For those of you who have decided fibre is the new 'public good' and should be paid for by the tax-payer, answer me this.
National wants to put in $1.5 billion and says it will need to be matched by the same and more coming from the private sector. (Maurice Williamson puts up some very persuasive arguments as to how and why the private sector will come to the party - he should listen to himself and ask why, then, government needs to get involved?)
So let's say it's going to take $4 billion to lay fibre to 1,000,000 homes.
That's just 4 grand a home.
If I got a call tomorrow from a salesperson trying to sell me fibre for $4,000 I would tell them quite firmly to piss off. Would you?
So why are you happy for the government to use your money buying something you wouldn't fork out for privately?
As usual with big government subsidies the majority end up paying for the benefit of a minority. Just like social welfare. But this is called corporate welfare.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Coarse calculations
I wonder if Michael Cullen's mullings go something like this.
Forget the polls. There are about 3.17 million people aged 18 and over in NZ. Voter turn-out in 2005 was 77%. That's 2.4 million. (Sounds about right as there were just under 2.3 million votes cast in 2005)
There are 371,000 families receiving WFF tax credits. Not all of these families will have two voters but let's assume two thirds do have. So 616,000 potential Labour voters. Improving WFF would tend to increase the chances of these voters ticking Labour. Tops this group provides 26 percent of the vote.
Another strong group for Labour are working-age beneficiaries currently totalling 256,000. Take away the 180,000 who are receiving WFF tax credits which leaves 76,000 or 3 percent of the vote.(Labour will focus a lot of energy here as they did in 2005 in South Auckland.)
Then look at 65+ age group. Roughly half a million voters. Many will vote Labour because they have always voted Labour. Voting Labour is an act of tradition and faith. Why change the habit of a lifetime? Let's guess that half will tick Labour. That's another 10 percent.
Then there are some 200,000 single and couple childless people receiving an accommodation supplement. That's 8 percent but could overlap significantly with the beneficiary vote and 65+ vote so call it 3.
What about civil servants? 36,000. Good for another 1 percent.
That's 43 percent best scenario. Risky. Some more bribery will soon be called for.
Forget the polls. There are about 3.17 million people aged 18 and over in NZ. Voter turn-out in 2005 was 77%. That's 2.4 million. (Sounds about right as there were just under 2.3 million votes cast in 2005)
There are 371,000 families receiving WFF tax credits. Not all of these families will have two voters but let's assume two thirds do have. So 616,000 potential Labour voters. Improving WFF would tend to increase the chances of these voters ticking Labour. Tops this group provides 26 percent of the vote.
Another strong group for Labour are working-age beneficiaries currently totalling 256,000. Take away the 180,000 who are receiving WFF tax credits which leaves 76,000 or 3 percent of the vote.(Labour will focus a lot of energy here as they did in 2005 in South Auckland.)
Then look at 65+ age group. Roughly half a million voters. Many will vote Labour because they have always voted Labour. Voting Labour is an act of tradition and faith. Why change the habit of a lifetime? Let's guess that half will tick Labour. That's another 10 percent.
Then there are some 200,000 single and couple childless people receiving an accommodation supplement. That's 8 percent but could overlap significantly with the beneficiary vote and 65+ vote so call it 3.
What about civil servants? 36,000. Good for another 1 percent.
That's 43 percent best scenario. Risky. Some more bribery will soon be called for.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
ACT questions National policy
ACT leader Rodney Hide questions John Key's plan to invest $1.5 billion in broadband. In keeping with the thinking that drove the creation of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill Rodney wants better definition of the problem, clearer definition of the policy and identification of the unintended consequences.
Making no pretensions to knowledge about the telecommunications industry I cannot understand why private money isn't available for what is a apparently such a stupendous investment. It is not good enough for Key to argue that this is what other countries are doing and ergo it must be the most desirable solution.
Key is rather condescending towards ACT suggesting he might need to sit down with Rodney and explain how the telecommunications sector works. Perhaps Rodney can return the favour and explain how a free economy operates.
Making no pretensions to knowledge about the telecommunications industry I cannot understand why private money isn't available for what is a apparently such a stupendous investment. It is not good enough for Key to argue that this is what other countries are doing and ergo it must be the most desirable solution.
