What a mixed up and conflicted society we live in. It seems to boil down to not so much a breakdown between the genders but the different amount of trust and respect individuals feel towards the opposite sex.
Twenty eight percent of all families with dependent children are being led by just one parent, predominantly female. This has come about through a combination of changed attitudes and changed government provision. As we cannot possibly know the circumstances of all these families I am inclined to accept that collectively there is culpability on both parts. But the overriding ethos of socialists (and male socialists are just as much a part of this attitude) is that men are nearly always at fault when it comes to domestic difficulties. And so the past forty years has seen an increasingly feminist-influenced state compensating for his shortcomings.
Unfortunately there is a tendency for some people to turn into what you repeatedly tell them they are - deadbeat dads. And so, even more recently, it hasn't been enough to just replace fathers - they must also be financially and emotionally punished for their inadequacies.
NOW we have schools crying out for male teachers to compensate for the father famine. Yet the expectations these guys have to meet (and suspicion they must endure) is keeping them well away. Who can blame them?
What worries me is those women who don't embrace feminist fascism in their everyday lives, don't do a very good job of opposing it. I understand why. "If you are not with us, you are against us," is the intimidating reception one encounters if you dare to criticise their cherished beliefs and institutions.
Some men are no angels. But 90 percent of those I have had anything to do with are not womanising pricks, or control freaks, or 'out-of-tune with their feelings' or bad fathers. That may be my good fortune. But I hope that it is more about expectation. We find what we look for. And if women have a singularly low opinion of men, men will reflect it. Heaven knows how the sons of men-maligners mature into anything but men worthy of malign. Behind every bad man is a mother.
Much of the feminist distaste for men, especially amongst the lower socio-economic ranks, has now developed into mutual loathing - except when temporary emotional and physical needs demand a ceasefire. Then babies result. And it becomes the preschool and school and secondary schools job to present the child with a positive male role model. But how is he viewed by the mothers? And what has she already inculcated in her female or male child? Is it ever going to be enough to expose a child to one good male role model she has to share and can only keep for a year? And if she is very young and inclined to physically express her fondness for her daddy-substitute, he has to keep her at a cool and uncompromising arms length. Is that really enough to compensate for a father?
I have a flashback to sitting on the back of my father's easy chair on Sunday afternoons while he watched the rugby, me endlessly combing his ever-thinning hair. He never complained. When I was sick he was very patient and would rub my tummy if I was hanging over the toilet vomiting. When I squashed my pet mouse accidentally, breaking its leg, my father made a splint and brought him back to health. (My ever-practical mother wanted to drown it).
It is just too sad that so many kids will never experience a good and loving father. And it is even sadder that the state, which is partly to blame for this tragedy, is now desperate to correct it through the education system. As I said last week about Key and Clark's youth policies, it is too little and too late for many of these children.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
More capacity for remand in custody needed
This judge is wasting his time;
Meanwhile, an unemployed Nelson man charged over the assault of two 19-year-olds at Pioneers Park has been granted bail.
Grant Earl Tihi, 39, was remanded without plea on two charges of wounding with intent to cause grevious bodily harm when he appeared in the Nelson District Court on Friday.
Judge Thomas Ingram remanded Tihi on bail to February 19.
He ordered Tihi not to associate with the complainants, to live at his home address, not to consume alcohol, and to observe a curfew.
Tihi was also ordered not to enter Pioneers Park.
Now go and look at the photograph.
Meanwhile, an unemployed Nelson man charged over the assault of two 19-year-olds at Pioneers Park has been granted bail.
Grant Earl Tihi, 39, was remanded without plea on two charges of wounding with intent to cause grevious bodily harm when he appeared in the Nelson District Court on Friday.
Judge Thomas Ingram remanded Tihi on bail to February 19.
He ordered Tihi not to associate with the complainants, to live at his home address, not to consume alcohol, and to observe a curfew.
Tihi was also ordered not to enter Pioneers Park.
Now go and look at the photograph.
Commissioner confused
This appeared in today's Dominion Post. I am sure some of you will want to respond to letter@dompost.co.nz (Left click to enlarge);
Dear Editor
Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro is confusing two issues (Keeping our children safe, Feb 4). That of so-called adults who abuse their children because they have problems of their own and adults who are trying to teach children that there are consequences for deliberate misbehaviour. Ironically the first group, typified by Ms Kiro as violent offenders, is a product of the no consequences morality that now dominates. Through the welfare and justice system their problems - abuse of alcohol, drugs and each other - are repeatedly alleviated through benefits and various molly-coddling processes.
In part the commissioner recognises this because she writes that, "adults have to take responsibility for their own problems and not take them out on children." But I put it to her that while the state takes responsibility, their violence will continue to affect both their partners and their children.
Making law that attempts to control existing law-breakers is probably futile. But passing legislation that pertains to the many adults who do care very deeply about their children, who are not busy creating the next generation of violent offenders, is pointless and offensive.
Lindsay Mitchell
Dear Editor
Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro is confusing two issues (Keeping our children safe, Feb 4). That of so-called adults who abuse their children because they have problems of their own and adults who are trying to teach children that there are consequences for deliberate misbehaviour. Ironically the first group, typified by Ms Kiro as violent offenders, is a product of the no consequences morality that now dominates. Through the welfare and justice system their problems - abuse of alcohol, drugs and each other - are repeatedly alleviated through benefits and various molly-coddling processes.
