Che Clark T-Shirts

Where to buy your 'Free Radical'

I've been asked by a few people who want to pick up a Free Radical from their local bookseller exactly which booksellers carry it, so here's a definitive list from around the country:

CENTRAL AUCKLAND: Borders, Whitcoulls and the Uni Bookshop in Alfred St.
GREATER AUCKLAND: Take Note in Browns Bay and Manurewa; Eastridge Paper Plus; Magazzino in Newmarket and Ponsonby; Mag Nation, St Lukes; Mainly Mags, Remuera; and the Takapuna Magascene.
HAMILTON: Accent Magazines, Alexandra St.
TAURANGA: Mag Addiction, Devonport Rd.
TAUPO: Whitcoulls
WANGANUI: Aromoho Mags, Magzone and Whitcoulls.
FEILDING: Paper Plus
WELLINGTON: Freemans, City Cards and Magnetix in Lambton Quay; Regency Magazines, Willis St; the Johnsonville Whitcoulls; Take Note, Tawa; Freeman's in Molesworth St; and Clarrie's in Post Office Square.
MOTUEKA: Budden's Bookshop.
CHRISTCHURCH: Canterbury Mags and Scorpio Books, Downtown; Borders, Riccarton; Piccadilly, Avonhead; Uni Books, Ilam; Whitcoulls and the Stanmore Book Shop in Linwood; Leslie's Book Shop over in Lyttleton; and the Merivale Paper Plus in Papanui.
QUEENSTOWN: Whitcoulls
DUNEDIN: Paper Plus and Whitcoulls downtown.
INVERCARGILL: Whitcoulls.

If your local isn't in the list, then you can either get them to order in a copy, or download a digital copy. And you can always subscribe, just to make completely sure that you never, ever miss out...

Give yourself a good spanking

The editor of the local newspaper wrote and editorial which was a letter to Sue Bradford with the following sentiments:
On behalf of the fathers of New Zealand, thank you for making us all feel like child abusers . . .

Here is a letter I wrote in reply to his editorial.

I agree wholeheartedly with your editorial to Sue Bradford- but stuff like this annoys me! I live every day fighting evil, legislature like this - stuff that encroaches on the rights of the individual to live how he choses providing he does not use force or fraud upon others, whether I agree with the particular thing or not (it's called a principle). When the bureaucrats hit a nerve with some encroachment on one particular subject that effects somebody (ie the editor,) they jump up and down and make a noise about it! This I call "un-principled." - people who want their freedom on one topic, but are happy to deny others THEIR freedom in something else. The editor does not have the monopoly on this kind of thinking though – it’s quite prevalent these days – that’s why we have a government and a council who SPECIALISE in this kind of unprincipled thought. There is a saying that goes:
First they came for the Catholics, but I wasn't a catholic so I did nothing. Then they came for the Jews, but I wan't a Jew, so I did nothing . . . then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up! The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

So give yourself a good spanking - in private of course, otherwise you could be arrested.

How do you feed a White Elephant?

This is the question raised recently by a local Tauranga man.
No, the answer is not bananas or grass or whatever it is that the common garden elephant eats. The answer is of course RATEPAYERS - oh, and coffee!

The bigger the white elephant, the greater its appetite. Big white elephants need to be thrown more ratepayers than say small ones!

According to Mary Brook and Catherine Thompson - local authorities on white elephants - only 1 cup of coffee a week per elephant is necessary for their upkeep!

Of course, when you are responsible for the health and wellbeing of a veritable HERD of white elephants, you may find yourself running short of sacrificial ratepayers to appease their voracious appetite, and coffee, being the addictive substance it is, 1 cup is just not enough, and soon lets its NEED be felt, and progresses from the casual social tipple to the compulsory FIX (ie I am dying for a cup of coffee.)
Government and Councils appear to be in posession of the largest number of these creatures in captivity, and very seldom willing to let them go, happy to keep throwing them ratepayers, until those remaining squirm and jiggle about to such an extent that they have to take notice of them! At this point the councils usually call for the private sector to get involved.

I have found the best people to be in charge of white elephants are those with a passion and a personal desire to do so – lets call them experts. Those who enjoy pursuing their own pleasures, and pursuits of their own interest are best to leave the feeding of such useless creatures to the experts.

Tauranga Councillor hits nail on head!

A letter to the local newspaper commenting on a column written by one of the councillors.
And at the same time a lesson in the value of money.


I found Councillor Terry Molloys column in the Bay News rather disconcerting, but at the same time he hit the nail on the head with some of his commentary, and I would like to make comment on those things.

