Feedback: On LAV3s & Welfare Dependency
In This Edition: Govt On Notice Over LAV3s – Welfare Dependency Homegrown
On Notice Over LAV3s
The general election and the "hidden agenda' make it most important that we give certain warnings to aspiring leaders. To this effect, I wish to make it known that the next Government must not proceed with the purchase of the LAV 3 personnel carrier for the Army without first having completely reviewed its suitability. If they proceed with this purchase and the predictable injuries and deaths occur because of the LAV 3 design faults, I will ensure that a civil case is taken out against both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence for their negligence.
Copious amounts of information have been published about this vehicle and much of this has been made available to Mark Burton on a number of occasions. He has chosen to ignore the advice. The arguments are far too complex for a letter like this, but suffice to say that the vehicle is not amphibious, it is unstable in off-road conditions, it is difficult to maintain, and it is extremely expensive. It would start injuring or killing people in peacetime activities, and in wartime it would be a disaster.
We should both expand and upgrade our M113 fleet, or choose something more suitable. Let the politicians be on notice - we will hold them responsible for their decisions.
Welfare Dependency Homegrown
Like Anne Else, who bitterly criticises last weeks Assignment programme as a "pathetic excuse" for a documentary, I too am "fed up to the back teeth with welfare dependency." She calls the term 'welfare depency' imported socio-economic junk. The term might well be but the problem it describes wasn't - we grew it right here in New Zealand starting with the introduction of the DPB.
I wonder what Anne's vision for New Zealand is? Would she prefer it if ever more children were brought up in single parent homes? I suppose she would shudder at the idea that marriage is the best way for parents to avoid poverty. Feminists generally do and that's fine, but don't make it somebody elses problem.
In an attempt to economically justify welfare she talks about how much beneficiaries put back into the economy. That money they put back is taken from those who could also have put it back by using it to invest in New Zealand and to produce jobs.
But I forget - Anne doesn't like work as a solution. In saying so, she is doing many single parents, who would jump at the chance to provide a better future for their children, a grave disservice.
In Anne's world of the "unfortunate and downtrodden", people do not possess self-will, they do not control their lives and when they dare to challenge her thinking, as did the single mother who got a job, she calls them 'smug'. Of course, if everyone used their initiative like this parent, we would'nt have 'welfare dependency' and Anne wouldn't have anything to bang on about. And neither would I.
The difference is Anne Else would miss it and I wouldn't.