If common sense saved us from the capital gains tax, then hopefully it'll save us from the excessive reaction to the Christchurch attack.
I laughed when I saw Winston Peters trying to explain that the demise of the tax wasn't really his idea, he muttered something about lack of public support, which of course is true. But his attempt to pretend that it wasn't him and him alone that finished it, will be exposed next year in the election campaign when he travels the country extolling the virtues of his party's moderating influence. Just listen out for phrases like "if it wasn't for New Zealand First, a capital gains tax would be a reality," or, "Labour wanted it, we didn't".
There will be similar lines about the Provincial Growth Fund, as they desperately fight to distance themselves from a Labour Party that has looked at times ill-prepared, disorganised, and ideologically driven as opposed to logically driven.
Which brings us to the Crusaders.
Our response to Christchurch seems to have been praised almost universally around the world.
Jacinda Ardern is a compassionate, likeable, engaging and open-hearted leader who perhaps in those dreadful days post March15 had the finest moments of her premiership, not just at that point in time, but most likely ever.
It was the part of the job she is a natural at.
But knowing when to move on is an art, and if there is a criticism in our response, it is the simple truth that we might just have spent too much time and too much energy not moving forward and the Crusaders debacle exemplifies this.
No one — literally no one — was talking about the connection to the Crusaders, and religion, or history and what it may or may not mean.
The same way the Highlanders are a team, not marauding killers.
The Hurricanes are a team, not a massive destructive weather system.
The Chiefs are a team, not an insensitively, culturally inappropriately named mistake.
But despite that, we somehow, as part of the Christchurch reaction, busied ourselves looking for things to do, to somehow appease ourselves, or explain to ourselves how something could have gone so catastrophically wrong.
The gun reform seemed broadly supported, despite the fact we still don't know the cost, or the mechanisms of destruction, or how many guns will ever be handed in, versus not handed in.
The social media backlash turned out to be the virtue signalling waste of time we predicted.
Open letters from corporates, suspension of advertising from big business on digital platforms - who would've been more productive being leaders rather than spineless second guessers freaking out about what everyone thought of them - went exactly nowhere.
What too many failed to do, was learn from the overseas experiences.
Norway, post Anders Behring Breivik, actually used Breivik's name, published his manifesto, and held an open court case, and as a result felt they'd done the right thing.
We have done the opposite.
And with the Crusaders we have taken something that had nothing to do with a massacre, and decided to heap it on the pile of issues that must be addressed in such circumstances.
When I say "we" I don't mean me, or as it turns out (thank the good lord) the vast majority of everyday, regular New Zealanders who, if the people who ran this place were smart, would listen to more often.
Regular middle New Zealand has an unshakeable sense of right and wrong and what's logical and sensible and what isn't.
And changing the name of a rugby team for no result or purpose is one of those things we seem to agree on.
So why is it still a debate? Why is it still an option, why still, according to NZ Rugby, still likely?
Because those who make the calls in this country too often don't listen, forget logic, don't back themselves, and as a result make bad calls for politically correct reasons.
The poll on 1 News this week says it all, and is all the proof you need. Seventy-six per cent don't want the name changed.
We, the 76 per cent, are right.