In part the commissioner recognises this because she writes that, "adults have to take responsibility for their own problems and not take them out on children." But I put it to her that while the state takes responsibility, their violence will continue to affect both their partners and their children.
Making law that attempts to control existing law-breakers is probably futile. But passing legislation that pertains to the many adults who do care very deeply about their children, who are not busy creating the next generation of violent offenders, is pointless and offensive.
Lindsay Mitchell
Sunday, February 03, 2008
No words
What words could do any kind of justice to describing this sort of atrocity? I can't find them. But I have two thoughts. How will Iraqis be regarding anybody in their midst with Downs Syndrome from now on? What a cruel, cruel blow to normally harmless and happy people. And how would you feel about your own Down's Syndrome child reading or hearing about this act? The consequences of Al Qaeda's evil spread far beyond its immediate victims.
Friday, February 01, 2008
More prisons?
Is this National promising to build more prisons or prison capacity?
If it is, why don't they spell it out. Can nobody speak plain English any more?
If it is, it's the first commendable policy I have heard from them.
If it is, why don't they spell it out. Can nobody speak plain English any more?
If it is, it's the first commendable policy I have heard from them.
The risk of suicide
From the USA Today;
A record number of active-duty soldiers killed themselves last year, according to The Washington Post.
The paper cites an internal Army study that shows 121 soldiers committed suicide in 2007. That's a 20% increase over the prior year, the Post says.
"The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe stress on the Army, caused in part by repeated and lengthened deployments," the paper reports. "Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006."
Still not as high as the suicide rate for Maori;
The three-year moving average age-standardised rate of suicide for Maori was 17.9 deaths per 100,000 population in 2003–2005....The three-year moving average age-standardised rate of suicide for Maori males was 28.4 deaths per 100,000 population in 2003–2005, compared with the rate for non-Maori males of 18.4 per 100,000 population, which was significantly lower.
You are more likely to kill yourself if you are Maori, particularly a Maori male, living in New Zealand than if you are on active service in Iraq.
A record number of active-duty soldiers killed themselves last year, according to The Washington Post.
The paper cites an internal Army study that shows 121 soldiers committed suicide in 2007. That's a 20% increase over the prior year, the Post says.
"The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe stress on the Army, caused in part by repeated and lengthened deployments," the paper reports. "Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006."
Still not as high as the suicide rate for Maori;
The three-year moving average age-standardised rate of suicide for Maori was 17.9 deaths per 100,000 population in 2003–2005....The three-year moving average age-standardised rate of suicide for Maori males was 28.4 deaths per 100,000 population in 2003–2005, compared with the rate for non-Maori males of 18.4 per 100,000 population, which was significantly lower.
You are more likely to kill yourself if you are Maori, particularly a Maori male, living in New Zealand than if you are on active service in Iraq.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Youth crime and casual childbearing
One of the reasons for the increasing ferocity of youth crime is the breakdown of the family and the dysfunction of relationships within what is left of the family. The most obvious changed aspect of today's families is the absent father. That alone does not produce delinquent youths but a lack of a strong male role model starts a child off in a position of disadvantage. Some children have fathers who they would probably be better off without, and the same can be said for mothers. But the sort of family that is best placed to raise a secure and self-respecting teenager has been steadily eroded by welfare benefits that accrue to broken or incomplete families.
During the 40s, 50s and 60s youth crime was much more infrequent and less violent than it is today. Although many teenagers then had lost a father to war or desertion, they were not raised on a diet of welfare or fed an entitlement mentality. Their mothers received some assistance but many worked and instilled the need to work in their children.
In the 70s this began to change. Babies began being born to women who had no intention of raising them with a partner. Women who, if they thought about it, believed they could do just as good a job as the two parent, working family so long as the government paid them to stay home and parent. Many did.
But a growing group did not. As the negative consequences for unmarried birth disappeared the casual approach to childbearing grew. As more focus fell on ex-nuptial births, surveys revealed these children were more at risk of being abused or neglected. Abused and neglected children have far greater potential for becoming criminals.
Unmarried births now account for 45 percent of all births. Some of these babies will be born into enduring de facto relationships but those circumstances are reasonably rare.
Today's youth workers say that the solution to youth crime is for children to have a quality relationship with an adult or adults. But which relationship is the most predominant in a child's life? The one he has with his mother and/or father, which begins at birth. The chances of that relationship being strong or even existing are reduced by casual childbearing. And casual childbearing is directly related to the elimination of negative consequences. In fact, receiving a steady and guaranteed income from the government is seen as a positive consequence.
Add to this that very young maternal age is shown to further increase a child's risk of becoming a criminal. Yet an income which surpasses the minimum wage is paid to girls as young as 16 who decide to continue with a pregnancy. Half of those young mothers aged 16 and 17 and receiving welfare are typically Maori. Half of our prison population is Maori. This is more than a coincidence but a blind eye is effectively turned by government who make no attempt to research an association.
Because the stream of teenage and un-partnered mothers going onto benefits long-term is steady, even growing slightly, New Zealand can expect the sort of youth violence we are seeing now to continue unabated. In that respect the new plans to fight youth crime are too little too late. Our leaders need to start talking about the prevention of casual childbearing and the removal of those incentives which cause it. Anything else is avoidance of the real issue and political expediency.
