Not content with banning the use of benefits for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco some US states are now eyeing gambling. Imagine the outrage in NZ if even the first was proposed (although I am not sure how it is effectively enforced). There would be a vigorous human rights debate calling for beneficiaries to be allowed to spend their money in the same way as anyone else. But there would be no individual rights debate about the philosophical problem of removing one individual's property to furnish the lifestyle of another's.
Welfare recipients have long been banned from using their benefits for alcohol and tobacco. Some state lawmakers are eyeing the vice of gambling, a move some advocates for the poor see as unnecessary and unfair.
More
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Friday, October 01, 2010
I must need rehab
The Manawatu Standard has an interesting piece on Lesley Martin and her continuing advocacy of voluntary euthanasia. She now lives in Ashurst. She speaks about her 15 months in Arohata;
Funny. I'd read a book about crime and drugs any day over a self-help book. And you can give me bulldogs over poetry too. I must need rehab.
"What a pointless exercise. Going to jail didn't change my views. It didn't rehabilitate me. It didn't make me remorseful, make me feel that I would never do it again. If one of my sons was suffering interminably and asked me to assist, I would."
Probably the most useful thing she achieved in jail was cataloguing Arohata Women's Prison's 4000 library books, and guiding some of her fellow inmates to better reading.
"When they first come in, they want books about crime and drugs and bulldogs and demons and dragons. Then you see the rehab start to work, and they'd read Maori culture and mana, self-help books, poetry, books about peace. Nice fiction."
Funny. I'd read a book about crime and drugs any day over a self-help book. And you can give me bulldogs over poetry too. I must need rehab.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Updating artist blog
Updating artist blog. Working yesterday in Tawa, nothing gives me more pleasure than school kids getting excited about what results can be achieved with a few pastels. A couple of ten year-olds chatted at length (how can you see green and purple in a dog? How do you make things look near and far?) and then left, armed with tips and insights, to hopefully try drawing their own black labrador. Increasingly I am thinking about teaching but need to explore possibilities. Not being academically trained I don't want to pass on bad habits. But I keep getting asked if I do give lessons and hate saying 'no'.
Here I started with an error. I used the side of the paper with bolder texture. But whenever I make a mistake I persevere to see what can be salvaged.
Here I started with an error. I used the side of the paper with bolder texture. But whenever I make a mistake I persevere to see what can be salvaged.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
US - soaring costs of anti-poverty programmes
This table is from the Cato blog.
Obviously the deep US recession has contributed to soaring costs but those areas equivalent to the DPB (TANF), IB abd SB (SSI) are reasonably contained. That is because there is a much stronger focus on providing assistance in kind rather than in cash.
And Medicaid, public health provision for uninsured low income working age Americans, makes up most of the absolute increase (contrary to what many leftists believe - that there is no public health provision in the US). The figures relate only to federal spending. States spend on their own anti-poverty programmes. In the case of TANF, from memory, spending equates to around 70 percent of what the federal government puts in.
A comparison to NZ is difficult.
Cash spending (minus Super) has risen from $7.8 to $12.9 billion (non inflation adjusted) but it is impossible to extract health spending on low income families alone. Housing (not including the accommodation supplement which comes under cash spending) has risen from roughly $68 to $365 million. The figures are based on Core Crown expenditures.
Matchbox calculations, if those totals are divided by population NZ spends around $3,000 per head (excluding health) against the US at $2,100 but remember that the US spending is only federal and US dollars are worth more. Their poverty threshold is around US $11,000 for one person. A large chunk of left liberals seem to think NO money gets spent on the poor in the US.
Obviously the deep US recession has contributed to soaring costs but those areas equivalent to the DPB (TANF), IB abd SB (SSI) are reasonably contained. That is because there is a much stronger focus on providing assistance in kind rather than in cash.
And Medicaid, public health provision for uninsured low income working age Americans, makes up most of the absolute increase (contrary to what many leftists believe - that there is no public health provision in the US). The figures relate only to federal spending. States spend on their own anti-poverty programmes. In the case of TANF, from memory, spending equates to around 70 percent of what the federal government puts in.
A comparison to NZ is difficult.
Cash spending (minus Super) has risen from $7.8 to $12.9 billion (non inflation adjusted) but it is impossible to extract health spending on low income families alone. Housing (not including the accommodation supplement which comes under cash spending) has risen from roughly $68 to $365 million. The figures are based on Core Crown expenditures.
Matchbox calculations, if those totals are divided by population NZ spends around $3,000 per head (excluding health) against the US at $2,100 but remember that the US spending is only federal and US dollars are worth more. Their poverty threshold is around US $11,000 for one person. A large chunk of left liberals seem to think NO money gets spent on the poor in the US.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The redistribution (and slight reduction) of crime
The police have issued some new statistics relating to various measurements of crime prevention, crime detection and crime reporting. They compare monthly statistics for August 2009 to August 2010 and can be viewed nationally or by district.
From these graphs it is noticeable that where more crime prevention measures are applied less crime is reported. Unfortunately the input isn't consistent across the country. For instance I have compared Counties Manukau with Lower Hutt on just a couple of measures. In the Hutt 'foot patrols' have almost halved and 'vehicle thefts' have risen. In Counties Manukau the opposite applies.
