Oh really. The push to extend Paid Parental Leave just got sillier. UnitedFuture say that as research shows breastfeeding increases IQ, mothers should be paid to stay home and do just that. I wonder if they are going to demand that breastfeeding become a requirement for receiving existing PPL? Or that receiving the DPB makes breastfeeding mandatory? And for how long?
Well, as you brought it up UF, what about the heretical idea that those most able (financially and emotionally) to raise children might be the ones with higher IQs and a mother's IQ is an important factor in determining the child's? It's not an implausible idea. Of course nobody dare say so. Except that mad professor who thought we should put contraceptives in the water supply so people who wanted to become parents would need to take a positive action instead of just drifting into it with no thought as to who would pick up the tab, resulting in a bias towards the uneducated.
The best family policies should be the same as the best policies for individuals - low flat tax, choice in education and tax rebates for health insurance.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
John Key - "It's inevitable"
I have only caught snippets of the firework debate on talkback radio, but the strong impression I get is fireworks are polarising people. The PM's edict that they would be banned from sale to the public if people didn't behave (and her accompanying remarks about Khandahar) have got right up people's noses. You can't overstate the effect seemingly small matters can sometimes have. Banning fireworks is one of those camel's back issues which stirs up disproportionate resentment because it is just one more instance of being dictated to.
On Breafast Telly this morning Paul Henry asked National leader, John Key, whether fireworks would be banned. Key's response went some thing like,
Fireworks have given many families a lot of fun over many years. There are lots of good memories tied up with them. There's the odd rogue causing trouble but it seems in this country we are hell bent on banning everything that's fun when there is risk involved in lots of things....
(This is sounding promising I think)
"....but I'm afraid it's inevitable."
WHAT??? You want to be the Prime Minister of this country John. You tell us what you really think, tell us that banning fun has gone too far and that we are all punished for the sake of few bad eggs and then, that you are going to continue to let it happen.
Why not say it won't happen under any government I am leading? What's wrong with you?
Sitting on the frigging fence all the time.
On Breafast Telly this morning Paul Henry asked National leader, John Key, whether fireworks would be banned. Key's response went some thing like,
Fireworks have given many families a lot of fun over many years. There are lots of good memories tied up with them. There's the odd rogue causing trouble but it seems in this country we are hell bent on banning everything that's fun when there is risk involved in lots of things....
(This is sounding promising I think)
"....but I'm afraid it's inevitable."
WHAT??? You want to be the Prime Minister of this country John. You tell us what you really think, tell us that banning fun has gone too far and that we are all punished for the sake of few bad eggs and then, that you are going to continue to let it happen.
Why not say it won't happen under any government I am leading? What's wrong with you?
Sitting on the frigging fence all the time.
Deaths etc
Have you noticed that the Death Notices section of the newspaper has decreasingly become a place to notify a death to the public and increasingly a place to send messages to the dead? A feature of the secular world no doubt. Similarly funerals seem to be an opportunity to make lavish displays of caring after the fact with names emblazoned on garments and probably newly on the skin under them. Whatever.
None of which has much to do with what I wanted to comment on.
A Lower Hutt man died on Saturday morning. There was a small piece in the DomPost and numerous death notices. According to the link he was assaulted by a woman with a blunt instrument.
Now one can only assume she was his partner. That being the case, where is the outcry about violence towards men? Why haven't the media dug up the statistics about how many women assault men each year? Where are the many stopping violence networks now?
Personally I am pleased that the case has remained low key. It's a tragedy for his family and should be left at that. But I can't help reflecting on the resounding absence of the anti-violence advocates when the boot is on the other foot.
None of which has much to do with what I wanted to comment on.
A Lower Hutt man died on Saturday morning. There was a small piece in the DomPost and numerous death notices. According to the link he was assaulted by a woman with a blunt instrument.
Now one can only assume she was his partner. That being the case, where is the outcry about violence towards men? Why haven't the media dug up the statistics about how many women assault men each year? Where are the many stopping violence networks now?
Personally I am pleased that the case has remained low key. It's a tragedy for his family and should be left at that. But I can't help reflecting on the resounding absence of the anti-violence advocates when the boot is on the other foot.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Melbourne Cup picks
Last year I was certain Poprock would win and barely looked at the rest of the field. In any event it came second. This year I am less certain but going for Master O'Reilly. I backed him in the Cauldfield when he won so will stick with him.
