A serious chip on the shoulder

A couple of years back I read a rather raw and extreme speech which I hoped reflected a personal paranoia and not reality. Here is an excerpt;

This place is fucking appalling – men tell you what to do, men make you feel bad – men for the benefit of men shape the system. As students we are objectified – I have been one of the people who have made jokes about “easy first years” and I regret that – I did not do the sisterhood any favours. The reason why I made these jokes is because I bowed to covert peer pressure. I picked up on the language and I existed to be liked by men and envied by women but I was never going to be a fuckable first year so I went to student politics and that made me attractive to a whole other group of men – who run the place, who attack me, who judge me on whether they would fuck me or not.

University is a sad story for women and we don’t fight against it because we ignore it or see it as tough luck cause its normal.

Date rape, gang rape, sexual violence are all a norm here – it’s a joke because men make it so and they are the blokes, the boys club and they are putting us down and taking our jobs.

The place in question was Auckland University. The speaker ex-student President Kate Sutton. I mention this because I have noticed Kate is standing for Labour in Epsom. My knowledge of Epsom extends only to the fact that Rodney Hide is their current MP.

It appears Labour are not seriously entertaining changing that.

Slack

I wanted to read Louisa Wall's maiden speech so went to the Labour Party website. No speech there. In fact she isn't even listed as an MP. Anne Hartley is though.

If Labour see Wall as a draw card for Maori they might need to start supporting her. Then again she may be about to experience the shortest parliament career ever. Can anybody think of a shorter one?

Pot calling kettle.....

And further on education, this is a gem. Rick Giles has locked horns with Stratford High School over the matter of blog accessibility. He received the following e-mail;

===== Original Message From =====
when you are able to determine that you are addressing the Principal of a school about a principle in practise perhaps we can take you seriously.
Regards
Diane ####
Principal’s PA

Notice the delicious irony in this piece of lofty high-handedness?

Paying for problems

The failure of the decile rating/funding system for schools is highlighted yet again by this report which shows one in five primary school children is anti-social, yet at the poorest schools the figure rises to over one in three. The problem is apparently that these schools are not adequately funded to deal with children with behavioural problems. I don't know why not. We have just received a bill for $350 for our local state school 'donation'. In fact this is the subsidy we pay to poor schools who get twice as much funding as ours. And still want more.

In any event it is the home lives of these children which lie at the heart of the problem. I would bet you anything you like that a large majority have come out of dysfunctional families created on the back of welfare. Which we also subsidised. That's the Kiwi way. We don't pay tax to solve problems. We pay it to create them.

'Menacing' but not 'dangerous'

This is a typical 'being seen to do something' farce.

In Palmerston North "There were about 100 dog attacks on living things each year, about 12 of those were on humans."

But council's head of environmental protection services Wayne Jameson said the fact the city had no dangerous dogs was a reflection of "very good dog behaviour".

And so...No one should have to pay extra for their dog registration because there are no dangerous dogs in Palmerston North.

I know. Some days you have to pinch yourself.

A strange case of mistaken identity

I can understand the mistake being made with a kitten or puppy but what gives here?

More teenage single parents on welfare than officially exist

I wonder how many people tell porkies to the Census taker? For some time I have been trying to get a figure for the number of mothers aged 15-19 at March 2006. The figure I have been provided with is 4,107. I have argued with Statistics New Zealand that this is too low given there are usually more births to 15-19 year-olds in one year alone.

Anyway, after double-checking, I am assured that is the figure established through the process of self-indentification. Of these mothers 2,586 said they were single. I pointed out to my contact that at March 2006 there were 2,894 18 and 19 year-olds on the DPB and a further 6-700 16 and 17 year-olds on the EMA. So roughly three and a half thousand teenage single parents are on a benefit for single mothers yet, according to the Census, only two and a half thousand teenage single parents officially exist??

One can only assume the 'missing' 1,000 are telling Work and Income they are single (to qualify for welfare) but telling the Census taker they have a partner.