During the 40s, 50s and 60s youth crime was much more infrequent and less violent than it is today. Although many teenagers then had lost a father to war or desertion, they were not raised on a diet of welfare or fed an entitlement mentality. Their mothers received some assistance but many worked and instilled the need to work in their children.
In the 70s this began to change. Babies began being born to women who had no intention of raising them with a partner. Women who, if they thought about it, believed they could do just as good a job as the two parent, working family so long as the government paid them to stay home and parent. Many did.
But a growing group did not. As the negative consequences for unmarried birth disappeared the casual approach to childbearing grew. As more focus fell on ex-nuptial births, surveys revealed these children were more at risk of being abused or neglected. Abused and neglected children have far greater potential for becoming criminals.
Unmarried births now account for 45 percent of all births. Some of these babies will be born into enduring de facto relationships but those circumstances are reasonably rare.
Today's youth workers say that the solution to youth crime is for children to have a quality relationship with an adult or adults. But which relationship is the most predominant in a child's life? The one he has with his mother and/or father, which begins at birth. The chances of that relationship being strong or even existing are reduced by casual childbearing. And casual childbearing is directly related to the elimination of negative consequences. In fact, receiving a steady and guaranteed income from the government is seen as a positive consequence.
Add to this that very young maternal age is shown to further increase a child's risk of becoming a criminal. Yet an income which surpasses the minimum wage is paid to girls as young as 16 who decide to continue with a pregnancy. Half of those young mothers aged 16 and 17 and receiving welfare are typically Maori. Half of our prison population is Maori. This is more than a coincidence but a blind eye is effectively turned by government who make no attempt to research an association.
Because the stream of teenage and un-partnered mothers going onto benefits long-term is steady, even growing slightly, New Zealand can expect the sort of youth violence we are seeing now to continue unabated. In that respect the new plans to fight youth crime are too little too late. Our leaders need to start talking about the prevention of casual childbearing and the removal of those incentives which cause it. Anything else is avoidance of the real issue and political expediency.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
It's the same old song.....
According to Jim Anderton,
Around 1.2 people out of every hundred thousand are homicide victims. That is a significant drop from around 1.5 per hundred thousand in the early eighties. In the late eighties, the rate of homicides soared to 2.0 out of every 100,000 population. So New Zealand is a lot less violent today than it was then.
Wouldn't it be better to measure how violent New Zealand is by convictions for violence? Even that measure is inadequate because first the violence has to be reported and then, successfully prosecuted. But below are the violent convictions from 1980 to 2006. On that basis New Zealand is more violent now than in the late eighties.
So why would Jim seek to persuade us that NZ was more violent in the 80s?
Violent death rates rose very steeply in the late eighties, stayed high in the nineties and have since begun to come down. What else was going on that could explain the crime wave?
The pattern of violence follows exactly a pattern of economic devastation. When unemployment rocketed and families were hammered by hard economic times, offending rose dramatically.
But Jim, the pattern of violence, when charted by convictions does not follow your "pattern of economic devastation". How do you explain that?
NZ has, according to you "neared full employment", yet violence is still widespread - and that's just the violence we know about.
You know what Jim? We haven't neared full employment at all. And that is why we still have intolerable crime. We have high unemployment hidden by reliance on benefits other than the dole. We have violent youths coming out of workless, dysfunctional homes which turn on the DPB. We have violent youths coming out of gang homes whose staple diet is welfare. The correlation between benefit dependence and crime is stronger than the one between unemployment and crime.
Give up on blaming the economic reforms and start looking at the individuals who will not help themselves or their children.
Around 1.2 people out of every hundred thousand are homicide victims. That is a significant drop from around 1.5 per hundred thousand in the early eighties. In the late eighties, the rate of homicides soared to 2.0 out of every 100,000 population. So New Zealand is a lot less violent today than it was then.
Wouldn't it be better to measure how violent New Zealand is by convictions for violence? Even that measure is inadequate because first the violence has to be reported and then, successfully prosecuted. But below are the violent convictions from 1980 to 2006. On that basis New Zealand is more violent now than in the late eighties.
So why would Jim seek to persuade us that NZ was more violent in the 80s?
Violent death rates rose very steeply in the late eighties, stayed high in the nineties and have since begun to come down. What else was going on that could explain the crime wave?
The pattern of violence follows exactly a pattern of economic devastation. When unemployment rocketed and families were hammered by hard economic times, offending rose dramatically.
But Jim, the pattern of violence, when charted by convictions does not follow your "pattern of economic devastation". How do you explain that?
NZ has, according to you "neared full employment", yet violence is still widespread - and that's just the violence we know about.
You know what Jim? We haven't neared full employment at all. And that is why we still have intolerable crime. We have high unemployment hidden by reliance on benefits other than the dole. We have violent youths coming out of workless, dysfunctional homes which turn on the DPB. We have violent youths coming out of gang homes whose staple diet is welfare. The correlation between benefit dependence and crime is stronger than the one between unemployment and crime.
Give up on blaming the economic reforms and start looking at the individuals who will not help themselves or their children.
Labour's big bribe for 2008?
I originally wrote this post in June last year but I never hit the publish button. Some conceited streak in me must have worried about giving Labour ideas.
It occurs to me that Labour has reintroduced the 1945 Family Benefit (abolished in 1990) with its Working For families tax credits.
