It's OK to henpeck and ridicule men

I just watched a SUBWAY TV advertisement for some new healthy product which is "girlfriend approved". For chrissakes. I immediately said to my daughter, do you want to be  the gatekeeper of what your boyfriend eats?

Men have always been hen-pecked but why make it standard operating procedure? Oh, but I forget.

A major newspaper recently crowed over  women now being smarter than men.

I can't help but notice that when IQ differences between ethnicities are suggested, all hell breaks loose. But claim a difference between genders, ie men are 'dumber', and that's fine and dandy. Imagine an equivalent headline to the linked story, "Sorry Whites, Blacks are smarter."

Why are sensitivities about ethnicity - fizzing amongst feminists especially -  absent  for gender?

I don't really care if Subway want to advertise "plus salad in case the missus is looking". It must work for them. It just bugs me that political correctness is applied so selectively. Look at the fuss from the feminists over  the Tui TV ads that have, they say, a "very corrosive effect on women's self-worth". Are they going to get upset about TV ads that make men look incapable of thinking for themselves?

Lazy All Black NZ

I thought NZ women were amongst the most promiscuous in the world. Doesn't sex count as physical activity?


Chart source.

Battles won Banks - not wars

The Social Security (blah, blah, blah) Bill passed yesterday. John Banks spoke (I was going to say on behalf of the ACT Party but not sure if there is one any more).

After summarising ACT's long crusade against welfare (nothing to do with me and everything to do with Muriel Newman)  his closing sentence had my eyes rolling backwards.

This bill is the arrival of that long march, and I am glad to be supporting it as Leader of the ACT Party.

Get off the grass John. This legislation represents some new attempts for New Zealand. It's a date on what will be a very long time-line.

More big beneficiary families needed!

Here's a silly letter if ever I read one:

Where to start (in 200 words or less).

Dear Editor

According to Allan Kirk (Letters, July 19) New Zealand needs more children, so large families born and raised on a benefit isn't a problem. He thinks the Social Development Minister's concern should be the well-being of the beneficiary and her children, not their dependent status. Presumably that means directing rather more resources at families on welfare.  This requires either higher taxes (perhaps from parents limiting their family size to one they can afford)  or less spending elsewhere. As the government is already fighting to stave off a credit down-rating and  disastrous loss of borrowing capacity, it can hardly find millions - or billions - more to meet Mr Kirk's urging.

As it stands children who are raised long-term on welfare, often those in large families, experience inter-generational dependence, particularly  females who go on to repeat their mother's life story. It is welfare dependence that keeps people out of the labour force, non-productive and unable to make a contribution to the upkeep of an ageing population.

It is arguable anyway whether the country needs a higher birth rate to meet future demand. More immigration has got to be a better option than paying people to have children.

DPB income versus working income

I've blogged the second and third graphs for a reader who wants to compare the NZ situation with the US. (Specific data can be found at Work and Income. Basic DPB rate here Accommodation Supplement here and a plethora of extra help here. Then I suppose you will have to get tax rates and WFF tax credit rates from the IRD website.)

The first graph is from the American Enterprise Institute. Two and three are from MSD, NZ. They aren't directly comparable but illustrate the same problem.

 

Welfare reform questions in Parliament yesterday

There were two Parliamentary questions yesterday relating to welfare reform. The first was from a government MP about the youth reforms. Turns out they are seeking to defer the implementation date of legislation. But only slightly. I'm not surprised given the breakneck speed welfare reform legislation has been going through the various processes. Here's a reminder about what the youth reforms do:

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): The bill makes changes to put in place total wraparound support for young people—those who are on benefit and those who are not on benefit—including young teen parents. Currently, we just pay these young people who are on a benefit and leave them to it, with very little follow-up and very little support around them. We are putting a youth provider alongside each young person to support them, manage their benefit, and provide parenting and budgeting assistance, as well as ensuring they are in education, training, or work-based learning.