Key is rather condescending towards ACT suggesting he might need to sit down with Rodney and explain how the telecommunications sector works. Perhaps Rodney can return the favour and explain how a free economy operates.
How income support affects employment rates
The following chart is a little misleading. While the employment rate of sole mothers has risen, clearly a good chunk are recorded as 'employed' while still dependent on a benefit. Around 74 percent of sole parents still rely on welfare.
But it strikes me that at the very least the two lines should be reversed ie sole mothers should have a higher employment rate than partnered mothers. And they would have if we didn't have such generous state support.
Sweden has no DPB equivalent and look at the results.
In Sweden 73% of women work – only 3 percentage points below male employment rates; 97% of households with children have someone in work; more than 70% of the mothers with children and 80% of sole mothers have jobs.
Sweden also has a much lower rate of teenage birth, which, as I have argued many times before, is a significant feeder into long-term DPB dependency.
There must be a considerable row occurring among the left between the feminists who want women in the workplace and the feminists who want women to have unfettered access to state support for their lifestyle choices.
If National form the next government the argument will be between conservatives who don't much care for the negative effects of the DPB and those who think a mother's place is in the home.
There is another position. What's wrong with letting and expecting people to make and pay for their own choices?
But it strikes me that at the very least the two lines should be reversed ie sole mothers should have a higher employment rate than partnered mothers. And they would have if we didn't have such generous state support.
Sweden has no DPB equivalent and look at the results.
In Sweden 73% of women work – only 3 percentage points below male employment rates; 97% of households with children have someone in work; more than 70% of the mothers with children and 80% of sole mothers have jobs.
Sweden also has a much lower rate of teenage birth, which, as I have argued many times before, is a significant feeder into long-term DPB dependency.
There must be a considerable row occurring among the left between the feminists who want women in the workplace and the feminists who want women to have unfettered access to state support for their lifestyle choices.
If National form the next government the argument will be between conservatives who don't much care for the negative effects of the DPB and those who think a mother's place is in the home.
There is another position. What's wrong with letting and expecting people to make and pay for their own choices?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
National encapsulated
If you were ever in any doubt that National stands for the status quo and mere management of the current set up read this.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Religion and voluntary euthanasia
Interesting Australian research on which specialists are more likely to favour euthanising terminally ill patients;
Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Queensland and author of the study, Malcolm Parker, said that while he could not explain the support for euthanasia and sedation among certain specialists, palliative care workers were generally more religious and therefore less likely to assist suicide.
"Their views are more likely to be based on religious views that it's immoral to help someone die and that bringing about someone's death is unacceptable."
Last week some atheists railed against Christians who expressed their faith in the aftermath of Mangatepoto tragedy. Other people's faith is their business in my book. If it helps them, all well and good. But when it adversely affects other people's lives then atheists are on stronger grounds to object. Deciding to force people to linger on in enormous pain in their last days is exactly the sort of religious judgement that makes my blood boil. These people are essentially saying the individual does not own his own life. It is God's to control to the bitter end.
The sooner we reopen the voluntary euthanasia debate the better. The Death With Dignity Bill is still in the ballot.
Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Queensland and author of the study, Malcolm Parker, said that while he could not explain the support for euthanasia and sedation among certain specialists, palliative care workers were generally more religious and therefore less likely to assist suicide.
"Their views are more likely to be based on religious views that it's immoral to help someone die and that bringing about someone's death is unacceptable."
Last week some atheists railed against Christians who expressed their faith in the aftermath of Mangatepoto tragedy. Other people's faith is their business in my book. If it helps them, all well and good. But when it adversely affects other people's lives then atheists are on stronger grounds to object. Deciding to force people to linger on in enormous pain in their last days is exactly the sort of religious judgement that makes my blood boil. These people are essentially saying the individual does not own his own life. It is God's to control to the bitter end.
