When I lived in Cambodia, we used to get university text books printed in India for next to nothing. The publishers - O'Reilly, McGraw-Hill, No Starch Press etc used to licence the content to Indian publishers for a nominal fee, and charge people in western countries $100-150 per copy. It was the only way most Indians would be able to afford them. And the publishers wouldn't have sold a lot of copies at the western price.

Then US college students started ordering their own copies from India over the internet, so the publishers pulled the plug on the whole programme.

Steffan Browning is the reason I, for the first time since 1990, won't be voting Green next time. I had my doubts last time, and did consider Mana. Labour - well, they haven't filled me with confidence - but Andrew Little seems to be doing a good job.

I ranked Browning last on the list before the last election, but he must have enough support in the Green Party to get back up near the top. Since then he has supported the use of Homoeopathy to cure Ebola, he's tried to get Seralini invited to address parliament and in the last Te Awa has said we have to get away from the mantra of evidence based medicine.

I don't know if the Greens know how damaging Browning and his ilk are to the Green Party. I am pretty sure Kevin Hague and the other leadership contenders, most of the MPs in fact, don't agree with him, but they are too gutless to do anything about it. They say - quietly - he doesn't represent party policy. A bit like the French National Front disowning Jean-Marie Le Pen. Of course the FNP aren't racist. Anymore.

They keep going on about reaching out to women, Maori and Pasifica people - they still seem to think these people can't do science or something. Obviously reaching out to people with science backgrounds won't work. Imagine going to a meeting with a bunch of people who think you are involved in conspiracies to give kids autism, poison them with fluoride, mutate them with GMO's, keep them sick with dangerous drugs - and then tell you to trust the science on climate change, and to embrace smart technologies. Think you'd want to join? Obviously Pharmacists wouldn't have a problem - they already deal in quack medicines.

In economics, politics, sociology and so on, you can always find an example to support your case. You can't go back and say 'lets run that experiment again, but with a different interest rate' or whatever.

But with science, you have to argue that for decades, scientists have been engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth. You know, that's what's wrong with the CIA and the SIS. Not enough scientists. Those scientists really know how to keep a secret. No leaked memos, no hacked emails, no insiders blowing the whistle. Only the Wakefeilds and Seralinis and Monktons, the Dr Ozs, Food Babes and the Health Rangers.

I didn't do a lot for the Greens in the last election - but maybe it was enough to get Browning back in. Sorry. Thing is - if they get another 10%, who else is there on the list? Will we get aromatherapy and iridology covered in the health budget? If ACT could get 'charter' schools, why not? Or bans on WiFi in Schools?

Who knows what they'll want to do. We didn't know what Labour wanted to do in 84, either. Once bitten ....

Wow - who is saying that? Who has even suggested that? Anybody? No. You just want imply anybody who thinks we should be proud of our country wants to go back to the 50's.

The more I have seen of the world, the more I think we should be proud of what our country has done. We shouldn't try to hide all the stuff we got wrong either, but remember and fix what we can.

I know I wasn't personally responsible for our democratic system and universal suffrage, but I did play a part in getting MMP, and without the former, we could not have the latter.

I don't see why we can't be proud of good things our country has done. Seems a bit like those people who, if you commiserate with their poor fortune by saying sorry, reply 'why? it wasn't your fault'. No - it wasn't, but that does not make me indifferent.

We're all proud of things we don't have a lot of control over. We feel loyalty to schools we no longer attend and fund raise so our children's schools can build things after our children leave. We're proud when a New Zealand author wins a prize, or the Hollywood financed film of a British book set in a mythical world does well overseas, or when someone whose parents brought her to New Zealand when she was five is the best in the world at knocking a ball into a hole with a stick.

None of it makes sense. Well, with the amount of state funding that goes into stuff like that, I guess we are a bit responsible :-)

To argue we shouldn’t is to argue we are rational - good luck with that.

BTW "It ought to be deeply impressed on the minds of all who have voices in this national deliberation, that no man can deserve a seat in parliament, who is not a patriot. No other man will protect our rights: no other man can merit our confidence." Samuel Johnson. Pre feminism, obviously.
http://www.samueljohnson.com/thepatriot.html

The BBC News Quiz said the Clarkson incident happened after a long day filming 'Last of the summer wine'

A coaches job is to win games. If the rules are such that a particlar style of play increases your teams chances of winning, then that is what you coach and how you play. If the allblacks had lost the world cup, no one would have said at least it was an exciting game. They'd have wanted his head on a plate.