(In case you are wondering there were only around 40-50 male 18-19 year-old single parents on a benefit so that doesn't account for the difference.)

No silver bullet

Although I appreciate the need to improve saving habits among Kiwis I do not approve of using taxpayer money as an incentive. I don't have a KiwiSaver account. But I know people who oppose it in principle who have nevertheless taken advantage of the 'free' money. Apparently I am an idiot not to.

A study from Waikato Management School has shown however that as a scheme to incentivise saving it may not be very efficient.

The study found between only 9 and 19 per cent of KiwiSaver cash was new savings. "The rest is either reshuffling among existing saving and debt by KiwiSaver members, or else taxpayer and employer transfers which decrease national saving elsewhere," Prof Gibson said. "When the deadweight loss of tax incentives is taken into account, along with the administration, compliance and implementation costs, then KiwiSaver is likely to lower rather than lift national saving."

Great. Another grand redistribution plan failing to achieve its purpose. Another Labour policy supported by National.

The "lump of lead"

Chris Trotter so has the knives out for Helen Clark it is almost enough to make you feel some sympathy for her. Almost. But I don't see Helen as a figure who would appreciate my sympathy so I'd best save it for a more deserving cause.

Trotter writes in today's Dominion Post;

"....the government's catastrophic [poll] numbers are being driven by Ms Clark's unpopularity not the party's....she was Labour's greatest asset, the wind beneath its wings. She has now become the lump of lead on its back.....Miss Clark is no Bill Clinton: she cannot look her supporters in the eye and say,'I feel your pain.' At heart, the prime minister is a diligent and rather uninspiring policy wonk, who has never really understood that politics is not about the head, but the heart....Labour's caucus needs to get its head around this - and soon. Because the longer it delays replacing Ms Clark as leader, the more time it is allowing voters to convince themselves (if they have not already done so) that Mr Key is the prime minister they are looking for."

Are Trotter's assertions honest or are they merely part of some ploy to save the Left? It could be a bob each way. If voters really do vote with their emotions to the fore, then his constant kicking of Clark turns her into an underdog and don't Kiwis love an underdog. Alternatively if he spooks Labour MPs enough he might succeed in causing a change of leadership. There is a third scenario too. That nobody gives a rat's arse for what Trotter has to say on the matter.

Around the blogosphere you would have to be blind not to notice that many commentors religiously loathe Clark. They seem to be mostly men. Their obsession with her personal life and looks is very unpleasant to behold. I have never understood this viciousness. What Clark stands for - socialism - is well worthy of stout and sustained attack but getting in a lather over what Clark looks like, or sounds like for that matter, is a waste of energy.

My husband doubts Clark can come back now because that's just not what typically happens. Politically he has more nous than I. But I am wondering how useful history or precedent is, for this reason. Clark is a woman. She is a feminist. The first elected female Prime Minister. The last three decades of NZ politics has been so influenced by women that I can't ignore what their reaction to Clark's sudden unpopularity will be. Simply, I wouldn't discount the women's vote swinging in behind Helen (or the Greens, to shore her up.)

I won't vote for Clark, but I couldn't disrespect someone who does so based on her experience, intelligence and ability to hold her nerve. Unlike Trotter she won't be prematurely....panicking.

We wanna hold your hand

Work and Income are offering financial assistance to people affected by the drought. No doubt it will be strictly means-tested. If the drought results in people having no work then I guess the assistance is similar to the dole. Leaving aside any comment about what might be an improvement on our mandatory taxpayer-funded unemployment insurance scheme, I don't have much problem with genuinely warranted financial assistance.

BUT stress counselling???

Market research

For the next two weeks I will be having a painting sale at 25 Rimu St, Eastbourne. I was faced with the problem of what to do while captured in a shop all day, apart from meeting and talking to people. Working with oils and turps is too smelly and potentially messy in a confined space that does not belong to me. So I decided to bone up on my pastel drawing and offer pet portraits from photos. If necessary I can photograph the pet on the spot and download it to my laptop. I've produced these examples drawn from photos. Question:

How much to do you think is a reasonable price for one of these portraits given they take from 2 - 3 hours to complete? You can see the figure I have suggested but I tend to forget about tax etc (I am not registered for gst.)