But as my track record is coming second I will throw in a few more. In a half boxed trifecta I'll include Princess Coup (go Noel Harris at 52 years-old), Tungsten Strike who has been running well over distance at Goodwood carrying much higher weights and finally a NZ roughie, Dolphin Jo, with good dead track form, has placed over the two miles and is ridden by one of only 2 female jockeys, Clare Lindop.
Good luck if you are having a bet.
But as my track record is coming second I will throw in a few more. In a half boxed trifecta I'll include Princess Coup (go Noel Harris at 52 years-old), Tungsten Strike who has been running well over distance at Goodwood carrying much higher weights and finally a NZ roughie, Dolphin Jo, with good dead track form, has placed over the two miles and is ridden by one of only 2 female jockeys, Clare Lindop.
Good luck if you are having a bet.
The Phelps family and the right to free speech
CLS has a very thought-provoking post about the odious Phelps family who are thanking god for dead soldiers at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because it is god's punishment for the US not stoning homosexuals to death. The post is a discussion of the weakness of libertarian principals in allowing free speech carte blanche. One soldier's family sued this sick group and a jury have found for the family under the offence of causing emotional distress.
CLS says;
I don’t want emotional distress to be used easily to stifle the free speech of others. It is too easily abused. Anyone can claim distress and this would hold rights ransom to the emotionally weakest member of a community.
There is no hard and fast definition of what constitutes 'emotional distress'. But left to a jury, if you believe the jury system is the best justice process we have (like democracy as a governance process - not perfect but the best we have), then you may be grudgingly happy for the right to free speech to be tempered with the possibility of a group of your peers subsequently finding the content caused 'emotional distress' and fining the offenders.
The offenders ability to speak is not taken away but they risk paying a price. This may curtail the likes of this very ugly group.
Certainly this is not a risk-free answer (to either the individual or society) but again it may be the best available. We live in a dynamic and evolving world and what works today may not work tomorrow. That's life. And I don't mean that flippantly.
CLS says;
I don’t want emotional distress to be used easily to stifle the free speech of others. It is too easily abused. Anyone can claim distress and this would hold rights ransom to the emotionally weakest member of a community.
There is no hard and fast definition of what constitutes 'emotional distress'. But left to a jury, if you believe the jury system is the best justice process we have (like democracy as a governance process - not perfect but the best we have), then you may be grudgingly happy for the right to free speech to be tempered with the possibility of a group of your peers subsequently finding the content caused 'emotional distress' and fining the offenders.
The offenders ability to speak is not taken away but they risk paying a price. This may curtail the likes of this very ugly group.
Certainly this is not a risk-free answer (to either the individual or society) but again it may be the best available. We live in a dynamic and evolving world and what works today may not work tomorrow. That's life. And I don't mean that flippantly.
Punish the poor
Funnily enough I was going to blog something on this yesterday. When I was looking at the alcohol consumption figures I ntoiced these interesting graphs;
So I was not surprised to read in today's NZ herald,
Smokefree Coalition director Mark Peck said the survey showed the need to raise taxes on roll-your-owns.
Tax is based on the weight of tobacco. Roll-your-own cigarettes average only half the weight of tobacco in ready-made cigarettes.
Mr Peck said roll-your-owns' share of the tobacco market had risen as a result from 30 per cent to 48-49 per cent, while ready-made cigarettes had dropped to 43-44 per cent, with pipe smoking accounting for the balance.
In my experience, most low-income people smoke roll your owns. I don't mind that they do because being around rollies is far less unpleasant than being around tailor-mades. Puny things that emit little smoke when they are actually alight. Much of the time they are not. But they seem to satisfy the craving for tobacco.
But here we go again. An ex-Labour MP wants to punish the poor - for their own good you understand. "You can't have your pleasures, only the rich, the elite can." Shades of JIm Anderton's sherry debacle.
The result will be a burgeoning black market, more exposure to other drugs and more crime.