The really popular aspect of the family benefit was its capitalisation potential, also the most popular campaign issue of 1957. Walter Nash hoped capitalisation would boost home ownership and the birthrate. All of a child's family benefit could be paid in a lump sum.
So what would be a really popular campaign promise from Labour next year? To allow parents to have family tax credits paid as a lump sum to be used to buy their first home. I wouldn't put it past them.
My caution was a waste of time. The following is from Jim Anderton's Orewa speech last night;
Mr Anderton also said families should be allowed to capitalise their family support on their first child - such as Working for Families and in-work payments - for a deposit on a house, saying he knew it could work "because that's how I bought my house".
It's a goer. And I predict National will say 'me too'.
It occurs to me that Labour has reintroduced the 1945 Family Benefit (abolished in 1990) with its Working For families tax credits.
The really popular aspect of the family benefit was its capitalisation potential, also the most popular campaign issue of 1957. Walter Nash hoped capitalisation would boost home ownership and the birthrate. All of a child's family benefit could be paid in a lump sum.
So what would be a really popular campaign promise from Labour next year? To allow parents to have family tax credits paid as a lump sum to be used to buy their first home. I wouldn't put it past them.
My caution was a waste of time. The following is from Jim Anderton's Orewa speech last night;
Mr Anderton also said families should be allowed to capitalise their family support on their first child - such as Working for Families and in-work payments - for a deposit on a house, saying he knew it could work "because that's how I bought my house".
It's a goer. And I predict National will say 'me too'.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The war on youth crime
John Key's speech.
I am genuinely pleased Key focussed on young, problem people although I think Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft's provided estimate of 1,000 hardened types is a self-deception.
This speech, however, hails the era of the big-state conservatives. Yes, it is full of references to private providers, but the funding comes from the taxpayer. It is replete with commitment to new funding. The Youth Guarantee (free education for 16-17 year-olds outside of state schools), specific catering for teenage parents (one assumes on top of the current provision for around 600), drug and alcohol rehab programmes, mentoring programmes, more youth residential facilities (necessary if sentences are to be lengthened - we only have 3 currently), supervision with activity, Fresh Start programmes to last up to one year using mentors, social workers (of which there is a shortage), the army and others.
Now it may be that the big-spending conservative is more effective than the big-spending left liberal. We shall see. But people wanting less government (more has never been shown to improve matters) will not receive this speech with joyful enthusiasm.
The move to allow the Youth Court to deal with 12 and 13 year-olds (instead of the Family Court) is an improvement. But the power to issue parenting orders - send parents to parenting courses - is worthless. Why? Because the penalty for not complying is community work or fines. Many of these parents will have already shown a finger to both for other misdemeanours. These troublesome kids are more often than not children of criminals. Note, just a few minutes later Key says he is sick of hearing about young offenders who receive community based sentences but fail to comply. That behaviour isn't confined to youth.
What Key is announcing here is the war on youth crime. Yet another campaign akin to the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Neither has seen a victory for the state.
And I think that Clark will pull him apart on 1/ so much extra spending along with tax cuts, 2/ the fact that under National (but not under Key) the numbers of teens sitting around "filling their days with nothing but Playstation and TV soaps" was far greater and 3/ on paper, Labour have monstered unemployment, including youth, while National failed. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments but they are some I predict she will use.
But, I am going to give Key a B for effort. He is clearly listening to people who work with these young people. And no political party, no advocacy group and no individual can supply a perfect or painless solution.
I am genuinely pleased Key focussed on young, problem people although I think Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft's provided estimate of 1,000 hardened types is a self-deception.
This speech, however, hails the era of the big-state conservatives. Yes, it is full of references to private providers, but the funding comes from the taxpayer. It is replete with commitment to new funding. The Youth Guarantee (free education for 16-17 year-olds outside of state schools), specific catering for teenage parents (one assumes on top of the current provision for around 600), drug and alcohol rehab programmes, mentoring programmes, more youth residential facilities (necessary if sentences are to be lengthened - we only have 3 currently), supervision with activity, Fresh Start programmes to last up to one year using mentors, social workers (of which there is a shortage), the army and others.
Now it may be that the big-spending conservative is more effective than the big-spending left liberal. We shall see. But people wanting less government (more has never been shown to improve matters) will not receive this speech with joyful enthusiasm.
The move to allow the Youth Court to deal with 12 and 13 year-olds (instead of the Family Court) is an improvement. But the power to issue parenting orders - send parents to parenting courses - is worthless. Why? Because the penalty for not complying is community work or fines. Many of these parents will have already shown a finger to both for other misdemeanours. These troublesome kids are more often than not children of criminals. Note, just a few minutes later Key says he is sick of hearing about young offenders who receive community based sentences but fail to comply. That behaviour isn't confined to youth.
What Key is announcing here is the war on youth crime. Yet another campaign akin to the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Neither has seen a victory for the state.
And I think that Clark will pull him apart on 1/ so much extra spending along with tax cuts, 2/ the fact that under National (but not under Key) the numbers of teens sitting around "filling their days with nothing but Playstation and TV soaps" was far greater and 3/ on paper, Labour have monstered unemployment, including youth, while National failed. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments but they are some I predict she will use.
But, I am going to give Key a B for effort. He is clearly listening to people who work with these young people. And no political party, no advocacy group and no individual can supply a perfect or painless solution.