This isn't necessarily consistent across other areas but it is clear that the police are putting resources into particular areas (functional or regional) at a cost to others. It would be interesting to see what plugging in all the various data shows.
Nationally, reports of crime are down slightly by 4.4% and detected crimes are down 2.7%
That of itself is interesting because leftists usually link increased poverty (recession) with increased crime. This is however a comparison between months - not years.
From these graphs it is noticeable that where more crime prevention measures are applied less crime is reported. Unfortunately the input isn't consistent across the country. For instance I have compared Counties Manukau with Lower Hutt on just a couple of measures. In the Hutt 'foot patrols' have almost halved and 'vehicle thefts' have risen. In Counties Manukau the opposite applies.
This isn't necessarily consistent across other areas but it is clear that the police are putting resources into particular areas (functional or regional) at a cost to others. It would be interesting to see what plugging in all the various data shows.
Nationally, reports of crime are down slightly by 4.4% and detected crimes are down 2.7%
That of itself is interesting because leftists usually link increased poverty (recession) with increased crime. This is however a comparison between months - not years.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Work-testing single parents apparently part of the feminist plan
The following is in cached form only. The site has disappeared. Over the years I have heard bits and pieces about the 'sisterhood' conspiracy but haven't seen it laid out in print (I don't read Wishart). Not sure I follow the logic re the motivations of government and cannot tell whether the writer approves or disapproves of feminism. But the way I see it, work-testing single parents should strengthen the family in the long-term, which would be a blow for the radical feminists who sought to destroy it as an institution. Why? Because many women want to raise their children personally and to do that they need a supportive partner.
Single mothers are being forced to work - but why?
By Julie, on May 21st, 2010
There’s quite a few single mothers unhappy with our leading single mother, MP Paula Bennett at the moment for her openness about single mothers working when their children turn 6 years of age. If you walked into a WINZ office and said MP Paula Bennett was terrific, you’d cop it from both sides of the counter.
The strangest part is that single parents have been forced to work for years yet it’s been so subtle, they’ve not noticed it. I can only assume single mothers on the DPB thought everything they’ve been offered over the past years was to make their life more comfortable and to give them choices. Maybe, they’ve never stopped to question what the cost would be.
Well, I think it would be a good time to look at the bigger picture and explore the reasons government would give money away – after all, they would never do it unless there was a pay-off for them whether cost saving or profit…… Funny, single parents do both. Anyways, the first thing I’d liked to share is a bit of history because to understand the present and future, you need to understand the past.
Divorce
In England prior to 1857, only an Act of Parliament could permit a full divorce allowing remarriage and it could only take place in England. This was very expensive so 10 years later the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in New Zealand which meant the judgement on divorce proceedings was passed over to the courts where it had to be heard in Wellington before three judges. A husband could divorce his wife on the grounds of her adultery while a wife could divorce for cruelty, desertion or bigamy. In 1881, it was changed from three judges to one judge and all the way up to 1968 law changes were made to give up to 24 grounds of divorce and lessen the time to wait.
Divorce rates rapidly rose in the 60′s and 70′s with all these new ‘faults’ as ground for divorce, making the way for even further changes. In 1980 the Family Proceedings Act was passed that removed divorce from the High Court to the newly created Family Court where for legal purposes, the term divorce became ‘dissolution of marriage’, and with it came ‘No fault’ where an application for dissolution on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irreconcilably, could be made jointly or by either the husband or wife, provided they could satisfy the two-year separation requirement.
There were 4 divorces in 1857 while now one third to 50% of marriages end in divorce (research varies). Added to this are women and men living in de facto relationships, women by choice being solo mothers through sperm donation and men being solo fathers through surrogacy.
Benefits
The Old Age Pensions Act 1898 established the basis of the present welfare system. During the following 30 years the pension system was extended to include widows (1911), Maori War veterans (1912), miners (1915), and the blind (1924), while the size of the pensions was steadily increased and conditions of payment were made less stringent, though always subject to a means test. In 1926 family allowances were introduced at the rate of 2s. per week for each child in excess of two, again subject to means testing.
The passing of the Social Security Act 1938 allowed for welfare to be extended for anyone in hardship including unemployment, sickness and invalids. The principle of the means test was abandoned with respect to superannuation benefits and medical benefits and, to emphasise the contributory nature of the scheme, the term “benefit” was substituted for the terms “pension” and “allowance”.
The 1973 Social Security Amendment Act introduced the Domestic Purposes Benefit to New Zealand’s social welfare system so that widows and single mothers could stay at home to take care of their children. Today there is 97,000 single parents on the DPB and in the year ending 2009, 10,000 extra single parents applied for the DPB.
Feminism and single mothers
“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.” — Andrea Dworkin
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them”
(Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school’s Centre for Research on Woman).
I want to see young women who come right out of school and start running for office or start moving into some positions where they will be able to shape the institutions that define our culture. And so if there are men who just don’t get it, then they’re just going to have to get it. —Patricia Ireland
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
How does feminism affect women today?
