...if the highway doesn't get you first

The media broke into a rash and reached near hysteria level this week with the threat of swine flu, which at these early stages seems a bit of over-reaction.
I know it's probably early days and one should act with caution, but a real major epidemic has killed 14 in the weekend and yet doesn't seem to rate as highly in the headlines as a few school kids with mild flu.
The real epidemic is the loss of 14 citizens who died on New Zealand roads in just a couple of days.
While swine flu has tragically taken a couple of hundred in Mexico, reports are unclear as to what other factors were involved; secondary infections, lack of immediate treatment or whatever.
Facts are: Most other countries with patients testing positive have shown 'mild” symptoms.
I'll stick my neck out and say it doesn't seem likely swine flu will take anywhere near the number of victims that our highways claim; more likely it will be about as dangerous to New Zealanders as SARS, sea level rise, bird flu, the Y2K Bug, and Al Qaeda. All of which, alert readers will know, haven't actually killed anyone in New Zealand.
On the terrorist scale, France rates more highly dangerous than Al Qaeda, have successfully bombed New Zealand and killed a person.
On that basis, perhaps we should be loosening borders for Iraqis, Afghanis and Muslims generally, welcome burkas and stop berets; while turning back anyone from France or those travelling in Zodiacs.
At a time when the media should be focussing on some real issues – such as the road toll or the thousands who die of obesity or smoking – the public seems to have been distracted with media scaremongering on a grand scale.
If we spent as much time thinking about improving our driving as we have thinking about whether we need to wear a face mask, a lot more lives would be saved.
You can only cry ‘wolf' so often. Eventually some real risk will threaten our lives and the message may not have the attention-grabbing impact when it's needed most.
As for Mexicans, a ban on travel is unnecessary. They can't fit through the airplane doorways wearing those hats.

Lights out
Meanwhile, as we all think back to Earth Hour and how we saved (?) the world by actually increasing our power consumption that weekend, it was interesting to hear from an alert reader who popped into the office this week to tell us the street lights have been on for weeks in the day time in Chapel Street.
He's called the council but it appears no-one can remember where the switch is.

Stuck between a poll and a hard place
The result of the TECT poll, which confirms four out of five of the population support the current funding of community organisations, leaves three of the trustees in an odd position. Untenable, even.
The ballot has shown that the vast majority want the status quo, yet there are some trustees whose stated intention, when elected to the post, was to change that.
Now they are saying they'll abide by the wishes of the majority.
How can they justify their position now to those, apparently the minority, who elected them for the opposite purpose?
As I understand it, Trustees Frances Denz, Mark Groos and Ron Scott campaigned on the promise, if elected to the trust, to see ALL profits returned to shareholders. That election result should have been their mandate. With the Trust split between that philosophy and other trustees upholding the current position, the public was called on to vote again, this time a simple poll. Now it seems the public mood is polarised even further to preserving the status quo.

Broken promises
Strange, in tight economic times, you'd think the opposite would be the result – individuals wanting to gain a little more in their pocket.
What these three trustees are saying, basically, is ‘we don't agree that any of the funds should be going to the community, but we'd still like to divvy it up.'
If I was one of those who voted for Denz/Groos/Scott, I'd now be asking: Why are they not upholding the promise for which I elected them? They've rolled over!
Essentially they've made two distinct promises: the first to change the system to give all the money to consumers; the second to act however the majority of consumers wish.
Since the poll shows a clear wish NOT to change, those trustees will be breaking either one promise or the other.
It's a no-win situation because they've put themselves into a state of political hari-kari – torn between honouring their first promise – to the people who voted them in; and the subsequent promise to the rest – the majority – who demand the opposite!

Understanding threat
Consumers really didn't understand the threat to their TECT community golden goose until the gun was pointed to its head, the pot was simmering and the bird was ready for the stuffing. Certainly the community as a whole hadn't thought carefully enough – or had it explained earlier – what the Denz/Groos/Scott influence could have meant to TECT community funding.
Clearly, consumers do now!

What the hhh?
Also in the news, now that the Geographic Board has decided Wanganui needs an H and should be Whanganui.
This is despite a referendum in which four out of five residents like it spelt the way it is. Where does that leave the rest of us?
Here at RR based in Thauranga, we suggest Te Puke also get one, and from here on will be called The Puke.
Now the Geographic Board has started on the North and South Islands, stating that those names are not 'official” and is writing to iwi for suggestions.
We think the North Island should be called the Top Island, the South Island should become the Middle Island and Stewart Island, the Bottom Island.
The Chathams need to be renamed the Islands Off to The Right A Bit.
What is the point of all this renaming? The only sensible renaming would be a new label for the Geographic Board: we suggest, A Bunch of Tax-Wasting Clowns.
brian@thesun.co.nz