Written off
In writing about the impact of the so-called Spygate matter on relations between the New Zealand and Australian Rugby Unions, your journalist Gregor Paul states, "There isn't much hope it will fix an irreparably damaged relationship". Who says the relationship is irreparably damaged? The coaches? No. The CEOs? No. The players? No.
While it may be fashionable for politicians on the other side of the planet to assume the imaginings in their own head are actually factual, could you please give your writers direction that it's not good journalism, and brings into question whatever else they may write about.
Godfrey Row, Hamilton.
Rebranded
MediaWorks has just knocked Ateed off its perch as, arguably , the worst rebranding exercise in recent times. TV3 has become "+HR=E" which, apart from some momentary fascination, will be written off as another expensive underwhelming PR blunder. The key point of difference was that Auckland's failed new branding, "the place desired by many", costing $500k, was paid for by the ratepayer.
Bruce Eliott, St Heliers.
Perfection impossible
You report on one scholarship student as having gained 100 per cent in a subject. Frankly, this should be impossible. The only subject where accuracy is absolute is mathematics. I have experience (now some 60 years back) when individual marks were published for all students. In that particular year the highest marks by subject ranged from 80 per cent to 86 per cent except for mathematics which was 92 per cent.
I know from my own mark that the 92 per cent had been scaled back from the real 100 per cent achieved by the top candidate. In those days too, scholarships were given out based on the total marks across five chosen subjects and not for single-subject performance.
D. Reid, Cockle Bay.
Fact checking
Speaking to Guyon Espiner on Morning Report on Tuesday, Winston Peters criticised as "unconstitutional" the move by the House Of Commons Speaker to ban Donald Trump from addressing MPs in the chamber. Let us hope that we are not to suffer a barrage of "alternative facts" in our elections this year.
If Mr Peters and other politicians of any persuasion try to mislead the New Zealand public, let us hope that our print and radio journalists have the intellect and courage to challenge them. The failure of their counterparts in the USA to do so in their recent presidential elections is sad.
Peter Michel, Takapuna.
Name the deputy
It seems Labour and the Greens have come to an understanding for this year's general election. Assuming we would be voting for a Labour/Greens alternative government, surely Andrew Little needs to come out and say beyond all shadow of a doubt, the deputy prime minister will be one of the Green co-leaders and definitely not Winston Peters. Then we can concentrate on policy, rather than waste time speculating needlessly on leadership issues.
Brian Marshall, Mt Eden.
Trump's "killers"
Well done Brian Rudman for pointing out that Mr Trump may not be as much of a presidential aberration as first appears.
I would add Indonesia to the well-documented list of countries whose governments were overthrown with direct and covert US support. In the late 1950s the US and Britain gave covert military support to a rebellion in Sumatra and Sulawesi, hoping that this would lead to an end to the rule of Indonesia's President Sukarno.
The military aid was exposed when US pilot Allen Pope was shot down and captured with incriminating documents. He had been conducting air raids over the city of Ambon, killing hundreds of civilians. The US was more "successful" in 1965 and 1966 when the CIA was deeply complicit in killings it depicted as "the worst mass killings" since Hitler and Stalin. The CIA helped General Suharto and his cohorts wipe out their opponents by supplying lists of names of "communists".
The story of Western military aid and encouragement to Suharto's dictatorial regime includes New Zealand. We cheered at the downfall of Sukarno's left-leaning rule, sanitised reports of the killings and took advantage of the Western economic bonanza that accompanied the change.
Maire Leadbeater, Mt Albert.
Why did they go home?
What surprises me about citizens of countries regarded as terror threats being denied temporary entry into the USA, is that those citizens are trying to return from visits to their country of birth. Why would anyone who chose to move to the USA for a "better life" or was accepted as a refugee or asylum seeker, be travelling to a Middle Eastern or African country that is still in a constant state of upheaval, chaos, violence and corruption, along with their very real presence of death cults that are overwhelmingly Muslim?
The grandstanding and ongoing hysteria over a temporary ban of all citizens from the specified countries is just another ridiculous and hate-filled way to denigrate a US President who was democratically elected as per the US Constitution.
Fiona Allen, Papatoetoe.
Trump's law
Your editorial quoted the inspiring statement made by President Trump upon taking office: "Our Constitution is written on parchment but it lives in the hearts of the American people. There is no freedom where the people do not believe in it, no law where the people do not follow it, and no peace where the people do not pray for it." The editorial called that statement "chilling". Again, a negative interpretation is made on all that the new administration aspires to. The written law holds regardless, but how much better when it is also written on our hearts. That's inspiring.
We'll have to wait and see what ultimate law comes forth. In the Clinton Presidency, and also Obama's, exactly the same statements and authority was exercised on the same topic of immigration and breaking of laws. But they were Democrats so no negative judgments were made.
Let's be mature and accept this leader and administration with a positive attitude, and stop the personal agenda-driven attacks. All good leaders in history have never fitted the box. Let's wait and see before casting endless judgment and unkind character analysis, which is based on liberal personal opinion, not fact.
Gabrielle Gregory, Omokoroa.
Waiheke's lot
The Auckland Council charges more rates for our property on Waiheke than for our one in Auckland, despite the fact the Auckland property has a higher CV. I also notice in the rates spending summation that Waiheke owners pay the same amount for transport. I haven't seen any sewer or water reticulation there and very few footpaths adjoin roads on the island. I have noticed they have introduced double-decker buses to negotiate narrow, winding roads and they are wasting further money now by trimming native trees so that these monsters can pass beneath them. Do we really need them?
Bill Duffy, Mairangi Bay.
Vice-regal question
In her inaugural address new Governor-General, Dame Patsy Reddy, displayed a dubious appraisal of the Treaty and its meaning that does not fit well with the objectivity which her role requires. She has subsequently affirmed that bias in her Waitangi address.
After her initial reference to "the unique partnership between the Crown and Maori enshrined in our founding document", I wrote to her Excellency inquiring which of the three clauses of the Treaty mentioned or implied "partnership" and how it was legally and rationally possible for a sovereign to have a partnership with a subject?
A reply from Dame Patsy's secretary, Mr Baughen, ignored the questions. Can she not justify her statements?
Bryan Johnson, Omokoroa.