Monday, January 28, 2008
MPs don't make the most rational decisions
Here is an excerpt from a speech ACC Minister Maryan Street delivered on Saturday.
I believe there is a legitimate place for the use of law as a lever for achieving better health outcomes, but there also have to be boundaries - and the truth is that we usually decide where those boundaries lie on a case-by-case basis.
And when I say “we” I mean the Government. I believe Parliament is the most appropriate place for these types of decisions to be made. With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
I should also say that I do not believe these types of decisions can be appropriately made by “the market”. For example, the makers of “fast food”, tobacco or alcohol will say that people should have the right to buy their products wherever and whenever they choose. Sometimes the freedom to do so is escalated into “the democratic freedoms for which wars were fought”.
The problem is that right now we are seeing whole communities suffering unacceptable levels of obesity, diabetes, lung cancer and other preventable diseases. They were given the freedom to choose but not the information to make an informed choice. So I believe Government has a vital role in ensuring people have the information they need to make informed choices. How should this reality be balanced against the individual freedom argument?
The “individual freedom” argument does not address the issue of collective consequences. When a young person chooses to drink and drive and consequently injures or kills someone else, who pays? When someone chooses to smoke and develops lung cancer, who pays? The answer is invariably the rest of us. And I’m not just talking about the financial cost to organisations like my own ACC or the public health system but also the impact on the families, communities and employers of the people involved. So for generations now, governments have made decisions to use the law to limit individual freedoms and thus reduce the collective consequences.
I take issue with that last sentence. The law has indeed been used to limit individual freedoms but that hasn't reduced collective consequences. Collective consequences increase under collectivism. That is because there is no incentive to avoid risky behaviour when someone else will pay. For instance why do we have over 130,000 people on sickness and invalid benefits when just thirty years ago there were only around 18,000? And it isn't to do with the size of the population. It is partly to do an expectation that the state will support people regardless of the reason for their incapacity. It wasn't always that way and in the past people had to exercise a good deal more personal responsibility in their actions.
The other statement Street makes here is something of a worry;
With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
This is a worrying admission. According to Ms Street MPs do not make the most rational or scientific decisions. Nevertheless they are still the best people to do so because we voted for them. I didn't vote for you Maryan. And I am sure that you do not feel any need to be accountable to me. Ultimately you will be accountable to your own conscience and ideas. Not a prospect I relish.
I believe there is a legitimate place for the use of law as a lever for achieving better health outcomes, but there also have to be boundaries - and the truth is that we usually decide where those boundaries lie on a case-by-case basis.
And when I say “we” I mean the Government. I believe Parliament is the most appropriate place for these types of decisions to be made. With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
I should also say that I do not believe these types of decisions can be appropriately made by “the market”. For example, the makers of “fast food”, tobacco or alcohol will say that people should have the right to buy their products wherever and whenever they choose. Sometimes the freedom to do so is escalated into “the democratic freedoms for which wars were fought”.
The problem is that right now we are seeing whole communities suffering unacceptable levels of obesity, diabetes, lung cancer and other preventable diseases. They were given the freedom to choose but not the information to make an informed choice. So I believe Government has a vital role in ensuring people have the information they need to make informed choices. How should this reality be balanced against the individual freedom argument?
The “individual freedom” argument does not address the issue of collective consequences. When a young person chooses to drink and drive and consequently injures or kills someone else, who pays? When someone chooses to smoke and develops lung cancer, who pays? The answer is invariably the rest of us. And I’m not just talking about the financial cost to organisations like my own ACC or the public health system but also the impact on the families, communities and employers of the people involved. So for generations now, governments have made decisions to use the law to limit individual freedoms and thus reduce the collective consequences.
I take issue with that last sentence. The law has indeed been used to limit individual freedoms but that hasn't reduced collective consequences. Collective consequences increase under collectivism. That is because there is no incentive to avoid risky behaviour when someone else will pay. For instance why do we have over 130,000 people on sickness and invalid benefits when just thirty years ago there were only around 18,000? And it isn't to do with the size of the population. It is partly to do an expectation that the state will support people regardless of the reason for their incapacity. It wasn't always that way and in the past people had to exercise a good deal more personal responsibility in their actions.
The other statement Street makes here is something of a worry;
With all due respect to the lawyers, officials and academics in the room, who may well make more rational or scientific decisions than we politicians, it is appropriate that politicians, who are ultimately accountable to the people, decide the extent to which the state will limit individual decision-making.
This is a worrying admission. According to Ms Street MPs do not make the most rational or scientific decisions. Nevertheless they are still the best people to do so because we voted for them. I didn't vote for you Maryan. And I am sure that you do not feel any need to be accountable to me. Ultimately you will be accountable to your own conscience and ideas. Not a prospect I relish.
Curious metamorphosis
Imagine waking up one day to find that you have become a cinema.
On Saturday I received a letter from the Wellington City Council addressed to Lindsey Mitchell Cinema. They are developing a database of all the community facilities within Wellington and have sent me a 4 double-sided page survey to assist in that endeavour.
What???
So I googled "Lindsey Mitchell Cinema nz"
Here is the page I found. I scrolled down to discover I am indeed a cinema and when clicked on the link was given a graphic illustration of how to find me and a phone number to find out what I am currently showing.
I have no idea how this has come about. I am listed as "Mitchell Lindsay" in the Yellow Pages as an artist. But that is a far cry from being a cinema - "Muritai Cinemas" at that.
