"How many times in my lifetime am I going to get to Europe? So I thought, 'F*** it, I'm off. I'm off to Paris"

There's a few issues that Harawira needs to know.

First, on his salary, I would imagine that he could afford a trip to European once a year ... or maybe every three years. Maximum. As long as he knows how to save money, he's pretty much fine.

Secondly, the trip was a taxpayer-funded travel for specific purposes ONLY. As a taxpayer, I asked him to go Brussles to represent the country, not to fund to his private travel. Although he paid for his own trip, however, it was at expense of not doing what he was suppose to do.

Thirdly, this MP really needs to learn how to express his feeling in a polite manner that represents the culture of this country.

You know,  I'm really shocked this time. Are those principles that hard to learn and grasp? I mean, even an elementary school student knows these:  don't steal parents' money, complete the school work before having candies, and don't swear.

What is even shocker, is that after reading the Herald's online forum, I realise there is no shortage of people who are actually arguing for these MPs' inappropriate actions.

This country got some serious thinking to do.

But before I go, there are still exams I have to do.

So, the plan is I'll be leaving on 20th November. Before I get home I'll be having a stopover in Shanghai for about 2 weeks. During the period I'll be visiting cities around the area, most likely Hangzhou and Nanjing. Schedule for Beijing is still not yet decided, I'm trying to arrange a trip to North Korea, if it is possible to get into Kim's Realm , Beijing would be part of that trip.

There are several other places like Xinjiang and Taiwan on my list but not planned yet. I highly doubt I'll be able to go as my wallet would unlikely to allow me to do so.

I'll be on my own for most of the time in China, so anyone who would like to buy me a lunch or dinner  will be  much appreciated :)

Base my experience I support this measure. As a still relatively  inexperienced and cautious driver I have never attempted to do either. I don't know how others managed to do two things at the same time, but for me, using cellphone removes my eyes from the road, it's no different than driving blindly. No need to prove how dangerous that is.

However, cellphone really is just part of the problem.  People do and can be distracted by all sorts of things while driving. But most importantly, I usually find that it's where your mind is, rather than where your eyes are that makes the difference. I have found  little evidence shows that such law change can reduce the road toll, but plenty on how bad mood can influence driving performance. Talking over the cellphone, although using the hands-free set, can still take people's mind off the road.

The only solution  that can genuinely reduce the road toll is to ban cellphone use altogether, but no government at its right mind would adapt this measure as it would likely to be very unpopular among voters.

But I was more interested in the role of Chinese government in regard to leaders like the Dalai Lama and Mrs Kadeer.  Kadeer was not a well-known figure before the unrest in Xinjiang in July this year, before that if you refer that name to a Chinese, he or she is more likely to have very little or no knowledge on who she is.

People sometimes joke that Chinese government regularly award two awards that are even more important than the Nobel, namely GFW's Web Choice award and Chinese Government Recommended Award - if you know a website is blocked by the Great Firewall of China, you know it's a website worth to visit. Similarily, if Chinese government blames someone, you know he or she is worth to listen to.

A state like China needs enemies - if you go back in history, at any point of time, Chinese government always propoganda at least one enemy of the state to its people - the Dalai Lama, oversea chinese democracy movement, "oversea anti-chinese forces" and so on.  This is a bit like Bush administration, it's the only way to divert people's attention.

However, for the speech itself, I was in fact quite disappointed. It was a good introduction for her positions on some issues, but nothing else was there but more of a blame game.  I still think that her popularity is largely due to the help for the communist government, in real life, she's no way near the Dalai Lama.

On a completely irrelevant sidenote, Mr English's domestic credit rating has sunk into a new low after the his housing allowance saga.

And here's the list.