Feminist and Communist Kay Goodger attended the first-ever feminist United Women’s Convention as well as Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, Marilyn Waring and Silvia Cartwright along with nearly 2 thousand other women.
From this convention came the attack on the traditional family. It was concluded if they could crush the family, break it down or have it sidelined as irrelevant or portrayed as no better than other methods of child rearing, radical feminism could set the agenda for centuries to come.
Goodger’s 1973 plan was to make a utopian future for “Amazonian” reflecting what she believed was once a reality. She called on radical feminists to do all they could within political parties, government departments and communities.
Goodger back in 1973 knew that if women could work and children were raised in childcare the family would suffer a body blow. Radical feminists following this woman are intending to have Government funded 24 hour a day childcare. As of 1st July 2007, 20 free hours daycare was given in Australia and New Zealand and Europe with Australia forcing single mothers on the DPB to work and New Zealand encouraging women to decide for themselves work is the right choice. Sweden has compulsory childcare from the age of 1.
Margaret Shields says, “We began to reorganise the Women’s Section of the Party so that it became an agent for change; through organising, training and encouraging women to take a larger, more strategic role in politics” She says things are not done by accident.
This was the 30 year plan the sisterhood made from their list of demands.
Abortion to be free and on demand DONE
Sex education/Birth control at all levels DONE
An end to coercive family laws DONE
De facto relationships to have same status as marriage DONE
The rearing and education should be from society not parents BEING DONE TODAY
Discrimination of homosexuals outlawed DONE
Abolish laws victimising prostitutes DONE
Paid maternity of 12 weeks without loss of seniority or job DONE
Free Government paid 24 hours a day child care for all children from infancy NOT DONE
Reference: Investigate Magazine, May 2005, page 39.
Kay Goodger is now a senior Government advisor on policy initiatives earning hundreds of dollars an hour in pay, still mixing with Marxist organisations in Europe and is mentioned in dispatches on the website of the Portuguese Communist Party.
Margaret Sheilds is a former Minister of Customs and organised the 2005 conference for women.
Helen Clark was New Zealand’s Prime Minister and now works in the United Nations making a global tax.
Margaret Wilson first entered Parliament on the Labour Party list in 1999 and gained a Ministerial post immediately after her election. Her Ministerial positions included Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, Minister responsible for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Minister of Commerce. She was elected the first woman Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives in March 2005 and was re-elected Speaker in November, 2005
Marilyn Waring is Ruth Richardson’s replacement on the board of directors of the Reserve Bank.
Silvia Cartwright became the 18th governor general of New Zealand. She also became the first female high court judge.
As you can see, single mothers working and placing their children in childcare is a feminists issue. It doesn’t matter if the left or right wing political parties have power for either way, women will proceed with the plans of feminists from 1966.
Another factor to be considered
The DPB traps single parents in poverty as it’s just a means to make ends meet. On top of this, working part-time does not add extra wealth but rather takes away extra money single parents receive such as accommodation supplement, disability, childcare costs and temporary additional support. It can also put a single parent above the financial level to receive a community service card.
There is no other way to get many single parents out to work than forcing them when they see no benefit financially to work.
Bottom line, you be the judge on whether this is MP Paula Bennett’s fault or whether she is just the right person in the right place at the right time to make further progress for women’s rights.
Single mothers are being forced to work - but why?
By Julie, on May 21st, 2010
There’s quite a few single mothers unhappy with our leading single mother, MP Paula Bennett at the moment for her openness about single mothers working when their children turn 6 years of age. If you walked into a WINZ office and said MP Paula Bennett was terrific, you’d cop it from both sides of the counter.
The strangest part is that single parents have been forced to work for years yet it’s been so subtle, they’ve not noticed it. I can only assume single mothers on the DPB thought everything they’ve been offered over the past years was to make their life more comfortable and to give them choices. Maybe, they’ve never stopped to question what the cost would be.
Well, I think it would be a good time to look at the bigger picture and explore the reasons government would give money away – after all, they would never do it unless there was a pay-off for them whether cost saving or profit…… Funny, single parents do both. Anyways, the first thing I’d liked to share is a bit of history because to understand the present and future, you need to understand the past.
Divorce
In England prior to 1857, only an Act of Parliament could permit a full divorce allowing remarriage and it could only take place in England. This was very expensive so 10 years later the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in New Zealand which meant the judgement on divorce proceedings was passed over to the courts where it had to be heard in Wellington before three judges. A husband could divorce his wife on the grounds of her adultery while a wife could divorce for cruelty, desertion or bigamy. In 1881, it was changed from three judges to one judge and all the way up to 1968 law changes were made to give up to 24 grounds of divorce and lessen the time to wait.
Divorce rates rapidly rose in the 60′s and 70′s with all these new ‘faults’ as ground for divorce, making the way for even further changes. In 1980 the Family Proceedings Act was passed that removed divorce from the High Court to the newly created Family Court where for legal purposes, the term divorce became ‘dissolution of marriage’, and with it came ‘No fault’ where an application for dissolution on the grounds that the marriage had broken down irreconcilably, could be made jointly or by either the husband or wife, provided they could satisfy the two-year separation requirement.
