Wednesday's article was more anti-National crap, especially so in light of the two dairy robberies in Wanganui by trainee gang members from dysfunctional families.
Yes, the Whanganui District Council has agreed to accept a petition on STV provided that it is signed by five per cent of eligible electors. Well done Steve Baron, I guess that this time you will by going for the quantity not the quality you decided was more acceptable in your previous petition.
Hopefully, after attaining this initial milestone you will cease bludgeoning readers with your holier-than-thou imagined expertise. One does not have to have degrees, publish a book and flog Better Democracy NZ to have the ability to think.
- Abridged
D PARTNER, Eastown
Let down by government
If your nearest and dearest are dishonest, lie or deceive you, does that tear at your gut?
So how do you feel when those we employ to care for our country do those things?
When they swear GST will not be raised, but it is; when they line up in some disaster, such as Pike River or the Christchurch earthquakes, assuring those affected they will do their utmost to remedy the damage, almost immediately, then don't ...
In the case of Pike River, they arrived to comfort and confirm they would strive to return those trapped in the mine to their families, while government agencies were preventing action to do just that and then concealing the video footage from the families. It appears to me that they condoned corporate manslaughter.
The Christchurch scenario was similar - photo ops galore, promises pouring forth. Folks waiting years for repairs only to find many of them shonky.
Are you angry at the poverty and homelessness yet? The old adage: "Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do" is an urgent consideration right now.
- Abridged
DENISE LOCKETT, Whanganui
Warning from on high
Why does Paul Brooks ("World to end, again"; September. 8) bother to keep tabs on "Bishop" Brian Tamaki's tweeted sermons? In the macro scheme it is a micro bit.
Bishop Brian's "end times" views are the result of a flawed interpretive method, but that does not mean earthquakes, floods, famines and widespread deception are not signs of something.
If consensus is that man has an impact on climate and his decisions affect the outcome of storms, it is not inconsistent to accept that man's morality impacts his environment.
Almost any conservationist for example, would decry the greed factor that leads to the "rape of the earth".
Natural disasters and social decline prove there is nothing man can build that cannot be shaken. Our own end is always nigh and may even be imminent.
So, why should God's warnings warrant mockery, while climate change doomsayers warnings be heeded? It is certainly not about "the science" because the effects of human moral and material abuse are, I think, generally agreed.
Perhaps the difference is that material annihilation by way of climate collapse is something man retains hope of forstalling to the distant future, and it does not come with moral judgment attached.
The end of the world will come in God's time, he has given no date.
He is not slow about his promise to bring the world, but is restrained, giving people time to repent. Hence warnings.
Paul might be amused by this "sign" that the end is nigh - "that scoffers will come in the last days saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming?'."
I take that as a warning.
- Abridged
JOHN HAAKMA, Whanganui