Psychologists making sense

Now Deborah Morris asks us to give the anti-smacking law a chance in the NZ Herald. Notice like all of this law's advocates she insists on using the word 'hit' instead of 'smack'. I have never hit either of my children but I did, very occasionally, smack them or threaten to. I am prepared to concede there may have been alternatives but I am also sure that my children feel loved and secure. Which brings me to a piece which appears in the Dominion Post today but isn't on line. It reviews child psychologist Glen Stenhouse's book, You Don't Need To Smack.

The pleasant surprise is that Mr Stenhouse does not see anti-smacking legislation as an answer.

"Good parents object to the Government telling them how to parent and telling them what they can and can't do with their children in an area where they feel they're not doing anything to harm their children."

He believes that legislation isn't going to make any difference to the very small percentage of people who physically abuse their children.

Interestingly he talks about how parents have become so child-focussed they have created a situation where children are more assertive and challenging. Reading between the lines I think he believes children are over-parented.

"Parenting is not complicated. As long as kids have structure, and love and security and predictability in their lives, they will go with the flow."

Exactly. That's the problem for too many NZ children. They lack each or all of these things.

And speaking of sensible psychologists, the programmme with Nigel Latta about Taffy Hotene screened on TV last night was riveting.

Hotene's upbringing was appalling. The youngest of thirteen he was by all accounts horribly and frequently physically abused by parents and older siblings. He took to sleeping under the house to avoid the beatings.

But Nigel Latta doesn't just follow the psychological development of Hotene. He puts it into a moral context. He says (from memory) "We are right to feel sorry for that small child. But the little boy who went under the house never came out. I have dealt with people who have experienced similar in their lives and they never turned into selfish, calculating predators. There were people who were kind to Hotene along the way. He consciously and deliberately chose to murder Kylie Jones."

Thank goodness for some acknowledgement of self-determination for a change. There were too many people who thought they could change Hotene along the way. Marie Dyberg, for instance, thought that at a certain age there is always hope. A military style training course operator felt he was turning Hotene around until the police intervened. Latta thinks that they were being duped. Hotene could show a maverick and vulnerable side. He could also use that persona to lure victims.

Sadly giving physical expression to that 'hope' ultimately cost the life of a girl who, as Latta put it, was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was always on the cards that Hotene's history of violence would escalate to murder.

Minimal sanctions imposed

In 2003 the Labour government introduced Personal Development and Employment Plans for DPB beneficiaries in place of work-testing. To increase the effectiveness of these plans case managers can use sanctions for non-compliance eg the beneficiary loses a percentage of their payment (although they are later recompensed the equivalent amount if they do comply). This table shows how many sanctions have been imposed.

The overall picture suggests to me that like any new regime, its administration progressively tapers off.

Last year there were only 32 sanctions imposed for a total of 98,000 beneficiaries. And in Auckland, where a third of beneficiaries live, there were zero. Auckland, coincidentally, is the worst performer in reducing benefit numbers. Nearly half of the Auckland region Work and Income Centres experienced a rise in DPB numbers during 2007. Clearly most people will by now have cottoned on that their PDE plans aren't worth the paper they are written on in terms of how diligently Work and Income will pursue them. No wonder a report written about their implementation found beneficiaries were binning them on the way out.

Unfinished business

TV3 reports Sir Roger Douglas is returning to ACT. Why?

Because Labour and National are too alike.

That's a pretty good reason.

Cradle to grave....

In 2007 Work and Income provided 5,075 funeral grants.

The same year there were 28,520 deaths.

Therefore 18 percent (or near to one in five) funerals are paid for by the taxpayer.

That's a sizeable subsidy.

And it probably rises significantly in certain areas.

Interesting.

I imagine there are some very high profile deaths in amongst the subsidised funerals.

