Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Readers' Bore-um

Like sands in the hourglass, these are the Views of Idiots:
It was refreshing to view the "pondlife" of Auckland politics from a distance over Easter. The conclusion of a clear-thinking group of Kiwis gathered around the barbecue at Lake Rotoiti on Saturday night was simple: by virtue of self-interest, none of the current mayoral incumbents is eligible for the job at the helm of the Super City.

[...] Barack Obama and John Key have lifted the bar in politics. This is Auckland's opportunity to step up and shine, and here are the people we think have the credentials for the task: Kevin Roberts and Chris Liddell.

Sally Elton, Devonport.
Wow, to be a fly on the wall at that barbecue! I like her ideas so much that I can't see why we don't just appoint Sally and her clear-thinking friends to the role of joint-mayor, especially since I fear that Kevin Roberts and Chris Liddell (the CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi and CFO of Microsoft respectively) may be unwilling to leave their current positions. But Sally is right - Auckland does need to step up and shine. After the inspirational Barack Obama, America's first black president, and the equally inspirational John Key, our first black prime minister, we should not compromise. Let us immediately run a "Your Views" on the topic of who our fantasy mayor should be. My 'vote' is for Zac Efron - he's a dreamboat.

Why do heads of state always have to meet in some huge, over-populated city for their big pow-wows? I suggest that they have a chat with the King of Saudi Arabia and see if they can go out in the desert. There would be no fools causing mayhem. If one did sneak through he would deeply regret it.

Susan Lawrence, Kohimarama.
Yeah, and why is it that thieves don't have their hands chopped off? Maybe John Key could have a chat to the King of Saudi Arabia about that too. But seriously, Susan, you're right. All this democracy and transparency business must stop.

When are Ellis, Workman, Bott, Wilson and their ilk [a ragtag bunch of lawyers and penal reform/civil liberties campaigners] going to describe their group [I don't think they really have a group] correctly: the Council for Criminal Rights, a group with no regard for the actions and consequences of criminals on their victims.

J. Bradley, Christchurch [!]
They could do, but then they might get confused with the other CCR, a group with no regard for the consequences of awesome rock n' roll on music fans.

No comments:

Post a Comment