10 The Auckland Airport now has a cinnabon
9 We have the loosest slot machines in the Pacific Rim
8 Only a convenient 20-hour flight away
7 It’s like England without the attitude
6 Down there Leno’s on at 9 o’clock
5 Get the whanau together, stay in a bach, crack open the chilly bin and slap on your jandals
4 Visit in the next 30 days, I’ll pick you up at the Airport
3 70% of our energy is generated through renewable hydropower – look they don’t all have to be jokes
2 We drive on the left side of the road, like the British and Lindsay Lohan
1 Unlike most of the world, we still like Americans

Number one is clearly my favourite:)

I have to say that Bradford has been a highly successful parliamentarian. During her service she has managed get three of her private member's bill passed, including raise youth minimum wage in line with adult wage and the highly controversial Anti-smacking bill.

She has been a champion of representing people who usually don't have their voice in the parliament - the young and the unemployed.

And no, I don't regard her as an "extremist" in anyway. She is just simply a woman who has the principle and the guts to stand firm of what she believes. However, her fate was sealed since the anti-smacking bill, only 7 MPs voted against the bill, however, when the tide is turned, it suddenly becomes "Sue's own idea".  In my opinion this is directly responsible for her failed bid of the party leadership - the society is turning right, and her very extreme left image would damage the Green Party.

Of course the name of Wanganui is originated from a Maori word, however, since it has entered general usage in English,  it should not be treated as a  term for an exclusive group.

The name of Wanganui has its value too. It is the reflection of the history of interactions between Europeans and Maori, and the evolution of local iwis. I remember my teacher once said that the pronunciation came from a tribe from South Island, but it's no longer there anymore. This is history too, and the name of Wanganui reflects this fact.

Name change requires a lot of money too, and this country has too many important things to spend money on rather than this. I think a good solution is to make Whanganui a offical Maori name but continue to use Wanganui in general usage. If people starting to like the way it is spelt with h, then change the name. At end of the day, language is the movement of people, not bureaucracies.

So what kind of financial potential a university graduate may possess? In a recently published OECD report (PDF) on education, it is suggested in New Zealand, on average, a male university graduate would earn about NZ$ 170,000 more in his lifetime than those with only high school qualifications.

It may sounds like a lot but it's the earning increased in lifetime. Put that in context of a typical working life of a Kiwi (age 22 - 65), the average increase in wage works out like $80 a week, about 10% - 15% percent increase from the average wage in New Zealand.

Furthermore unless you are lucky enough to have rich parents,  you'll have to pay for your tertiary education nowadays. In my situation, I estimated that I need at least 12 years (4 years university and 8 years full time working) before I can reclaim the amount I invested in education. This estimation is actually too optimistic, as you are less experienced and earn less in first few years.

Inflation would make the repayment a bit faster, thanks to the interest-free student loan.  However, that does not help in the long run as your other costs would also increase.

The return rate for your investment in tertiary education varies, largely depends on how much financial support you get from your parents and the government, but 10% - 20% in the long run should be a pretty accurate estimate. It does not sounds too bad, but there are also risks. It depends the wider economic environment is tied up to your employment status, if you don't work, you no longer receive the return on your investment.

From a pure monetary sense, I would rather invest my money in real estate market than education. However according to MasterCard, there are things in life you just cannot put them in  monetary value. The report suggested three: people with tertiary qualification are generally more healthy, has more interpersonal trust, and are fairly interested in politics.

The bill is not finalised so I'm not going to put it here. You can view the most updated version here. In a nutshell, the bill prohibits a district plan that prohibits tree removing, unless the tree is expressively protected in the district plan.

There are at least several concerns for this.

Firstly central government should not intervene local government businesses at such level of detail. District Plans have to give effects or at least have regard to several national documents, is not that enough? Every part of the country has its unique environment and situation, why the central government thinks it knows better than locals?

Secondly, this bill removes an important mechanism to protect urban enviroment. Environment minister Nick Smith argued that 98% of tree related concents are granted, therefore it is just a waste of time. Now here is an example of incompetency, he seems to forgot that consents can be granted with conditions and modifications.