Vacuous comments

Vacuous comments that caught my eye in today's Dominion Post. I thought of ranking them but can't decide which is worse:


Translate as , "I can't wait to be a Minister again."




The police liquor licensing officer commenting on how Easter trading laws will shut down city bars and the impact on the two-day Easter rock concert coming up at the stadium.




And finally Business NZ CE, Phil O'Reilly at the end of a lengthy opinion piece entitled, "All bound up in creeping red tape." Nobody has been thinking harder about the burden of regulation than Rodney Hide. Yet in seven or eight hundred words, Phil O'Reilly manages to completely overlook ACT's Regulatory Responsibility Bill.

The juvenile cat

The Xmas kitten is now a young cat. From these photos you wouldn't suspect that, when awake, she is a lethal killing machine. But she is less efficient than our older cat and occasionally, in the process, loses her prey to inaccessible places. We do not discover this until our noses tell us. Accusations of unwashed feet and breaking wind have been unkindly levelled. Eventually some rather unpleasant discoveries have been made. As you can imagine the heat hasn't helped. She also has a rather peculiar habit. Like young humans who take comfort in sucking on a dummy, Daisy likes to suck the end of her tail. None of this has put off her faithful friend - the dog.

The real debate

Smacking debate has moved on

Today's NZ Herald editorial invites a number of responses. I have only focussed on one aspect of it.

Dear Editor

If you are right and New Zealanders have "moved on" from the anti-smacking debate then that is a real shame. Because the debate is about far more than whether or not a smack is an acceptable way to discipline a child. That should be a matter for private individuals to decide. Not agents of the state who wish to impose their thinking by force.

The increasing intrusion by those who would harness political power to alter morality has gone on for too long now. The 'rights' movement - from women's to human to children's - hasn't been a raging success. Governments have not been able to engineer a kinder, more caring society. In most cases they have swapped one problem for another, usually worse one. It is not the role of the governments to run our social lives. Their job is to maintain law and order and fulfil a very few economic functions that individuals alone can not. It is only relatively recently (in historic terms) that they have charged themselves with the task of telling people how to think and behave.

If New Zealanders have moved on from that debate then we truly are easy meat.

The Commissioner speaks

On the matter of the petition that today exceeded 300,000 signatures and asks that New Zealanders have a say in parenting their children, Cindy Kiro says,

"If the petition backers truly cared about good parenting, they would, like all the reputable national and international child welfare organisations, be encouraging positive parenting. They would acknowledge that we know more about parenting and child health and development now than we did in our parents’, grandparents’ and great grandparents’ times."

We must all be profoundly grateful for the existence of such a wise and all-knowing Children's Commissioner. She recognises there is nothing to be learned from the past (unless it's tikanga passed through her whakapapa). She knows traditions serve no purpose. What came before should be spurned and replaced with the new knowledge.

Because latter generations have increasingly turned out well-adjusted, healthy, law-abiding, independent citizens, while our parents, their parents and grandparents failed to, embracing what Sue Bradford now calls "the forces of ignorance and bigotry".

What a wonderful new age of enlightenment we now live in. Free from youth crime, tagging, gangs, murder and mayhem. None of our children would dream of leaving such a paradise.

Posterity will be forever indebted to you Commissioner.

Utter hypocrisy

What a hypocrite Jim Anderton is. Here he is attacking National for promising an interest free loan to the meat export industry (quite right too);

"...And it [National] won’t say if it intends to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise our most important export companies, which we need to be successful in their own right.”

Hang on. What about Creative New Zealand and their looonnng list of grants? The Ministry of Economic Development with all their hand-outs to business? Why doesn't he apply his logic and indignation to all those beneficiaries who also "need to be successful in their own right"?

Mr Anderton is on very shaky ground here. He shows he understands the principle of letting enterprises fail or succeed on their own merit but only applies it when it suits his political purposes.

This is the kind of absurdity we will have to endure this year while leftists try to defend their patch against the marauding copy-cat National party.