argument is formally valid. If its premises are true, the conclusion follows. However, with the exception of premise [2] every premise is false which means it is unsound.

Re [1] It is not true that justice requires that the state treat all people equally. Consider a person guilty of a crime. A person guilty of a crime is a person yet clearly justice does not require that the state treat the guilty the same way it treats the innocent. Criminals are deprived of their liberty rights (they are incarcerated), their property rights (fined) or in some cases their life (capital punishment) those who do not engage in crimes are not deprived of these things.

I am not trying to say that gay people are on par with criminals, I am making the point that the state does not in fact treat all people equally.

Further, justice does not require that all people be treated equally. The classical definition of justice is to "render to each what is his due." As Wolterstorff notes in God, Justice and Duty:

[In some contexts] that which is due to them is some ‘evil’ in the other cases ... that which is due them is some life-good. If it is a life-good that is due them, then what is
due them is what they have a right to, what they are entitled to. If it is an "evil," what is due them is their desert.

To make the case, the defender of homosexual marriage needs to supplement [1] with two further arguments (i) that those who engage in homosexual relationships have not done anything wrong which would deserve them being treated differently; and, (ii) a state sanctioned marriage is a right. Simply, citing dubious claims about equality does neither.

I don’t think either claim is plausible: regarding (i), it is seriously immoral to have sex with a member of the same sex, consequently a person who enters into a Gay marriage is in fact taking a vow expressing commitment to a life of immoral activity.

Re (ii), the state’s function is to defend the innocent against aggression and to punish those who commit crimes. Performing marriage ceremonies constitutes neither.

Re [3] the marriage act does not treat homosexual persons differently to heterosexual persons. Under the marriage act a heterosexual person can: (a) enter into a informal marriage (de facto) with any number of people of either sex providing it is consensual and the person is not a close relative, (b) have a private ceremony to recognise, celebrate or solemnise any such marriage, (c) have the state solemnise and recognise a formal marriage with one member of the opposition sex provided it is consensual and not with a close relative.

Similarly a homosexual person can (a) enter into a informal marriage (de facto) with any number of people of either sex providing it is consensual and the person is not a close relative, (b) have a private ceremony to recognise, celebrate or solemnise any such marriage, (c) have the state solemnise and recognise a formal marriage with one member of the opposition sex provided it is consensual and not with a close relative.

So the marriage act grants identical rights to homosexuals and heterosexual persons. What the act does is discriminate against certain sexual relationships. However, the principle expounded in [1] is that all people should be treated equally, not, that all sexual relationships should be treated equally.

Again, it seems the defender of this argument needs to say more, he or she needs to maintain not only that justice requires that all people be treated equally but also that all sexual relationships should be treated equally. But this is clearly absurd, it entails that the state should treat the case of Miewes and Brandes the same as it treats a married couple who consummate their wedding.

Finally, even if [3] were true and the marriage act does not treat homosexual persons equally to heterosexual persons it would not follow that it does so unless it is amended to allow for Gay marriage. An obvious way equality could be restored would be for the state to recognise no marriages. A proposal some libertarians have put forward and one we support too.

So as far as I can tell this argument is worthless and certainly is unsound. Of course, this will not stop defenders of gay marriage trotting this argument out ad nauseum. Providing credible arguments for their position has never been a forte.

Helen Clark has announced that the New Zealand government will not be sending troops to Fiji. We will, however, impose economic sanctions, including a reduction of aid.

I agree with Clark about militarily intervention. I believe that a state has the right to wage war only to defend those living with in its boarders from attack. A state’s authority to use coercion to uphold justice is limited to its borders.

Just as a state has no right to prosecute a person for committing a crime committed outside NZ or to make laws regulating peoples behaviour beyond its shores, it has no duty to defend people in other countries.

However, it seems to me that replacing military action with sanctions is questionable. First, sanctions are in fact a type of warfare, a form of siege warfare. Where a person instead of fighting the enemy directly attempts to force a surrender by cutting off supplies and starving the populace into submission. (Not suggesting that Helen intends to see the people of Fiji starve – making a general point about what siege warfare entails.)

Secondly, siege warfare of this type is unjust. In a just war one targets enemy combatants - a military intervention would do this. The NZ army would go in and kill the military who are carrying out the coup and would not deliberately target innocent civilians. Sanctions do not do this. The entire population is deprived of aid and support including women, children, the poor, etc. Sanctions work in the same way terrorism does, one attempts to force a government to change by causing innocent civilians to suffer and essentially blackmailing them into submission.