There were 4 divorces in 1857 while now one third to 50% of marriages end in divorce (research varies). Added to this are women and men living in de facto relationships, women by choice being solo mothers through sperm donation and men being solo fathers through surrogacy.
Benefits
The Old Age Pensions Act 1898 established the basis of the present welfare system. During the following 30 years the pension system was extended to include widows (1911), Maori War veterans (1912), miners (1915), and the blind (1924), while the size of the pensions was steadily increased and conditions of payment were made less stringent, though always subject to a means test. In 1926 family allowances were introduced at the rate of 2s. per week for each child in excess of two, again subject to means testing.
The passing of the Social Security Act 1938 allowed for welfare to be extended for anyone in hardship including unemployment, sickness and invalids. The principle of the means test was abandoned with respect to superannuation benefits and medical benefits and, to emphasise the contributory nature of the scheme, the term “benefit” was substituted for the terms “pension” and “allowance”.
The 1973 Social Security Amendment Act introduced the Domestic Purposes Benefit to New Zealand’s social welfare system so that widows and single mothers could stay at home to take care of their children. Today there is 97,000 single parents on the DPB and in the year ending 2009, 10,000 extra single parents applied for the DPB.
Feminism and single mothers
“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.” — Andrea Dworkin
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them”
(Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school’s Centre for Research on Woman).
I want to see young women who come right out of school and start running for office or start moving into some positions where they will be able to shape the institutions that define our culture. And so if there are men who just don’t get it, then they’re just going to have to get it. —Patricia Ireland
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
How does feminism affect women today?
Feminist and Communist Kay Goodger attended the first-ever feminist United Women’s Convention as well as Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, Marilyn Waring and Silvia Cartwright along with nearly 2 thousand other women.
From this convention came the attack on the traditional family. It was concluded if they could crush the family, break it down or have it sidelined as irrelevant or portrayed as no better than other methods of child rearing, radical feminism could set the agenda for centuries to come.
Goodger’s 1973 plan was to make a utopian future for “Amazonian” reflecting what she believed was once a reality. She called on radical feminists to do all they could within political parties, government departments and communities.
Goodger back in 1973 knew that if women could work and children were raised in childcare the family would suffer a body blow. Radical feminists following this woman are intending to have Government funded 24 hour a day childcare. As of 1st July 2007, 20 free hours daycare was given in Australia and New Zealand and Europe with Australia forcing single mothers on the DPB to work and New Zealand encouraging women to decide for themselves work is the right choice. Sweden has compulsory childcare from the age of 1.
Margaret Shields says, “We began to reorganise the Women’s Section of the Party so that it became an agent for change; through organising, training and encouraging women to take a larger, more strategic role in politics” She says things are not done by accident.
This was the 30 year plan the sisterhood made from their list of demands.
Abortion to be free and on demand DONE
Sex education/Birth control at all levels DONE
An end to coercive family laws DONE
De facto relationships to have same status as marriage DONE
The rearing and education should be from society not parents BEING DONE TODAY
Discrimination of homosexuals outlawed DONE
Abolish laws victimising prostitutes DONE
Paid maternity of 12 weeks without loss of seniority or job DONE
Free Government paid 24 hours a day child care for all children from infancy NOT DONE
Reference: Investigate Magazine, May 2005, page 39.
Kay Goodger is now a senior Government advisor on policy initiatives earning hundreds of dollars an hour in pay, still mixing with Marxist organisations in Europe and is mentioned in dispatches on the website of the Portuguese Communist Party.
Margaret Sheilds is a former Minister of Customs and organised the 2005 conference for women.
Helen Clark was New Zealand’s Prime Minister and now works in the United Nations making a global tax.
Margaret Wilson first entered Parliament on the Labour Party list in 1999 and gained a Ministerial post immediately after her election. Her Ministerial positions included Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, Minister responsible for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Minister of Commerce. She was elected the first woman Speaker of New Zealand’s House of Representatives in March 2005 and was re-elected Speaker in November, 2005
Marilyn Waring is Ruth Richardson’s replacement on the board of directors of the Reserve Bank.
Silvia Cartwright became the 18th governor general of New Zealand. She also became the first female high court judge.
As you can see, single mothers working and placing their children in childcare is a feminists issue. It doesn’t matter if the left or right wing political parties have power for either way, women will proceed with the plans of feminists from 1966.
Another factor to be considered
The DPB traps single parents in poverty as it’s just a means to make ends meet. On top of this, working part-time does not add extra wealth but rather takes away extra money single parents receive such as accommodation supplement, disability, childcare costs and temporary additional support. It can also put a single parent above the financial level to receive a community service card.
There is no other way to get many single parents out to work than forcing them when they see no benefit financially to work.
Bottom line, you be the judge on whether this is MP Paula Bennett’s fault or whether she is just the right person in the right place at the right time to make further progress for women’s rights.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
New benefit rules from tomorrow
According to an e-mail I received from the Ministry of Social Development, from tomorrow;
At the end of August there were 112,500 people on the DPB. Last year 43,000 had a youngest child aged 6 or older.