Should I be pissed off about this? Who is making money from a site with bogus listings? Any thoughts?
On Saturday I received a letter from the Wellington City Council addressed to Lindsey Mitchell Cinema. They are developing a database of all the community facilities within Wellington and have sent me a 4 double-sided page survey to assist in that endeavour.
What???
So I googled "Lindsey Mitchell Cinema nz"
Here is the page I found. I scrolled down to discover I am indeed a cinema and when clicked on the link was given a graphic illustration of how to find me and a phone number to find out what I am currently showing.
I have no idea how this has come about. I am listed as "Mitchell Lindsay" in the Yellow Pages as an artist. But that is a far cry from being a cinema - "Muritai Cinemas" at that.
Should I be pissed off about this? Who is making money from a site with bogus listings? Any thoughts?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
ACT voters and libertarians are not decent people
So says the editor of the Sunday Star Times;
The Right has found a heavy club to beat the government with: a referendum on smacking at the next election. This is a brilliant ploy by the religious extremists of Family First. It will gather not only libertarians, Act voters and other motley fanatics of that kind, but many decent and ordinary people. It is as though the Brethren had found a cause that appealed to the mainstream. The political and social effects are likely to be large and wholly malign.
I voted ACT at the last election. I know I am not particularly ordinary (inasmuch as my ideas are not reflected by the majority) but I am decent.
It is this sort of labelling from the 'Left' (which is presumably where the editor's sympathies lie) that make debates turn nasty. And I have to say, in my relatively short time involved in politics, those on the Left are a lot better at it. That is because thinking people can defend their ideas without resorting to personally maligning detractors and there would appear to be fewer of them amongst the collectivists.
And look how little real tolerance there is among the liberal left. Freedom of belief has shut up shop. I am a non-believer but passionate about the right of others to have and hold and cherish their faith. Yet the secular Left increasingly characterise people with religious belief as evil fanaticists.
Finally, this beggars belief.
Family First was an active player at the last election, and it has found an ideal vehicle to drive through the next one. But do you really want to get in the passenger seat with them?
Over the page from this mean piece is a full page advert placed by none other than Family First. The paper will have an editorial policy and an advertising policy and no doubt, never the twain shall meet. Perhaps this column is the editor's lash back at prioritised commercial considerations. Whatever it is, I've had enough.
Unlike Family First I am not willing to pay people to insult me.
Dear Editor
Please cancel our subscription to your newspaper today. It is not without regret that I choose this course of action. News is important to me. Ideas are important to me. But today's editorial, which infers ACT voters, libertarians and people of faith are not "decent" people, is a more extreme view than those you profess to warn against.
Lindsay Mitchell
The Right has found a heavy club to beat the government with: a referendum on smacking at the next election. This is a brilliant ploy by the religious extremists of Family First. It will gather not only libertarians, Act voters and other motley fanatics of that kind, but many decent and ordinary people. It is as though the Brethren had found a cause that appealed to the mainstream. The political and social effects are likely to be large and wholly malign.
I voted ACT at the last election. I know I am not particularly ordinary (inasmuch as my ideas are not reflected by the majority) but I am decent.
It is this sort of labelling from the 'Left' (which is presumably where the editor's sympathies lie) that make debates turn nasty. And I have to say, in my relatively short time involved in politics, those on the Left are a lot better at it. That is because thinking people can defend their ideas without resorting to personally maligning detractors and there would appear to be fewer of them amongst the collectivists.
And look how little real tolerance there is among the liberal left. Freedom of belief has shut up shop. I am a non-believer but passionate about the right of others to have and hold and cherish their faith. Yet the secular Left increasingly characterise people with religious belief as evil fanaticists.
Finally, this beggars belief.
Family First was an active player at the last election, and it has found an ideal vehicle to drive through the next one. But do you really want to get in the passenger seat with them?
Over the page from this mean piece is a full page advert placed by none other than Family First. The paper will have an editorial policy and an advertising policy and no doubt, never the twain shall meet. Perhaps this column is the editor's lash back at prioritised commercial considerations. Whatever it is, I've had enough.
Unlike Family First I am not willing to pay people to insult me.
Dear Editor
Please cancel our subscription to your newspaper today. It is not without regret that I choose this course of action. News is important to me. Ideas are important to me. But today's editorial, which infers ACT voters, libertarians and people of faith are not "decent" people, is a more extreme view than those you profess to warn against.
Lindsay Mitchell
Friday, January 25, 2008
Trotter advises, dump the leader
The Prime Minister will not be happy with Chris Trotter. He has written a column in today's Dominion Post (a reasonably rational one) explaining why Phil Goff should replace her as leader, if Labour are to have any chance of winning this year's election.I disagree. Apart from voter's force of habit, Helen Clark is still the best thing Labour has going for them.
Update; Full column here
DPB Numbers rise in many centres
Media Release
DPB NUMBERS RISE IN MANY CENTRES
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Figures just released by the Ministry of Social Development show that DPB numbers have risen in many centres over the past year.
"Nearly half of the Auckland region Work and Income Centres experienced a rise in DPB numbers during 2007," Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator said today. "Typically centres are in the most deprived areas like Mangere, Clendon, Glen Innes and Manukau. Other rural towns and cities with high Maori populations have also experienced increases - Hamilton, Hastings, Kawerau and Ngaruwahia for instance."