Thirdly, it is likely to add unnessary workload for local authorities. I do expect an increased number of surveying in order to put more trees in the schedule after the law is passed, but happens for an area of unprotected bush? Waitakere is a good example - scheduling each single tree would be a process that you would never want to do it again.

One curious Chinese bloger wondered, how many days in a year are outlawed by "local laws"? He worte a script and found out that, out of 366 days, 11 of them will result the censorship notice on the search result page, these are:

* 13 January
* 31 May
* 4 June
* 13 June
* 20 June
* 25 June
* 30 June
* 5 July
* 19 September
* 13 Octorber
* 18 December

The rationale behind some of these censored dates are quite obvious, like 4 June is the date symbolises Tiananmen Square Massacre and the recent riots in China's Uyghur dominated Xinjiang Region started on 5 July.

However, even as a politically minded Chinese, I don't quite get why the rest of dates are considered "sensitive". I checked Wikipedia, there are some past events related to China, however, most of them are quite normal and can be hardly considered as sensitive events.

I actually agree with him this time. In a democracy people should be the utilmate ruler, and a binding referendum provides a check on politicans, preventing them from forgetting who voted them in the first place.

However, in order to make the referendum binding, there are some criteria the referendum you have to meet first - the most obvious one - people ought to at least know what it binds for. The last referendum question is by no contest, the worst example of this.

It was very clear from the start, Mr Baldock hijacked the smacking issue for his own political gains, and this time he didn't even bother to hide his intention - he wants the referendum to coincide with the next general election.

That's why a third player is needed.

I just browsed through 2 degrees mobile's pricing plan,  it's clear that they are targeting  low volume users just like me for now, and the pricing is very impressive in most areas, although there is still a gap to catch up with the rest of the world, but hey, somebody has to make a start.

The only downside is the expensive data charge, 50cents/mb. However, I would expect a data plan to come out pretty soon. Before that I'll keep two numbers.

I ordered the  promotional free SIM with $5, and can't wait to have it now.

BTW, The Herald has compiled an excellent table showing duopoly at work(PDF).

The Weatherston case is likely to be one of such cases. There is clearly a logical fallacy here, Weatherston used, or abused the availability of  provocation as a defense, doesn't necessarily mean provocation defence  is flawed - in fact, I could argue this in the exactly opposite way, it has  proved that the defense is very reasonable and not accessible to people who want to get away with what they have done - therefore Weatherston failed.

There is no doubt to me that provocation is a geniune defence, I consider myself a pretty quiet and calm person all the time, but just like everyone else, I sometimes can lose my mind too.  Current law requires jury to assess whether the evidence could prove a "reasonable man" could be provoked, I think that's pretty much about right - no person at his/her right mind yell to others "come and kill me", however, imagine if one constantly abuses both physically and verbally, overpowered you,  and protection order does not work, are you still feeling confident that you won't lose your mind?

The defence in the Weatherston case, did not only argue the provocation, but also by paint Weatherston as a person with mental problems. This could be a even stronger arguement, however, 200+ cuts clearly do not qualify as a man who  temporarily lost self control, and that did not pass the jury.

This has happened to generations of immigrants, even if they are already a proud NZ citizen - this is one of the things that makes you feel not that proud of your choice.

I don't really want to label it racism, but look at what happens when the tide is turned:  The new "Kiwi first" employment policy means a Japanese restaurant owner cannot recruit chefs from Japan because there already are people with "appropriate" skills available in NZ.  According to the report,  people with "appropriate skills" meaning they need to learn the difference between sushi and sashimi on job.

And yet many "Kiwis" are moaning in the discussion forum, saying people deserve a chance to learn, asking why don't they train kiwis on job?

The rumours that Asian people only employ Asian employees are totally untrue, at least in the Chinese community I know of. There is golden rule for any Chinese entrepreneur who wants to start a business here - a Kiwi receptionist is a must.  This is not because Chinese entrepreneurs cannot pass NCEA leavel 1 English, but people out there just don't want to deal with businesses that are not owned by "one of them".