The sooner we reopen the voluntary euthanasia debate the better. The Death With Dignity Bill is still in the ballot.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Unofficial fostering
Something I have been trying (with no success) to get to the bottom of is how widespread is the practice of unofficial fostering/adoption - or in Maoridom - whangai. Questions to MSD have been fruitless as they say information about the relationship between the caregiver and a dependent child is not necessarily recorded. Certainly an individual can claim a caregiver benefit if they have a child dependent on them, regardless of whether that child is their own. Again I believe this situation presents incentives which can lead to poor outcomes for the child or children involved. A variation on the theme of children as meal tickets if you like. The latest suspicious child death occurred in a fostering situation - one that was not a result of CYF intervention or a court order. Without legal standing.
While whangai/adoption or fostering usually occur because the child's best interests have been considered, if the practice is happening for other reasons - monetary gain for instance - then the child's best interests could be decidedly ill-served.
In this case we wait and see what unfolds.
While whangai/adoption or fostering usually occur because the child's best interests have been considered, if the practice is happening for other reasons - monetary gain for instance - then the child's best interests could be decidedly ill-served.
In this case we wait and see what unfolds.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
It won't be just the dole that rises
Here is something to consider. Cameron Bagrie, ANZ National bank Chief Economist, predicts unemployment will jump from 3.4 to 5 percent (BTW some US states are already experiencing over 6 percent). That will push up dole numbers.
But it will also push up DPB numbers as families struggling to live on the unemployment benefit alone decide they would be better off financially, living apart (if not in actuality - on paper).
That is another reason why we badly need to turn the DPB back into temporary and discretionary emergency assistance only. A repeat of what happened during the eighties must be warded off.
But it will also push up DPB numbers as families struggling to live on the unemployment benefit alone decide they would be better off financially, living apart (if not in actuality - on paper).
That is another reason why we badly need to turn the DPB back into temporary and discretionary emergency assistance only. A repeat of what happened during the eighties must be warded off.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
DPB 'reform' results stalled
If I was Ruth Dyson I would be looking at the newly released March benefit fact sheets and worrying.
The invalid benefit numbers have reached a new high of 81,130 - a 6 percent increase in one year. I expected this due to no mention of this benefit during the Labour Congress welfare skite.
But in some ways, even more worrying is that the results of great DPB reforms - personal work and development plans and WFF - seemed to have stalled. Again many of those centres with high young Maori and Pacific populations have seen rises and the overall decrease is only 1.3 percent or an average of 9 people fewer per centre since March 2007.
Add to this Treasury are predicting no further decrease in DPB numbers over the next few years.
A government truly wanting to get DPB numbers down will have to be far more radical than Labour or National.
The invalid benefit numbers have reached a new high of 81,130 - a 6 percent increase in one year. I expected this due to no mention of this benefit during the Labour Congress welfare skite.
But in some ways, even more worrying is that the results of great DPB reforms - personal work and development plans and WFF - seemed to have stalled. Again many of those centres with high young Maori and Pacific populations have seen rises and the overall decrease is only 1.3 percent or an average of 9 people fewer per centre since March 2007.
Add to this Treasury are predicting no further decrease in DPB numbers over the next few years.
A government truly wanting to get DPB numbers down will have to be far more radical than Labour or National.
The politics of racism
This is an absorbing and insightful piece by libertarian Scott Wilson. I am humbled by his ability to grasp and describe the politics of the Maori Party so have reproduced it in full.
Tariana Turia’s comment that Wanganui’s proposed ban on gangpatches is akin to what the Jews went through in Nazi Germany should spark outrage and calls for resignation from all who have any sense of perspective and morality. This is not because I support such a ban. I don’t, and there are a range of useful arguments against it. However, it is the despicable equivalency granted to wearing gangpatches and being labelled as a group which was slaughtered en masse which demonstrates her philosophy. It was first displayed by an earlier comment by her that Maori went through a “holocaust”, so the point is plain and simple. Tariana Turia at worst is anti-semitic and a calculating liar, at best she is a thoughtless fool.
Since the Maori Party was formed it has enjoyed a significant media honeymoon. This is partly due to the self-policing of reporters who fear that criticism of the Maori Party will be seen as being racist. This, of course, is a well known technique of the likes of Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki, both of whom have thrown the word “racist” at their opponents whenever either of them have been accused of poor performance, which as you well know, is being supremely generous to them both. The Maori Party itself refused to condemn Mugabe’s thuggery a few years ago, and despite criticism from many quarters, it still got a “get out of jail free” pass from the media.