The pro-welfare advocates say this new requirement is "draconian" but it only brings NZ in line with Australia and the UK. Other European countries and the US have a much lower youngest-child criteria.
Crucially, what is omitted is some sort of rule to prevent addition of children to the benefit extending eligibility.
A yearly reapplication should be the very least that is required.
The success of this strategy will rest with the medical fraternity delivering objective assessments. The risk is more people will attempt to transfer to an invalid's benefit. And....
Compulsory budgeting advice.
Encouraged. What does that amount to? Why not 'required' to stay in education and training?
All in all these changes are fairly wishy-washy yet have taken almost two years to implement (in the case of changes to the sickness benefit, almost 3). They will modify how compliant and motivated beneficiaries behave, but those who are only interested in the status quo of their current situation will find ways around them. In some respects the changes may provoke some very unwelcome responses, especially among the existing and would-be DPB population. Dependent children - their own or someone else's - will remain the key to long-term eligibility.
• Sole parents whose youngest child is six or older will need to look for part-time work. We’ll help people find suitable jobs that fit their role as a parent and may be able to help with after school care if needed.
At the end of August there were 112,500 people on the DPB. Last year 43,000 had a youngest child aged 6 or older.
The pro-welfare advocates say this new requirement is "draconian" but it only brings NZ in line with Australia and the UK. Other European countries and the US have a much lower youngest-child criteria.
Crucially, what is omitted is some sort of rule to prevent addition of children to the benefit extending eligibility.
• People who are unemployed will need to reapply for Unemployment Benefit every 12 months. A case manager will work with people to complete a comprehensive work assessment to determine what they can do and how we can help them find suitable work.
A yearly reapplication should be the very least that is required.
• People who are unable to work due to illness will be encouraged to look at what they can do. From May 2011, if someone is assessed as being capable of working at least 15 hours a week, they’ll be expected to look for a suitable job.
The success of this strategy will rest with the medical fraternity delivering objective assessments. The risk is more people will attempt to transfer to an invalid's benefit. And....
• People on Invalid’s Benefit will see no change to the eligibility. We will continue to support those people who are unable to work because of permanent and severe sickness, injury or disability.
• People applying for Hardship Assistance will be given more help to manage their money.
Compulsory budgeting advice.
• A young person supporting themselves on Independent Youth Benefit will be encouraged to stay in education or training that will better prepare them for future work.
Encouraged. What does that amount to? Why not 'required' to stay in education and training?
All in all these changes are fairly wishy-washy yet have taken almost two years to implement (in the case of changes to the sickness benefit, almost 3). They will modify how compliant and motivated beneficiaries behave, but those who are only interested in the status quo of their current situation will find ways around them. In some respects the changes may provoke some very unwelcome responses, especially among the existing and would-be DPB population. Dependent children - their own or someone else's - will remain the key to long-term eligibility.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The facts about childhood obesity
This is not an overweight child. It's a chubby baby for god's sake. Unfortunately it is running alongside a headline Number of obese Kiwi children 'scary'.
The highest rates of childhood obesity are concentrated in the poorest deciles and amongst Pacific and, to a lesser degree, Maori children. But does the report allude to those facts? No.
Meanwhile the susceptibility neurotic and angst-ridden middle-class mothers will be looking at their healthy chubby cherub unnecessarily agonising over whether she is over-feeding (and now under-loving) him.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Absolutely asinine suggestion from Mary Wilson
Mary Wilson, trying to emulate an abrasive Sean Plunket on National Radio this morning, makes the utterly asinine suggestion that ACT should sacrifice Epsom to prove it can cross the 5 percent threshold and therefore has a mandate. The 'interviewer' tries her hardest to make Rodney agree with Phil Goff's view that ACT is "terminal" but succeeds only in sounding rude and silly.Here's a page from a February 2005 article from North and South.
Rodney has been written off many, many times. And yes, I am guilty of describing recent events as akin to a murder-suicide. But I have also predicted that Rodney Hide will survive, even if only as a Ron Paul figure.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Creative gravy train - an oxymoron
I am alerted to the following because I subscribe to a community and volunteer sector newsletter;
Changes to arts funding announced
Creative New Zealand will introduce two new and complementary multi-year funding programmes from January 2012 to provide clarity, stability and flexibility in the way it funds arts organisations and artists. The new funding programmes are:
* Arts Leadership Investment (Toi Tōtara Haemata) to provide support for between two and five years to well-run, financially sound organisations that fulfil a key role or roles in the creation, presentation and distribution of high-quality arts experiences to New Zealanders
* Arts Development Investment (Toi Uru Kahikatea) to complement the Arts Leadership Investment programme by offering greater flexibility in the range of activities it supports. Funding will be available for periods from six months to two years for arts organisations, groups and individuals. Applicants will not need to fulfil a key role (see above).
The changes follow a review, where the arts sector identified an ongoing need for skills development. Creative NZ will work to enhance existing capability building programmes to meet the needs of both emerging and established arts organisations. It will also look at ways to offer incentives for artists and arts organisations to collaborate on projects, such as the commissioning and presentation of new work or to provide support for young and emerging artists.