As Will De Clene pointed out yesterday and Bruce Robertson is echoing in the Herald, people won't be told what to do when it comes to personal habits. They will rebel. Governments should just get over it and start thinking about how a little less economic bullying and nagging might produce a better result.
So I was not surprised to read in today's NZ herald,
Smokefree Coalition director Mark Peck said the survey showed the need to raise taxes on roll-your-owns.
Tax is based on the weight of tobacco. Roll-your-own cigarettes average only half the weight of tobacco in ready-made cigarettes.
Mr Peck said roll-your-owns' share of the tobacco market had risen as a result from 30 per cent to 48-49 per cent, while ready-made cigarettes had dropped to 43-44 per cent, with pipe smoking accounting for the balance.
In my experience, most low-income people smoke roll your owns. I don't mind that they do because being around rollies is far less unpleasant than being around tailor-mades. Puny things that emit little smoke when they are actually alight. Much of the time they are not. But they seem to satisfy the craving for tobacco.
But here we go again. An ex-Labour MP wants to punish the poor - for their own good you understand. "You can't have your pleasures, only the rich, the elite can." Shades of JIm Anderton's sherry debacle.
The result will be a burgeoning black market, more exposure to other drugs and more crime.
As Will De Clene pointed out yesterday and Bruce Robertson is echoing in the Herald, people won't be told what to do when it comes to personal habits. They will rebel. Governments should just get over it and start thinking about how a little less economic bullying and nagging might produce a better result.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Crisis? What Crisis?
Did you know that if you consume half a bottle of wine with dinner over a period of 8 years you could damage your brain?? Even social drinking puts you at risk of brain damage!
785,000 New Zealanders are at risk!! There is going to be a crisis in the health system!!!
Breakfast telly are reporting, "Shocking health findings"!!
"It's critical New Zealand wakes up to an issue that will become a major crisis in the next 20 years, with health services being swamped with people with alcohol-related brain damage."
In 1986 there was a 'crisis' too.
It was reported that, "380,000 people in New Zealand have had psychiatrically classifiable alcohol abuse and/or alcohol dependence at some time in their lives. An additional 17 percent (more than 340.000 New Zealanders) were problem drinkers at some time in their lives," and, " In New Zealand problem drinking is a major public health issue. "
No doubt health services would be swamped in the next twenty years!
785,000 New Zealanders are at risk!! There is going to be a crisis in the health system!!!
Breakfast telly are reporting, "Shocking health findings"!!
"It's critical New Zealand wakes up to an issue that will become a major crisis in the next 20 years, with health services being swamped with people with alcohol-related brain damage."
In 1986 there was a 'crisis' too.
It was reported that, "380,000 people in New Zealand have had psychiatrically classifiable alcohol abuse and/or alcohol dependence at some time in their lives. An additional 17 percent (more than 340.000 New Zealanders) were problem drinkers at some time in their lives," and, " In New Zealand problem drinking is a major public health issue. "
No doubt health services would be swamped in the next twenty years!
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Deborah defends Mallard
I confess to some conflict over the Mallard business. On one hand I can see where Deborah Coddington is coming from; on the other, the breathless hypocrisy of a government that constantly condemns the use of physical violence in any situation not condemning Mallard is too much to swallow. So I see where Rodney is coming from.
And he is getting support from another section. I have a couple friends who are not middle-class,not materially well-off or well-educated but usually on to what is happening in the news.
On Friday they took me to the pub to play pool and drink raspberry and lemonade. It was a treat because it was my birthday and I love to play pool. When I arrived at their home one said to me, that Rodney Hide guy is the only one making a fuss about Mallard. I wondered where the conversation would go next. Would he be a jerk or a good guy?
He's right, I was told. Why shouldn't Mallard be treated the same way as anybody else? Why should he get away with it just because he has friends in high places? Shouldn't the law be "one size fits all" it was put to me?
I couldn't argue. But it's par for the course for Labour. Sticking it to the people they purport to be the champions of. The strong steak of anti-authoritarianism that runs among the disaffected 'poor' is only fed by the blatant one-rule-for-you and one-rule-for-meism that is the hallmark of socialists.
And he is getting support from another section. I have a couple friends who are not middle-class,not materially well-off or well-educated but usually on to what is happening in the news.