One of the most crippling, almost Maoist phenomena in New Zealand political circles is the delicacy used regarding Maori politics. This is because of the “racist” moniker that is thrown about like Zimbabwe Dollars, as if the dominant discourse about Maori in New Zealand is racist. At one point it was, albeit in later years in a patronising way – but who dares be racist now? Those on the mainstream left, in Labour and the Greens accused Don Brash of racism when he openly advocated the precise opposite. Some, of course, clinging to the tribalist view of politics that sees the National Party as some repositary of white conservative heterosexual men who are racist, sexist, homophobic and intolerant, honestly believed Brash was being racist. I don’t doubt Helen Clark thinks that, as she has been in the hothouse of the feminist left of the Labour party for most of her life, and surrounded herself with people of that persuasion. Others on the left know the right is vulnerable on this, if only because those who fought against racism, sexism and homophobia predominantly came from the radical left in the 1960s and 70s. The liberal “right” if I dare call it that was very few in number then, but not invisible. National MP and former Transport Minister George Gair cast the deciding vote in favour of Homosexual Law Reform, at a time when Labour’s Maori MPs were voting as a bloc against it.
So the discourse about Maori in New Zealand is actually about avoiding ever being called “racist”. Plenty have written on the liberal “right” about how seeking a political and legal system that is colourblind is anything but racist, and it takes a curious contortion of post modernist cultural relativism to believe it is.
Nevertheless, the Maori Party is, in fact, racist. By this I don’t mean because it is a party of race – though it is. It would be better saying it is a party of identity, because being Maori is, for many who are, an important matter of identity. Being Caucasian, except for a rather pathetic handful of largely white male malcontents and low to modest achievers, is not. There is undoubtedly plenty of academic work that can be done on this – why do those who identify as Maori regard it as important, but Caucasian New Zealanders do not.
I don’t have to explain to anyone with a moderate knowledge of history, or the basic ability to undertake research, what the Holocaust was about. Also, before the claims of “it wasn’t the only one” are thrown about, the genocidal and mass murderous actions of other regimes are only distinguished by the target groups and the less efficiency by which they operated. The Nazis were coldly efficient and organised, almost all of the other mass murderous campaigns were a combination of hyped up, but relatively short term savagery, or slightly detached, as in the ludicrous policies that created enormous famines in China, Ethiopia, the USSR and North Korea. Whether it be Rwanda, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Croatia, Armenia, Cambodia, the Kurds, Darfur, Bosnia Hercegovina, Nazi Germany, Maoist China or the USSR, these cases were marked by the identification of a group to be killed indiscriminately.
To treat the rather stupid policy idea of eliminating the choice of criminal gang members to wear their patches as akin to these is an insult to the victims of those horrors, and a despicable attempt to shock and invite Maori to think of themselves as being subject to the same dehumanisation and hatred that characterised Nazi Germany. You would have to be insane or an evil manipulative racist to claim that this is what many New Zealanders think of Maori. It is despicable beyond words.
It is what characterises far too much of what the Maori Party is about – it is about inciting Maori to vote for it, on the basis that only the Maori Party can protect Maori from the racism of the “mainstream”. It is about painting Maori as victims, not simply a group that, on average, performs worse at school, has a higher proportion of criminals, and maintains lifestyles that shorten their lives, but a group that others think “should be eliminated” and have long thought that. This is why the word “racist” is thrown about, and also explains the empathy some in the Maori Party have for Robert Mugabe – who makes exactly the same claims, when he demonstrably is doing exactly what he claims the Opposition is about. Mugabe is murdering black Zimbabweans – except he doesn’t do it by race, he does it by political affiliation – much like his comrades in North Korea, who have trained many of his goons.
The Maori Party gets a relatively free ride from the media because some of its MPs, such as Hone Harawira, will spit the “racist” dummy when he can. It can demean the memory of those slaughtered in the Holocaust and get away with it, daring to grant moral equivalency to peaceful men, women and children who were dragged, transported like cattle, stripped, demeaned and murdered on mass, to the knuckle dragging violent criminal scum in New Zealand gangs. That in itself ought to deny Tariana Turia and the party any seats in Parliament, for such an abject void of morality.