You may have noticed I have been blogging less frequently. This is because I am painting and sketching more frequently. Why? Because I need to contribute to our household income. A few weeks back I took my portfolio into a couple of framers with the proposition that I sketch on their premises (providing me with exposure) and any commissions I pick up, they do the framing. I have priced my sketches at a very accessible price. So far the exercise has been successful picking up 4 commissions, with three of them for multiple sketches and more in the pipeline. I also met a fascinating Maori man who has agreed to be a subject for some new paintings. It isn't hard work because I enjoy interacting with the public and I love creating with pastels. But it is honest work.
It pisses me off immensely that we have a 'creative' art gravy train in New Zealand. Firstly because you and I have to fund it. Secondly because it often turns out crap. Real talent will attract willing sponsors and patronage. Lack of talent relies on handouts. Thirdly is provides 'jobs' for bureaucrats and fourthly it removes audience and potential buyers from artists who are trying to go it off their own efforts. Bah. Back to work for me.
Update; Sam provides a useful link about NZ On Air funding which comes from the Culture and Heritage budget which was Helen Clark's own portfolio. Between 1999 and 2008 expenditure rose from $427 million to $1,107 million. And National seems to have accepted this level along with all the other Clark administration spend-ups.
Changes to arts funding announced
Creative New Zealand will introduce two new and complementary multi-year funding programmes from January 2012 to provide clarity, stability and flexibility in the way it funds arts organisations and artists. The new funding programmes are:
* Arts Leadership Investment (Toi Tōtara Haemata) to provide support for between two and five years to well-run, financially sound organisations that fulfil a key role or roles in the creation, presentation and distribution of high-quality arts experiences to New Zealanders
* Arts Development Investment (Toi Uru Kahikatea) to complement the Arts Leadership Investment programme by offering greater flexibility in the range of activities it supports. Funding will be available for periods from six months to two years for arts organisations, groups and individuals. Applicants will not need to fulfil a key role (see above).
The changes follow a review, where the arts sector identified an ongoing need for skills development. Creative NZ will work to enhance existing capability building programmes to meet the needs of both emerging and established arts organisations. It will also look at ways to offer incentives for artists and arts organisations to collaborate on projects, such as the commissioning and presentation of new work or to provide support for young and emerging artists.
You may have noticed I have been blogging less frequently. This is because I am painting and sketching more frequently. Why? Because I need to contribute to our household income. A few weeks back I took my portfolio into a couple of framers with the proposition that I sketch on their premises (providing me with exposure) and any commissions I pick up, they do the framing. I have priced my sketches at a very accessible price. So far the exercise has been successful picking up 4 commissions, with three of them for multiple sketches and more in the pipeline. I also met a fascinating Maori man who has agreed to be a subject for some new paintings. It isn't hard work because I enjoy interacting with the public and I love creating with pastels. But it is honest work.
It pisses me off immensely that we have a 'creative' art gravy train in New Zealand. Firstly because you and I have to fund it. Secondly because it often turns out crap. Real talent will attract willing sponsors and patronage. Lack of talent relies on handouts. Thirdly is provides 'jobs' for bureaucrats and fourthly it removes audience and potential buyers from artists who are trying to go it off their own efforts. Bah. Back to work for me.
Update; Sam provides a useful link about NZ On Air funding which comes from the Culture and Heritage budget which was Helen Clark's own portfolio. Between 1999 and 2008 expenditure rose from $427 million to $1,107 million. And National seems to have accepted this level along with all the other Clark administration spend-ups.
On vouchers instead of benefit cash
Sean Plunket is now writing a column for the DomPost. His first provoked a comment from me which was published yesterday.
Not on-line, I was cutting out the letter for scanning when I noticed the photo under the headline it was given. I think I'll make an exception for her.
Not on-line, I was cutting out the letter for scanning when I noticed the photo under the headline it was given. I think I'll make an exception for her.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
ACT voters least loyal
According to the latest Horizon poll of 3,673 voters ACT appears to be losing support to National;
Unfortunately the period over which the survey was conducted is not specified.
National has 30% of decided voters (3% down on its 2008 share of all registered voters).
Labour has 22% (3% down on its 2008 share of all registered voters).
ACT has 2% (down from 2.7% in 2008) but only 40% of its 2008 voters remain loyal. Some 28% of ACT voters have switched to National while 19% say they don’t know who they would give their party vote to if a general election were held tomorrow.
Unfortunately the period over which the survey was conducted is not specified.
As rich as Australia - once
Statistics New Zealand has published updated material it provided to the Taskforce 2025 including many interesting tables comparing labour forces and migration rates among other things.
Ironically, as a response to the catching- up- to- Australia campaign, a fatalistic feeling is emerging amongst New Zealanders that this country can never be as rich as Australia. That view is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it contributes to driving away people who don't accept it. Ambitious people who keep hearing, "They've got the population; they've got the mineral wealth; they've got the markets..." will want to be in the 'they' team.
I don't accept it. NZ has been as wealthy as Australia and can be again. It just takes political will.