Also sanctions infringe the rights of New Zealand citizens to freely dispose of their own lawfully acquired property. New Zealanders will be told that they cannot sell to another person because of his race (in this case Fijian race) and because some other person of the same race has behaved unjustly. This is the mentality of the KKK.

Moreover, for a government to tell private sports clubs who they can and cannot play cricket and rugby with is stepping well outside the bounds of its lawful authority.

If one wants to harm and hurt people then hurt those who are guilty, send in the troops. If one cannot justify this then one cannot justify harming innocent third parties by depriving them of aid and support and preventing others freely giving it to them.

The founding statement of liberal political theory, John Locke’s Two Treaties of Civil Government, opens with the following statement:

Reader, thou hast here the beginning and end of a discourse concerning
government; what fate has otherwise disposed of the papers that should have
filled up the middle, and were more than all the rest, it is not worth while to
tell thee. These, which remain, I hope are sufficient to establish the throne of
our great restorer, our present King William; to make good his title, in the
consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful governments, he
has more fully and clearly, than any prince in Christendom; and to justify to
the world the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights,
with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very
brink of slavery and ruin.

Locke states his purpose in writing is to defend a military coup. Locke goes on to argue that a government derives its powers from the consent of the government for the purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens. Specifically a citizen’s right to life, liberty and property. He argues that if a government turns against these rights the people can justly overthrow it.
The US declaration of independence reiterates this claim.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes
destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their safety and happiness.

Two of the founding documents for liberal democracy maintain that a government can be legitimately overthrown if it uses its powers to infringe, as opposed to protect, the rights of its citizens. In some instances, the military have a duty to do this; often the military have sworn duty to defend the rights of its citizens with force. If the government begins to threaten these rights then this duty means the military have a duty to resist the government with force. This is not some crackpot, novel idea, it is part of our liberal heritage, it is also incidentally part of our Christian heritage. Aquinas argued in a similar vein, as did numerous Puritan writers such as Mornay, Rutherford, Milton, Buchanan.

I say this because at 7:30 PM tonight on Campbell live a military coup was announced in Fiji. The immediate reaction from every commentator I saw was one of disgust because a democratically elected government had been overthrown. Now I am not saying I agree with the coup, I am quite willing to concede that the Military are acting unjustly. However, the mere fact that the government of Fiji was democratically elected does not mean its wrong to over throw them with a coup. If the government uses its power to punish the guilty with proportionate and humane punishments and they defend the rights of the innocent against aggression then I agree it is unjust to over throw them. But if the government of Fiji has used its power to deprive innocent people of there rights and to acquit those guilty of crimes then in certain circumstances the military are within their rights in staging a coup. The fact that the government was lawfully elected is irrelevant.

When commentators in the media claim that a coup is wrong because the government is elected. They are in essence promoting the tyranny of the majority. They are suggesting that we have a duty of unqualified obedience to any leader which 51% of our peers support on election day, regardless of what this government does or orders us to do. They are deifying the majority and placing a democratic government in the place of God.

A state’s legitimacy depends on what it does, not on how many people support it or how popular it is the year of an election. If upholds the law of God and the rights this law confers upon us it is worthy of support. If it turns against these, it is not. God and God alone is the only person worthy of unqualified obedience.

Tomorrow I will be flying out of town and I was just now pondering the whole check in procedure and I remembered the last time I flew about a month ago....

I was standing inline at the airport security thingy waiting to get on the plane. Everyone steps up, puts their handluggage through the scanner and steps through the metal detector - can't have any weapons going onto the plane.

Of course heaps of people trip the metal detector with their belt buckles and jewellery, they get manually scanned and when the detector goes off over their harmless belt buckles and jewellery they are sent onto the plane.

When it came to me I set the detector off - my brooch was the culprit it seemed but once they had ascertained that they sent me onto the plane!!

But hang on! Brooches have long, sharp pins on them!!! Hello!!! Potential weapon?!? I mean, if you are not allowed a crochet hook or sewing needles on the plane why are you allowed a big sharp pin on a brooch?

Murray certainly thinks so and I am inclined to agree from what I have heard so far from the man. Of course it could all be the way the media are reporting things but Key does appear to be pulling National more centrist and last time National were over there it was disastrous for them.