"While the overall trend in DPB numbers is down, with a 2 percent drop last year, only the most motivated and skilled are taking advantage of the strong labour market."
"The young, poorly educated and unskilled continue to gravitate to the DPB. Not having experienced stability or security themselves, the parenting skills of these mothers are often inadequate or absent. Many will become long-term welfare dependants and so the cycle goes on."
"The overall drop in DPB numbers is masking a much bigger problem. There now exists an entire generation of people who have only ever known a welfare upbringing. They predominate in poor neighbourhoods where crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse are common. "
"The reforms Labour implemented - requiring individual Personal Development and Employment Plans and abolishing work-testing - are having very little impact in the overall scheme of things. The Minister must now be very concerned about the resistance to reform many families are exhibiting."
DPB NUMBERS RISE IN MANY CENTRES
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Figures just released by the Ministry of Social Development show that DPB numbers have risen in many centres over the past year.
"Nearly half of the Auckland region Work and Income Centres experienced a rise in DPB numbers during 2007," Lindsay Mitchell, welfare commentator said today. "Typically centres are in the most deprived areas like Mangere, Clendon, Glen Innes and Manukau. Other rural towns and cities with high Maori populations have also experienced increases - Hamilton, Hastings, Kawerau and Ngaruwahia for instance."
"While the overall trend in DPB numbers is down, with a 2 percent drop last year, only the most motivated and skilled are taking advantage of the strong labour market."
"The young, poorly educated and unskilled continue to gravitate to the DPB. Not having experienced stability or security themselves, the parenting skills of these mothers are often inadequate or absent. Many will become long-term welfare dependants and so the cycle goes on."
"The overall drop in DPB numbers is masking a much bigger problem. There now exists an entire generation of people who have only ever known a welfare upbringing. They predominate in poor neighbourhoods where crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse are common. "
"The reforms Labour implemented - requiring individual Personal Development and Employment Plans and abolishing work-testing - are having very little impact in the overall scheme of things. The Minister must now be very concerned about the resistance to reform many families are exhibiting."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Depressing Christchurch
What's with Canterbury?
A quarter of the 16-24 year-olds drawing a sickness benefit for depression live in Canterbury. More than in any other region, including Auckland.
And looking at the invalid's benefit for the same incapacity, the percentage rises to 37 percent!
Canterbury is home to only 13 percent of the population and the demographic is slightly older than the NZ average as well.
(The same disproportionate dependence continues with the invalid's benefit in the older age groups though it is not quite as marked.)
A quarter of the 16-24 year-olds drawing a sickness benefit for depression live in Canterbury. More than in any other region, including Auckland.
And looking at the invalid's benefit for the same incapacity, the percentage rises to 37 percent!
Canterbury is home to only 13 percent of the population and the demographic is slightly older than the NZ average as well.
(The same disproportionate dependence continues with the invalid's benefit in the older age groups though it is not quite as marked.)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Oh Crikey returns
I have just caught up. Oh Crikey is back blogging regularly. Most original, funny, earthy, crass, clever blog in New Zealand. I can't pick a particular post to link to. It's that good.
But here's an excerpt in case I haven't persuaded you to have a look;
There's another family reunion coming up and I'm petrified about turning up without an escort. Nothing says "failure" louder than arriving unaccompanied to social events. Family gatherings are always bizarre affairs since my relatives are such a schizoid bunch, split between saints & sinners. They're either hard-core Christians or hardened criminals: half of them will bash you with the Bible, the other half will just bash you.
I try to avoid the law-breaking bunch; the biggest pack of thieves you'll ever meet. They'll pinch anything not nailed down. Heck, they'd steal the skidmarks out of your undies! Instead, I mingle with my church-going rellies. Yet without fail, every single one of them - conscious of the obligation to "Go forth and multiply" - will ask about my romantic status. There's no point lying as they've x-ray eyes that bore into one's soul. And how can anyone, in good faith, be untruthful to such honest-to-God folk? I hate to disappoint my family, or feel shamed or inadequate, so you can see why I'm desperate to get hitched - even with someone in cyberspace.
So regarding my anonymous blog troll, I'm wondering, when my relatives enquire, "Is there anyone special?" I wouldn't be lying if I said I met someone on the internet, would I? When they ask, "who?" I can say, "Her name's Ana" (short for "Ananymous"). I mean, my stalker keeps trolling my blog, therefore is obviously obsessed with me, right? Which is similar to being 'infatuated,' correct? Which is practically the same thing as being in love, eh? So in that sense, I can truthfully say that Anonymous and I are 'in a relationship' - and I won't have to lie to my family.
Please say you agree! I'd hate people to think I was just another nameless loser living in a fantasy world on the internet.
But here's an excerpt in case I haven't persuaded you to have a look;
There's another family reunion coming up and I'm petrified about turning up without an escort. Nothing says "failure" louder than arriving unaccompanied to social events. Family gatherings are always bizarre affairs since my relatives are such a schizoid bunch, split between saints & sinners. They're either hard-core Christians or hardened criminals: half of them will bash you with the Bible, the other half will just bash you.