Ironically, as a response to the catching- up- to- Australia campaign, a fatalistic feeling is emerging amongst New Zealanders that this country can never be as rich as Australia. That view is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it contributes to driving away people who don't accept it. Ambitious people who keep hearing, "They've got the population; they've got the mineral wealth; they've got the markets..." will want to be in the 'they' team.
I don't accept it. NZ has been as wealthy as Australia and can be again. It just takes political will.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
At last, my kind of candidate
I am not voting for a mayor and struggling to find names to tick for any of the other FIVE selection processes. God knows why there are so many. There are a couple of no nonsense experienced types who hold mild appeal but when I trawled through all the electoral bumf last night I was defeated by the inanity of the proclamations. So many people with 'vision' and 'passion'. We are fair drowning in a sea of these self-confessed attributes.
Then I got excited. This morning. At last a billboard that didn't make me baulk. A billboard that even made me smile and feel like there is a upside to the tiresome charade of democracy local body elections have become.
I can nominate a Hutt City candidate for the same ticket;
Now there's vision and passion in spades.
And as I stepped out with madam candidate this morning I reflected that her public speaking abilities really are second to none.
Any other nominations?
Then I got excited. This morning. At last a billboard that didn't make me baulk. A billboard that even made me smile and feel like there is a upside to the tiresome charade of democracy local body elections have become.
I can nominate a Hutt City candidate for the same ticket;
Now there's vision and passion in spades.
And as I stepped out with madam candidate this morning I reflected that her public speaking abilities really are second to none.
Any other nominations?
Monday, September 20, 2010
The future of David Garrett
David Garrett is now deciding whether to quit parliament completely or return as an independent MP.
That's according to Rodney Hide.
There is talk that Sensible Sentencing contrived the placement of David Garrett at number 5 on the ACT list. That Rodney Hide had to swallow this because he needed the votes that SST would bring. One commentator put the number at 100,000. I do not know what the size of the Trust's membership is, and there is no guarantee that members would vote ACT simply because they belonged to the Trust.
However if it is correct that a sizeable share of ACT's 2008 party vote came from SST members (as the left would have us believe) then with their continued support David Garrett does have a mandate as an independent MP.
I mean the SST could spin their continued support as embracing redemption which adds credibility to their hard-line-on-only-the-worst-offenders claim.
There are around 2,350,000 voters so each MP is worth 19,500 votes. Are there 19,500 people who want to be represented by David Garrett?
I don't but I never made any secret of that. It just irks me to hear the PM telling Paul Henry this morning that New Zealanders have spoken and the polls say Garrett isn't wanted.
Neither was ACT by the vast majority of people. Isn't that the point of MMP? That small minorities get a voice?
(My apologies if this proposition has already been put elsewhere. I haven't seen it.)
"But it seems to me the people elected five Act MPs - not four and an independent..."
That's according to Rodney Hide.
There is talk that Sensible Sentencing contrived the placement of David Garrett at number 5 on the ACT list. That Rodney Hide had to swallow this because he needed the votes that SST would bring. One commentator put the number at 100,000. I do not know what the size of the Trust's membership is, and there is no guarantee that members would vote ACT simply because they belonged to the Trust.
However if it is correct that a sizeable share of ACT's 2008 party vote came from SST members (as the left would have us believe) then with their continued support David Garrett does have a mandate as an independent MP.
I mean the SST could spin their continued support as embracing redemption which adds credibility to their hard-line-on-only-the-worst-offenders claim.
There are around 2,350,000 voters so each MP is worth 19,500 votes. Are there 19,500 people who want to be represented by David Garrett?
I don't but I never made any secret of that. It just irks me to hear the PM telling Paul Henry this morning that New Zealanders have spoken and the polls say Garrett isn't wanted.
Neither was ACT by the vast majority of people. Isn't that the point of MMP? That small minorities get a voice?
(My apologies if this proposition has already been put elsewhere. I haven't seen it.)
Australians are having the debate our parliament denies us
Australians are debating voluntary euthanasia.
A poll asking if that right should be restored is running roughly three quarters in agreement.
Which leaves the question, what about the rest of Australia?
Meanwhile we New Zealanders are being denied any vehicle to debate the issue despite it being of relevance to everybody.
Fourteen years after the Northern Territory became the first place in the world to legalise euthanasia - only to be overridden nine months later by the Howard government - Greens leader Bob Brown pledged his first priority would be a bill to restore the territories' power to pass euthanasia laws.
A poll asking if that right should be restored is running roughly three quarters in agreement.
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said he believed euthanasia laws would be passed if introduced to the ACT Parliament, where Labor rules in alliance with the Greens.
''I think … it is quite likely with such a large Green cohort with the balance of power now that it would possibly pass,'' Mr Stanhope said.
''I don't support legislation to legalise euthanasia, but I'm in a minority within my party. There has always been very strong support for euthanasia in the ACT.''
Which leaves the question, what about the rest of Australia?
Senator Brown's bill comes as voluntary euthanasia legislation is set to be debated in both the South Australian and the West Australian parliaments.