Any employer would prefer people with local experience and knowledge while having suitable skills, however, if they cannot find any here, they ought to be allowed to employ from oversea. If my memory serves me right, it was this government which wants NZ to increase its productivity and become a global economy - not.

It is significantly improved, according to many sources. A copyright tribunal is proposed to deal with the judicial and punishment issues, and alhtough the three strikes policy is still there, the details are quite different now. I've reduced it two three steps, for details, see the excellent analysis from the Creative Freedom Foundation.

Phase 1 - First Infringement and Cease and Desist Notice Procedure

Phase 2 - Obtain Copyright Tribunal Order to get infringer's details

Phase 3 - Copyright Tribunal decision

Creation of the copyright tribunal significantly improves the fairness of the whole process, however, I am still very disappointed that termination of Internet access remained as a punishment.

Access to Internet, in my opinion, is a fundamental human right in this digital age, people who lacks the full and free Internet access will be significantly disadvantaged in the society.Internet access should be regarded as part of the freedom of communication, which is a concept in many written constitutions.

Such termination is not in the spirit of a free, democratic society - This is why we are so against Internet censorship, especially the Great Firewall. The termination is even worse than that, which the citizens' right to communicate is not just being impeded, but denied in full.

The document is open for consultation, submissions are open until 5pm Friday 7 August.

In the interview, Mr Xue, now resides in Mt Eden Prison waiting for the sentencing, still insists his innocence and  believes someone else killed his wife, Anan Liu. During the interview he described the NZ police as "stupid" and "inefficient" for the obvious reason, which I kind of agree.

There was a lengthy conversation on His life with Anan Liu.  Xue  insists that he loved Anan Liu, and thinks she is still alive and dreamt her a lot even after he was arrested.

However, one specific part caught my attention - Xue mentioned an incident where he "accidentally"  threw a cellphone at her caused her nose to bleed. Liu immediately fled and reported to the police from her neighbour's house.  Xue "hated" what she did because he thinks that was "nothing big", and she lied to the police saying Xue abused her frequently. Mr Xue says "it happens in Chinese families everyday", and New Zealand "over-protected" women's rights.

What do you think? I know what I think, now I really don't have any sympathy left for him.

The rest of the conversation included details of his life in U.S. and in the cell, check the Chinese script if you are interested. I cannot translate the whole article due to copyright restrictions.

The related story can be found here.

He was a loner in later part of his life, but it's not entirely his fault, a childhood full of unhappiness and sorrow, behind the shine of a star, I don't think he had a fortunate life, and that incomplete life eventually leads all the weird things happened at the later stage.

Death is not an end, as Madonna says, his music will live on forever. It's also kind of relief for him, he is now free from encumbrances in this world.

Rest in Peace, Michael Jackson.

If you enter this world knowing you are  loved & you leave this world knowing the same,then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.

Michael Jackson

The fundamental problem of child abuse is the parents, not the law nor the children. I could still recall that some of people who oppose the bill even made a personal threat to the Green MP Sue Bradford: that left you wondering, if they don't even treat a human being, an adult in a proper manner, how do you expect them to take care of their children?

However, for this referendum, there is another problem, the question used for voting:

Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

I'm not quite sure who was behind the basis of this question,  Clerk of the House finalised the question but I guess the basis of the question was the work of  some Christian fundamentalists, but I mean, can it get any more stupid  than this? This question carries a clear presumption that smacking (at least some kinds of smacking) is "good parental correction" - well if so, then what heck we are debating about? Should a good thing be criminalised? It's a no brainer question, even I can write something better than that:

Should the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (Commonly known as the "anti-smacking legislation") be repealed?

That's the root of all the fuss is it?

I (and many others) actually believe that smacking is not a tool parents should be used to teach their kids as it is inherently bad,  but if the currently adapted question is being asked in the referendum, there is no way I could tick either yes or no. For that reason, I will not be voting in this referendum.