I try to avoid the law-breaking bunch; the biggest pack of thieves you'll ever meet. They'll pinch anything not nailed down. Heck, they'd steal the skidmarks out of your undies! Instead, I mingle with my church-going rellies. Yet without fail, every single one of them - conscious of the obligation to "Go forth and multiply" - will ask about my romantic status. There's no point lying as they've x-ray eyes that bore into one's soul. And how can anyone, in good faith, be untruthful to such honest-to-God folk? I hate to disappoint my family, or feel shamed or inadequate, so you can see why I'm desperate to get hitched - even with someone in cyberspace.
So regarding my anonymous blog troll, I'm wondering, when my relatives enquire, "Is there anyone special?" I wouldn't be lying if I said I met someone on the internet, would I? When they ask, "who?" I can say, "Her name's Ana" (short for "Ananymous"). I mean, my stalker keeps trolling my blog, therefore is obviously obsessed with me, right? Which is similar to being 'infatuated,' correct? Which is practically the same thing as being in love, eh? So in that sense, I can truthfully say that Anonymous and I are 'in a relationship' - and I won't have to lie to my family.
Please say you agree! I'd hate people to think I was just another nameless loser living in a fantasy world on the internet.
ACC Minister makes outlandish statement
Maryan Street, Minister for ACC, has a piece in today's Dominion Post explaining why NZ has an accident compensation scheme. There is no link but this is my response to a statement she makes;
Dear Editor
In principle I have no problem with ACC. People need to make provision for the possibility of an accident resulting in personal injury. Just as they need to make provision for an accident resulting in the loss of their home or their car. Yet the state provides the first and the private sector, the second.
Minister for ACC, Maryan Street says that the people have a contract with the government and that, "Insurance companies have no interest in maintaining that contract."
So why, before Labour re-nationalised ACC, were a number of companies happy to get involved? Far from having "no interest" the private sector is keen to provide accident insurance because that is what they do. And, because they have to compete with each other, they do it well or fail.
The government doesn't have to compete, which is why we are all paying $50 more to ACC this year when we register our vehicles. The Minister also provided some questionable excuse for that hike, claiming the cost of injuries from car crashes is rising despite the increasing number of injuries being commensurate with the increasing size of the vehicle fleet.
There is no rational reason for the state to monopolise insurance for personal injury.
Dear Editor
In principle I have no problem with ACC. People need to make provision for the possibility of an accident resulting in personal injury. Just as they need to make provision for an accident resulting in the loss of their home or their car. Yet the state provides the first and the private sector, the second.
Minister for ACC, Maryan Street says that the people have a contract with the government and that, "Insurance companies have no interest in maintaining that contract."
So why, before Labour re-nationalised ACC, were a number of companies happy to get involved? Far from having "no interest" the private sector is keen to provide accident insurance because that is what they do. And, because they have to compete with each other, they do it well or fail.
The government doesn't have to compete, which is why we are all paying $50 more to ACC this year when we register our vehicles. The Minister also provided some questionable excuse for that hike, claiming the cost of injuries from car crashes is rising despite the increasing number of injuries being commensurate with the increasing size of the vehicle fleet.
There is no rational reason for the state to monopolise insurance for personal injury.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Why so many young rely on a sickness benefit
Last week the high number of young people on sickness benefits was making the news. But the reasons for this were unclear. I had forgotten a report from the Paediatric Society published late last year which I printed out but can no longer find a link to. It shows the causes for dependency as follows;
Looking at the group aged 18-64 at March 2007, the percentage on a sickness benefit for psychological/psychiatric reasons was 36 percent. This confirms that younger people are disproportionately reliant on a benefit for these particular incapacities.
Looking at the group aged 18-64 at March 2007, the percentage on a sickness benefit for psychological/psychiatric reasons was 36 percent. This confirms that younger people are disproportionately reliant on a benefit for these particular incapacities.
PM says housing study lacks "real meaning"
The Prime Minister is complaining about research that shows housing affordability in NZ is amongst the worse because it is too selective;
She said the survey's sample of countries was too small and lacked enough European nations to have any real meaning.
The survey found New Zealand the least affordable place compared with Australia, the United States, Ireland, Canada and Britain.
Permanent and long term departures by country of arrival shows that main countries are the Australia (33,792), United Kingdom (11,940), USA (2,709) and China (2,695).
It seems sensible and relevant to compare NZ to those countries NZers are most likely to move to.
Helen Clark told TVNZ that the survey cited only six countries, and omitted other countries such as France, Sweden, Austria, Germany and Spain.
But none of these countries rates a mention in the destination list of long-term departures. So OK, Demographia may have been wrong to claim NZ was the worst in the world, but it is probably worst in the 'world' that is relevant to Kiwis. In that sense the survey does have "real meaning."
She said the survey's sample of countries was too small and lacked enough European nations to have any real meaning.
The survey found New Zealand the least affordable place compared with Australia, the United States, Ireland, Canada and Britain.
Permanent and long term departures by country of arrival shows that main countries are the Australia (33,792), United Kingdom (11,940), USA (2,709) and China (2,695).
It seems sensible and relevant to compare NZ to those countries NZers are most likely to move to.
Helen Clark told TVNZ that the survey cited only six countries, and omitted other countries such as France, Sweden, Austria, Germany and Spain.
But none of these countries rates a mention in the destination list of long-term departures. So OK, Demographia may have been wrong to claim NZ was the worst in the world, but it is probably worst in the 'world' that is relevant to Kiwis. In that sense the survey does have "real meaning."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