Meanwhile we New Zealanders are being denied any vehicle to debate the issue despite it being of relevance to everybody.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
On Garrett
Michael Laws has put the Garrett business into perspective perfectly, and prompted me to give it a shot.
Garrett did a very stupid, calculated and deliberate thing as a young man. He is rough-edged still, and a risk-taker. But above all he is now a victim. And in a world where victimhood is the bleat on too many people's lips I don't use the word lightly.
He is a victim of the media. Last week the NZ Herald actually asked for any reader who knew more about the passport incident OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT DAVID GARRETT to contact them. This kind of scrutiny is going to keep real people out of politics. I've made many a mistake over my life but am in a better headspace for them. A drink driving conviction I received in 1985 wouldn't have been much material to prosecute and persecute given there are current and ex-parliamentarians (and media) who have received much more recent convictions for the same. Put in context though drinking and driving has the potential to cause more physical harm than stealing a dead baby's identity.
Worse, Garrett is a victim of a culture of backstabbing in ACT which is utterly abhorrent. I never liked the law and order mantle ACT donned (and didn't put up any pertinent campaign signs in 2008). To me three strikes is authoritarian; prisons create career criminals out of young men and, regarding other legislation, too much power is being invested in the police. However these are matters to debate and Garrett and I did come to blows over them in the ensuing months. But to dislike someone's ideas and actions (or allegiances) to the point where you want to destroy them personally, is revolting.
And that is what ACT has come to. It's like watching a murder-suicide with Garrett playing a bit-part of sacrificial lamb.
Garrett did a very stupid, calculated and deliberate thing as a young man. He is rough-edged still, and a risk-taker. But above all he is now a victim. And in a world where victimhood is the bleat on too many people's lips I don't use the word lightly.
He is a victim of the media. Last week the NZ Herald actually asked for any reader who knew more about the passport incident OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT DAVID GARRETT to contact them. This kind of scrutiny is going to keep real people out of politics. I've made many a mistake over my life but am in a better headspace for them. A drink driving conviction I received in 1985 wouldn't have been much material to prosecute and persecute given there are current and ex-parliamentarians (and media) who have received much more recent convictions for the same. Put in context though drinking and driving has the potential to cause more physical harm than stealing a dead baby's identity.
Worse, Garrett is a victim of a culture of backstabbing in ACT which is utterly abhorrent. I never liked the law and order mantle ACT donned (and didn't put up any pertinent campaign signs in 2008). To me three strikes is authoritarian; prisons create career criminals out of young men and, regarding other legislation, too much power is being invested in the police. However these are matters to debate and Garrett and I did come to blows over them in the ensuing months. But to dislike someone's ideas and actions (or allegiances) to the point where you want to destroy them personally, is revolting.
And that is what ACT has come to. It's like watching a murder-suicide with Garrett playing a bit-part of sacrificial lamb.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The glaring anomaly when state steps in
The High Court case featuring caregivers providing care to their disabled adult children is currently being conducted in Auckland. The carers want to be paid for the care they provide because, they argue, if a stranger is required to provide it that stranger gets paid. The Crown lawyer, acting for the Ministry of Health, counteracts;
So sometimes the state is happy to ignore the "social contract", and at others, it suits to uphold it.
When it ignores the contract it undermines and weakens it. That has already occurred on a massive scale at an enormous social and economic cost.
The state should uphold the social contract. Having said that these parents are more deserving of assistance than those who treat a "wage for families" as a lifestyle option.
Coleman explained the Ministry's argument that a social contract existed where people look after their own, and pointed out the policy in question was about filling gaps in services for people with disabilities.
It was not about providing a wage for families - that was the business of the Ministry of Social Policy.
So sometimes the state is happy to ignore the "social contract", and at others, it suits to uphold it.
When it ignores the contract it undermines and weakens it. That has already occurred on a massive scale at an enormous social and economic cost.
The state should uphold the social contract. Having said that these parents are more deserving of assistance than those who treat a "wage for families" as a lifestyle option.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Rearranging deck chairs
There is a certain useful phrase about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic (and I am not referring to the post on Big News about ACT). No. It was my instant response to reading that Iain Duncan Smith ( double-barrelled surnames are bad enough - unhyphenated ones are worse), Incomes and Pensions Minister in the UK, is still pursing a 'single' benefit. It is "doable" he insists.
To what end? NZ Labour spent years pursuing the idea. Why would it encourage people off welfare or discourage them from going on? As I heard a talkback caller astutely point out the other day on an unrelated matter, you can staple feathers on a Labrador but that doesn't make it a chicken.
And the classic political argument is employed to justify the estimated $7 billion pound cost of setting up this new creature. It will be paid for by the taxes that the long-term unemployed will produce when they get jobs.
Run a mile Chancellor.
To what end? NZ Labour spent years pursuing the idea. Why would it encourage people off welfare or discourage them from going on? As I heard a talkback caller astutely point out the other day on an unrelated matter, you can staple feathers on a Labrador but that doesn't make it a chicken.
And the classic political argument is employed to justify the estimated $7 billion pound cost of setting up this new creature. It will be paid for by the taxes that the long-term unemployed will produce when they get jobs.
Run a mile Chancellor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
