Wales Rugby Shirt

I come from Wellington (the Rivera of the south pacific) and have been to Te Papa, for the life of me I cannot see what the hell the thing does.
You said it educates, IMHO it is a propaganda machine for the politically correct, as far as I am concerned education should present both sides of the argument not just the one that is popular at that point in time.

However much we may watch Rugby, watching other people play, or dance, does nothing for our bottom lines or our waist lines. Te Papa provides some basic learning tools for children in a world class facility. It is VERY good. Elitist? No, I want everyone to be knowledgeable, as the best democracy is that formed from an educated people. Ballet and Opera give me more reason to agree with you, as their appreciation often appears to be as much a matter of a self-image for the wealthy as it is a real feeling for the art. I learned to enjoy Ballet, and can listen to concert music with real pleasure, but I can’t argue that it educates or should get state funding as a result. I’d find money for it before I’d send someone on a tour to study Hip-Hop, but that’s still just a personal taste.

I don’t actually watch ANY sports. I went to see the F1 race in Adelaide when I was there and it was there, but that’s it. I like cars.

We probably agree more than you realize. Government can be evil, corporations can be evil, individuals can be evil. Checks and balances are needed.

respectfully
BJ

While we agree on very little I do enjoy discussing things with you.

Personally I would bulldoze Te Papa “before lunchtime” if I had my way as the bloody thing is elitist and costs us a fortune to run.

It always amazes me that there is a sector of the community (more common on the right I must admit) that hates the idea of public spending yet is more than happy to subsidise things like Te Papa and the Ballet etc.

Given our nations obsession with the obesity epidemic I could make a far better argument for publicly funded sporting stadium than I could for a bloody museum…..but as I am totally against public spending that would be most hypocritical of me.

Given that you are a self confessed elitist can I safely assume you are a cricket fan?(the greatest game of all)

One could probably make the case that I am just being elitist… I do tend that way.

On the other hand, things that contribute to the knowledge and education of the people have value to the society as a whole. Things that only entertain us do not even have that much to justify them.

I personally would’ve liked to have Te Papa built a bit further up the slope rather than on the waterfront. Fortunately the first floor is just the car-park, gift shop and cafeteria, so it might still be usable when the WAIS falls in

At present I am astonished at what Te Papa provides and ignorant of the price paid, either ongoing or initial investment, or how it was and is funded.

I don’t think however, that it was a matter of someone in government handing over a blank check 3 weeks after someone got the brainstorm to build the thing.

We were however, discussing the stadium. Te Papa exists now and is there is no value in abandoning or destroying it.

respectfully
BJ

Why would you support a Museum and not a sports stadium?
You cannot have it both ways.

I do have some knowledge of the formula Richardson used, basically a person on the dole received about $60 per week less than a person on the minimum wage, given that the beneficiary did not have to worry about the cost of getting to work they were better off than the worker.

Richardson’s policy was not designed to leave a large section of our people in poverty it was designed to get the buggers off the dole and back to work, to suggest it was criminal is wrong.

Nobody (apart from communists) can argue that the reforms of Douglas and Richardson were not needed, hell even the most ardent commies must admit that the have well and truly lost the economic argument.

The comment about capitalism requiring an unemployed workforce is highly emotive, plainly incorrect and does not help your argument one bit.

We live in a country that spends more on social welfare than we do on education and health and that IS criminal.

You seem to be (and if I am wrong I apologise) of the opinion that these benefits are a god given right, while we do need a safety net for the few genuine cases (about 10% of the current beneficiary level) the rest should be forced into work schemes or enticed through benefit cuts to get a bloody job, it is not benefit bashing at all.

The only cruel aspect of social welfare is when the left keep shelling out money to these people for doing nothing at all, this teaches them nothing but reliance on the state.

So I do indeed thank Ruth and Rodger, without them and their policies we would be a bankrupt nation.

And though it’s somewhat off topic, there needs to be a response. Do you have any idea the formula that Ruth Richardson used to set benefit rates in the ’90s. It was criminal, and destined to leave a large section of our people in long-term poverty. Furthermore, wage-rates, thanks to Ruth and Roger, are not much higher than benefits (when one takes into consideration child-care, travel costs etc) so it is actually not particularly cost-effective for mothers on the DPB for example, to get a job. Oh, and of course capitalism requires an unemployed workforce to function in the interests of the capitalists, so in fact you need those “buggers” there on benefits so capitalism can ensure a low-wage economy. Thanks Ruth, thanks Roger, thanks multi-national corporates. Beneficiary bashing is one of the most cruel, and most logically incoherent, middle and upper-class rhetoric.

Notice nobody has an answer to where the port will go? No the port will stay where it because there is nowhere else.

Public access to the waterfront? Try from Glendowie to Mechanic Bay, Admiralty Steps to the Viaduct Basin, North Head to Long Bay.

Not to mention about thousands of other spots all along the foreshore.
Plus the Tank Farm when Mother Hubbard stops throwing her toys out the cot.

The wharf area is a vital entry point for not just Auckland but the Nation. It will stay there ad infinitum. The area currently used for to store imported verhicles will be needed for future port expansion.

Gerrit, BB… because Gerrit “invited” me to come here and comment. My idea for the stadium was to make it a floating stadium (because then I don’t have to WORRY about what the harbor bottom looks like, we can just cost the structure).

Then during the game we could tow it out to sea.

My second idea was to let them play in Christchurch, where a decent Stadium already exists and there’s a plan to build the thing up anyway.

I have watched in awe as this nation which has argued itself into stasis for 27 years to try to work out whether to build a single decent route in and out of the capital found itself in possession of a Rugby World Cup match and decided that a Price No Object stadium with no finalized design, no site review, and no analysis of the displaced activities could be funded for the Auckland waterfront in less than 27 days. Clearly the way to get Transmission Gully built was to put a Rugby Stadium in Paraparaumu.

I have little use for Rugby, and even less for such decision making processes… as the inevitable waste and error is so pronounced.

But back to the question of the port…. the people of Auckland live in a port city. The wharves are a part of what makes it viable, but there are precedents for doing the dredging and changing the layout to accomodate other uses.

I would be loathe to spend money on this at present however, as there is ample reason to expect that ships and shipping are going to rise in importance in the future, as aircraft and air freight decline. This is wrapped up in the price of Jet Fuel… not just the carbon issue, but the overall price of high quality hydrocarbon and overall efficiency of the transport mode. Peak Oil is going to drive us back to efficient transportation.

In short, I wouldn’t give up the wharves just yet. Taking ships to Sydney and the train to the Gold Coast isn’t all that popular for the vacation crowd, we haven’t slowed down enough to have 2 days of travel time locked into our itineraries, but that time will IMHO come.

Greens didn’t want that stadium plan for a wide range of reasons. I was however, gobsmacked by the 27 years to 27 days ratio of decision time… and not impressed with either extreme.

respectfully
BJ