First of all I am one of those people who amazes him! - not for the fact that I write probing letters exposing the immoral and un-principled views and demands of the local socialists, but for the fact that I am one who believes council should ONLY be involved in ESSENTIAL SERVICES ie - rubbish, roads and sewage.

Ask any ratepayer what their major concerns are, and these three will pop up because it is in these things the council do not deliver to their employers (ratepayers) the very best they should because they are involved in doing things they SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN - things that private enterprise can do better and more efficiently, and without FORCED responsibility to the ratepayers.

He states he is not an arty person, he is pragmatic grumpy ex rugby playing ex farmer! EXACTLY MY POINT! So what makes him and the other councillors insist on being involved in the entertainment industry? Exactly how are they qualified, and why do they insist on GAMBLING multi-million dollars sums of other peoples money in the entertainment industry?

To know and respect the TRUE value of money it must be earnt. This is the reason these things should be left to the private sector.

Let me explain it this way:



When you spend your money on yourself, you're keen to get the thing you want most at the best price. (Think middle-aged man haggling with a car dealer.)



When you spend your money on other people, you still want a bargain but you're less interested in pleasing the recipients of your spending. (That's why children get underwear at Christmas.)



When you spend other people's money on yourself, you get what you want but price concerns go out the window. (ie Second wives, riding around with the middle-aged men in the expensive car, who shop at MOOCHI (think girl heaven) as this type of spender.)



When you spend other people's money on other people you don't give a damn.

That would be council or government.



So don't blame Terry and his colleagues for your high rates bill. If you want lower rates, you need to wean yourselves off council services and the belief that the answer to every problem is that the council or government ought to "do something". It's not just a case of them doing more with less money. It's about them doing less with less.

When that realisation dawns, you may discover that most things the council can do, you can do better and a whole lot cheaper.

This is a RIGHTS issue, NOT a DRUGS issue

It is proven fact that People will take drugs whether they are banned
or not. If it is nanny states job to protect us all from ourselves,
then she must try doing something else because what she is doing is
and always has, failed miserably. How can she then make them SAFER if
our safety is her prime concern?
Make them legal and regulate them?
Spend our taxes on education rather than prosecuting adults for
crimes against themselves?
- ANYTHING is worth a try as opposed to
continually banging heads against a brick wall time and time again to see if it still hurts!

Dave Ludlows (DRUGARM, Tauranga) disrespect for other peoples rights is troubling!
In a recent letter to the editor he denies that he is a busybody, HOWEVER, The
definition of a busybody is somebody that interferes in the lives of
others who are minding their own business and not harming others, so
if by definition this makes him a busybody, there's nothing I can do
about that. However, there’s something he can do, and that’s to
expend his excess energies on acts that do not contravene the rights
of the individual. May I suggest a campaign using facts and truth, to
educate the public on the effects of drugs, rather than a blanket
ban. Banning BZP will not make it safer, it will make it more
dangerous, and Mr Ludlow should wait for a toxicologists report
before jumping to conclusions about the hospitalised man!
My question
asking for ONE example of a banned substance that has not turned into
a more dangerous, stronger, unregulated, multi-million dollar
business monopoly for the underworld goes unanswered - probably
because there’s NOT one - THIS is how effective prohibition is! I
strongly advocate personal responsibility in healthcare and
education, the implementation of which would give you no cause to
interfere in my life. No drug use is the safest option.
No drug is completely safe. Adults should take drugs only if they
are fully aware of the risks, and are prepared to take
responsibility for the consequences of their actions."
I suggest that there are not enough LEGAL drugs to go about banning
BZP! RITALIN is deemed safe enough to hand out to children like
lollies, why is it not available for adult recreational use?
According to current research from Massey University 1 in 5 NZers
(aged 13 to 45) have used BZP-based party pills - that’s about half
a million adults. A BZP ban will deprive tens of thousands of NZers
of enjoyment. And enjoyment is, after all, one of the things that
makes life worth living. Funnily enough, fun isn’t mentioned once in
the EACD’s report to the Minister.
Now consider THIS:
BZP is on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s banned drug list because it
is a PERFORMANCE ENHANCING drug.
By contrast, alcohol is notorious for being PERFORMANCE IMPAIRING (on
the road, in the bedroom, indeed, everywhere).
Under existing law, discerning drug users are denied the option of
using numerous illegal but safer alternatives to our most popular
recreational drug, alcohol, which causes more hospitalisation and
death than all illicit drugs combined. And, to add insult to injury,
we are denied the benefits of research and development into more
effective and safer recreational drugs. Who would bother to invest in
such research if, as is threatened to happen in the present case of
the industry body STANZ and “party pills”, the fruits of such
efforts are immediately banned?