However the Maori Party already has an electoral system that effectively grants it a significant advantage over any other party. The Maori Party is highly unlikely to ever cross the 5% party vote threshold, and has not come close. Whilst three parties get into Parliament because they have leaders with strong local constituency bases of support, the Maori party enters because it has race based seats it can campaign for. It can, and by and large does ignore voters on the general roll. It is a party based on race, campaigning in constituencies that are racially defined for voters who distinguish themselves politically by race. As such it has won more race based seats than it would be entitled to on a party vote basis, so it is disproportionately represented in Parliament compared to every other party which has representation broadly according to party vote.
So a party that thinks Jews in the Holocaust and Black Power and Mongrel Mob gang members face “similar oppression”, that thinks that having a liberal democracy where all constituencies are based upon geography and none by race are racist, and which has refused to judge the murderous tyranny of Robert Mugabe, which cheers the socialist Evo Morales, which excuses child abuse as being “families under pressure”, which doesn’t think Islamist terrorism is a problem, isn’t held accountable for that. It is about time the light was shone on the Maori Party, in election year, and its inevitable cries of “racism” were confronted for what they are – the bleetings of the morally contemptible, protecting their own racist privilege as they peddle the philosophy of perpetual victimhood.
Tariana Turia’s comment that Wanganui’s proposed ban on gangpatches is akin to what the Jews went through in Nazi Germany should spark outrage and calls for resignation from all who have any sense of perspective and morality. This is not because I support such a ban. I don’t, and there are a range of useful arguments against it. However, it is the despicable equivalency granted to wearing gangpatches and being labelled as a group which was slaughtered en masse which demonstrates her philosophy. It was first displayed by an earlier comment by her that Maori went through a “holocaust”, so the point is plain and simple. Tariana Turia at worst is anti-semitic and a calculating liar, at best she is a thoughtless fool.
Since the Maori Party was formed it has enjoyed a significant media honeymoon. This is partly due to the self-policing of reporters who fear that criticism of the Maori Party will be seen as being racist. This, of course, is a well known technique of the likes of Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki, both of whom have thrown the word “racist” at their opponents whenever either of them have been accused of poor performance, which as you well know, is being supremely generous to them both. The Maori Party itself refused to condemn Mugabe’s thuggery a few years ago, and despite criticism from many quarters, it still got a “get out of jail free” pass from the media.
One of the most crippling, almost Maoist phenomena in New Zealand political circles is the delicacy used regarding Maori politics. This is because of the “racist” moniker that is thrown about like Zimbabwe Dollars, as if the dominant discourse about Maori in New Zealand is racist. At one point it was, albeit in later years in a patronising way – but who dares be racist now? Those on the mainstream left, in Labour and the Greens accused Don Brash of racism when he openly advocated the precise opposite. Some, of course, clinging to the tribalist view of politics that sees the National Party as some repositary of white conservative heterosexual men who are racist, sexist, homophobic and intolerant, honestly believed Brash was being racist. I don’t doubt Helen Clark thinks that, as she has been in the hothouse of the feminist left of the Labour party for most of her life, and surrounded herself with people of that persuasion. Others on the left know the right is vulnerable on this, if only because those who fought against racism, sexism and homophobia predominantly came from the radical left in the 1960s and 70s. The liberal “right” if I dare call it that was very few in number then, but not invisible. National MP and former Transport Minister George Gair cast the deciding vote in favour of Homosexual Law Reform, at a time when Labour’s Maori MPs were voting as a bloc against it.
So the discourse about Maori in New Zealand is actually about avoiding ever being called “racist”. Plenty have written on the liberal “right” about how seeking a political and legal system that is colourblind is anything but racist, and it takes a curious contortion of post modernist cultural relativism to believe it is.
Nevertheless, the Maori Party is, in fact, racist. By this I don’t mean because it is a party of race – though it is. It would be better saying it is a party of identity, because being Maori is, for many who are, an important matter of identity. Being Caucasian, except for a rather pathetic handful of largely white male malcontents and low to modest achievers, is not. There is undoubtedly plenty of academic work that can be done on this – why do those who identify as Maori regard it as important, but Caucasian New Zealanders do not.