Sure, this time they are facing an incumbant govt which is steeped in scandal and so there will probably be some moderate Labour voters who might vote for what Murray has renamed National, "Labour Lite", but what of those on the centre right and further over to the right (as in correct) position?

It looks like we are left with voting National because its not Labour or jumping to ACT's two man band.

It seems the coup in Fiji has been delayed by a rugby match ... only in Fiji!

Bainimarama has put the coup so he could watch a game of rugby between Police and the Army - couldn't let a coup get in the way of that!

So the coup has been put on hold to ensure that the annual match between the military and the police could go ahead.

The police kicked the military. Should we consider this ominous?

A friend recently e-mailed me a link to this article.

It points out that religious conservatives give more money to charities that assist the poor than liberals do. If the data is correct, it highlights an issue I came to realise several years ago.

Consider two situations (a) and (b). In (a) my neighbour is in need, I take out my chequebook and give him some money; in (b) my neighbour is in need I take out a gun put it at another’s neighbours head and say to him, give that guy your money or else.

As a Christian, I advocate the former. Those on the political left, while claiming to support the former, frequently support the latter (the gun being the force of the state and the means taxation).

These two are clearly not the same, the first is generous, voluntary giving the second is violence against others.

However, so often in discussing this issue with other evangelicals (a) and (b) are conflated. I am told that because we have a duty to give charitably to the poor we have a duty to support socialist welfare programs. This is a non sequitur. Failure to be attuned to this distinction means that genuine desire to assist the needy is misguidedly thrown in behind acts of state-sanctioned violence and threats against innocent people.

Surely, the real test of virtue is what you are willing to do with your own money in the absence of a gun being held to your head and not what you want the state to force others to do with theirs.

We have all heard the slogan "what consenting adults do in privacy is their own business." Recently Investigate alledged that one of our MP's was getting up to dubious sexual practices where he engaged in child sex fantasies to get off. More sinisterly this is the same MP and Cabinet Minister, David Benson Pope a.k.a. Panty Slut Boy whom the police found a prima facie case against for engaging in bdsm type practices against his students when he was a teacher.

Predictably the lefty liberals have trotted out the slogan "what consenting adults do in privacy is their own business." Apparently anything a person, including a govt MP and Cabinet Minister responsible for CYFS, does sexually is ok providing all parties consent and it is done in private. (Of course they conveniently ignore the fact that the bdsm-type offences against the students were not consensual but since they were done against bullies its all apparently ok)

in 2004 a real case reached the courts in Germany. A German computer technician, Armin Miewes, advertised on the internet, "If you are between 18 and 25 years old you are my boy. Come to me and I will eat your horny flesh." His intent was to find someone who would volunteer to be killed and then eaten. Such a volunteer was forthcoming, Juergen Brandes.

In court, Miewes testified that he and Brandes had enjoyed a final meal together. Brandes agreed to be castrated and the two sautéed his penis and testicles. After the meal Brandes willingly allowed himself to be hanged from a butcher’s hook and be slaughtered ‘like a calf’. After Brandes had died Miewes consumed his flesh. The German court found Miewes guilty of manslaughter and later this was upgraded to murder after an appeal. In this case, both parties had consented. The court had considered the evidence and documentation both parties had made prior to the event and found that consent had been legitimately obtained.

Now I ask you, if the Minister of CYFS had done what Miewes did would that call into question his fitness to be in office? If you answer yes then clearly you do not actually believe that what consenting adults do in privacy with others who have consented is actually the be all and end all in sexual morality. Nor do you believe that what people do in private is irrelevent to the public.

If you answer no then you are depraved.

John Key's statements that National has no plan to lift the nuclear free policy of New Zealand are very disapointing. While David Farrar has a good point about it being "one less stick to be beaten with," New Zealand's nuclear free policy is stupid.

No I am not advocating that New Zealand enters the arms race and builds nuclear weapons - we'd need armed forces to make any sense of considering that as an option. I am talking about nuclear power.

Nuclear power rates higher on factors such as clean, green, efficient, reliable, affordable.

It is ridiculous that we are considering ruining our landscapes in the pursuit of noisy, native-bird-killing, ugly windfarms that produce stuff all power anyway. Hydrodams are ecologically unfriendly and coal is a bad pollutant. Geothermal again wrecks natural wonders. And none of the above is going to solve our power crisis.

The ridiculous knee jerk reactions to the mantra "nuclear" have to stop. More people have been killed by oil and battery plant accidents and the auckland motorways are more of a menace to human life than a nuclear power plant would be.