The second was a cost-quibbling question From Labour. Bennett got a bit stroppy with Ardern:

Jacinda Ardern: Does she have any capacity to fund phase two of her welfare reforms, given Budget documents show that the Ministry for Social Development struggled to fill a $700 million budget shortfall this year, and stated that “the estimated costs of phase two are [even] more uncertain than phase one.”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am delighted that the member is waking up to the fact that these are tough times. Yes, the department has struggled to find $700 million in projected costs from within the department, but we did—but we did—and that has been hard work. We will find the savings that are needed for bill No. 2, because we fundamentally believe that they will make a difference for New Zealanders and their lives and their outcomes. That is what we are working towards.

Meanwhile out of Parliament an accommodation provider is getting stroppy with Bennett:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has been told to "get off her fat arse" and visit a caravan park she complained was unfairly hiking rents for "substandard" accommodation. The Waitakere MP yesterday singled out a caravan park in her electorate - Western Park Village - as "very expensive for what I'm sure most New Zealanders would see as quite substandard living". But the park owner, Darryll Heaven, said they did everything they could for many tenants that were forced upon them by Work and Income. "That is absolute bulls . . . That really annoys me because she won't get off her fat arse - she's only 500 metres away - to come down and see us. We've got a dozen staff and we're working 24 hours a day to control the place. She doesn't understand that and if she thinks we're ripping her off, come and have a look at our bottom line any time she likes."

The man has a preoccupation with bottoms.

To a point the accommodation supplement does act as a subsidy to landlords, but WFF 'top-ups' act as a subsidy to employers. So it is ironic that it is Labour driving a campaign against the AS from this standpoint. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it the left that believe state redistribution is at the heart of a 'just and fair' society? The trouble is they have never been able to figure out how to stop confiscated monies flowing back to source.

US welfare reform loopholes

From The Washington Post and tagged "Big Government" (wouldn't it be great if we had a mainstream newspaper tagging stuff similarly?)


 [The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families bill] incentivized states to create welfare-to-work programs, trying to transition Americans from government dependency to financial solvency.

But states quickly acted to poke holes in that legislation, calling the following activities “work” for purposes of the statute: bed rest, personal care activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight loss promotion, participation in parent-teacher meetings, or helping friends or family with household tasks and errands.

This was idiotic. So in 2005, Congress closed the loophole, over the objections of then-Senator Obama.

Now, Obama has walked back the 2005 legislation, using his Department of Health and Human Services to unilaterally waive those work requirements.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/obama-admin-motivational-reading-journaling-qualify-for-welfare#ixzz20r8QUYay

Judge no dope

The Taranaki Herald had a report that made me laugh out loud. Thought you might enjoy it too.

A Waitara cannabis dealer told a judge he had turned his life around.
Benjamin Teika, 27, spoke directly to the judge yesterday in New Plymouth District Court, saying he was deeply ashamed of his offending, and had taken himself out of Waitara and had been drug-free for 22 days.
"I'm bummed out that I've done this," Teika said.
"You're bummed out that you got caught," Judge Allan Roberts countered, telling him to "cut the waffle".

Success!

Thanks so much everyone for supporting Sam!

She has just found out she is in the Top 4 and will be flying to Christchurch next week for the final judging. One of her designs will be made and modelled and the winner then gets to attend NZ Fashion Week.

It'll be live on the Erin Simpson Show TV2, 4-30pm Tuesday July 24.

Quite an adventure for a 13 year-old who last went on a commercial flight aged three.

Truth Column July 5

My July 5 Truth column is now on-line.

The issue of false rape allegations is a nasty business. FBI data reveals one in four primary suspects is excluded by forensic DNA testing. These cases are circumstantially clear-cut. But what of alleged ‘rapes’ where the act isn’t disputed but consent is? 

More 

More Truth columns here

Great principle - poor application

Great quote from Paula Bennett in the Herald on Sunday about people having large families on welfare :

"There's two words we don't use often enough in this country and that's self-responsibility," Bennett told the Herald on Sunday. "The size of someone's family is their business, so long as they don't expect someone else to pay for it."

Just one problem there. Spot it?