On Friday they took me to the pub to play pool and drink raspberry and lemonade. It was a treat because it was my birthday and I love to play pool. When I arrived at their home one said to me, that Rodney Hide guy is the only one making a fuss about Mallard. I wondered where the conversation would go next. Would he be a jerk or a good guy?
He's right, I was told. Why shouldn't Mallard be treated the same way as anybody else? Why should he get away with it just because he has friends in high places? Shouldn't the law be "one size fits all" it was put to me?
I couldn't argue. But it's par for the course for Labour. Sticking it to the people they purport to be the champions of. The strong steak of anti-authoritarianism that runs among the disaffected 'poor' is only fed by the blatant one-rule-for-you and one-rule-for-meism that is the hallmark of socialists.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Friday, November 02, 2007
One last 'embellishment' of the truth
Family First
Family First, the 'family values' lobby group, is now a well known name to New Zealanders. But did you know Family First is an Australian political party? I didn't. Here they are in trouble because one of their candidates demanded a Liberal candidate make their sexual preferences public.
I am also left speculating as to whether New Zealand's Family First will register a political party next year.
I am also left speculating as to whether New Zealand's Family First will register a political party next year.
Protection orders
John Key wants to give police the ability to issue temporary protection orders on the spot. Everybody seems to think it is a good idea - the Women's Refuge, the Police Association and civil libertarians. And it's difficult to understand why anyone would deny protection to women and children (or even a man). But here's the sticking point:
In 2005, 4236 people were charged with breaching protection orders.
Is this another instance of doing more of what doesn't necessarily work? Or are breaches a measure of 'success' because they enable the police to then arrest the offender? In which case, why not go straight to an arrest? Instead of a temporary protection order being issued, why not the power to arrest for a temporary period of detention? Isn't waiting for people to breach protection orders a risky business?
And if you can't arrest someone on the word of another why can you issue a protection order? Can't protection orders be provocative and worsen the situation?
Then we have people who abuse the protection order facility already, making false complaints or exaggerated claims. I was told of one woman who routinely picked fights with her partner and then called the cops to 'punish' him. In reality the children were at risk from her - not him.
I am sure this area is a minefield - one which I do not properly understand. Help me out if you can.
In 2005, 4236 people were charged with breaching protection orders.
Is this another instance of doing more of what doesn't necessarily work? Or are breaches a measure of 'success' because they enable the police to then arrest the offender? In which case, why not go straight to an arrest? Instead of a temporary protection order being issued, why not the power to arrest for a temporary period of detention? Isn't waiting for people to breach protection orders a risky business?
And if you can't arrest someone on the word of another why can you issue a protection order? Can't protection orders be provocative and worsen the situation?
Then we have people who abuse the protection order facility already, making false complaints or exaggerated claims. I was told of one woman who routinely picked fights with her partner and then called the cops to 'punish' him. In reality the children were at risk from her - not him.
I am sure this area is a minefield - one which I do not properly understand. Help me out if you can.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Tim's off
Labour MP, Tim Barnett has had enough. To his credit, at least one could enter into a dialogue with the man.
From banning Halloween....
Those poor Russians just can't have any fun. Now state education authorities are banning Halloween celebrations from school.
....to NOT banning smacking
Reuters is reporting,
"British parents will not be banned from smacking their children, the government said on Thursday, despite pressure from campaigners who say it is ineffective and sends mixed messages.
Under current British law, parents are allowed to administer corporal punishment to their children as long as they do not leave bruises, grazes or swelling.
Ministers said the law in England and Wales will remain unchanged after a review found that most parents do not want a complete ban on corporal punishment."
It would appear that Britain is more democratic than NZ. Then again maybe the only difference is they don't have Sue Bradford. Perhaps they would like her?
"British parents will not be banned from smacking their children, the government said on Thursday, despite pressure from campaigners who say it is ineffective and sends mixed messages.
Under current British law, parents are allowed to administer corporal punishment to their children as long as they do not leave bruises, grazes or swelling.
Ministers said the law in England and Wales will remain unchanged after a review found that most parents do not want a complete ban on corporal punishment."
It would appear that Britain is more democratic than NZ. Then again maybe the only difference is they don't have Sue Bradford. Perhaps they would like her?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