I don’t have to explain to anyone with a moderate knowledge of history, or the basic ability to undertake research, what the Holocaust was about. Also, before the claims of “it wasn’t the only one” are thrown about, the genocidal and mass murderous actions of other regimes are only distinguished by the target groups and the less efficiency by which they operated. The Nazis were coldly efficient and organised, almost all of the other mass murderous campaigns were a combination of hyped up, but relatively short term savagery, or slightly detached, as in the ludicrous policies that created enormous famines in China, Ethiopia, the USSR and North Korea. Whether it be Rwanda, Burundi, Equatorial Guinea, Croatia, Armenia, Cambodia, the Kurds, Darfur, Bosnia Hercegovina, Nazi Germany, Maoist China or the USSR, these cases were marked by the identification of a group to be killed indiscriminately.
To treat the rather stupid policy idea of eliminating the choice of criminal gang members to wear their patches as akin to these is an insult to the victims of those horrors, and a despicable attempt to shock and invite Maori to think of themselves as being subject to the same dehumanisation and hatred that characterised Nazi Germany. You would have to be insane or an evil manipulative racist to claim that this is what many New Zealanders think of Maori. It is despicable beyond words.
It is what characterises far too much of what the Maori Party is about – it is about inciting Maori to vote for it, on the basis that only the Maori Party can protect Maori from the racism of the “mainstream”. It is about painting Maori as victims, not simply a group that, on average, performs worse at school, has a higher proportion of criminals, and maintains lifestyles that shorten their lives, but a group that others think “should be eliminated” and have long thought that. This is why the word “racist” is thrown about, and also explains the empathy some in the Maori Party have for Robert Mugabe – who makes exactly the same claims, when he demonstrably is doing exactly what he claims the Opposition is about. Mugabe is murdering black Zimbabweans – except he doesn’t do it by race, he does it by political affiliation – much like his comrades in North Korea, who have trained many of his goons.
The Maori Party gets a relatively free ride from the media because some of its MPs, such as Hone Harawira, will spit the “racist” dummy when he can. It can demean the memory of those slaughtered in the Holocaust and get away with it, daring to grant moral equivalency to peaceful men, women and children who were dragged, transported like cattle, stripped, demeaned and murdered on mass, to the knuckle dragging violent criminal scum in New Zealand gangs. That in itself ought to deny Tariana Turia and the party any seats in Parliament, for such an abject void of morality.
However the Maori Party already has an electoral system that effectively grants it a significant advantage over any other party. The Maori Party is highly unlikely to ever cross the 5% party vote threshold, and has not come close. Whilst three parties get into Parliament because they have leaders with strong local constituency bases of support, the Maori party enters because it has race based seats it can campaign for. It can, and by and large does ignore voters on the general roll. It is a party based on race, campaigning in constituencies that are racially defined for voters who distinguish themselves politically by race. As such it has won more race based seats than it would be entitled to on a party vote basis, so it is disproportionately represented in Parliament compared to every other party which has representation broadly according to party vote.
So a party that thinks Jews in the Holocaust and Black Power and Mongrel Mob gang members face “similar oppression”, that thinks that having a liberal democracy where all constituencies are based upon geography and none by race are racist, and which has refused to judge the murderous tyranny of Robert Mugabe, which cheers the socialist Evo Morales, which excuses child abuse as being “families under pressure”, which doesn’t think Islamist terrorism is a problem, isn’t held accountable for that. It is about time the light was shone on the Maori Party, in election year, and its inevitable cries of “racism” were confronted for what they are – the bleetings of the morally contemptible, protecting their own racist privilege as they peddle the philosophy of perpetual victimhood.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Debate at The Standard
I wandered into a debate about falling DPB numbers over at the Labour blog - The Standard. Gee. They are very excitable. I shouldn't do this because it takes so much time to make all the necessary responses. Still, it's a pissing-down awful day, not enough light to paint and it is fascinating to see how people interpret statistics to fit their assumptions.
What does she hope to achieve?
Tariana Turia, creating waves as is her want, says banning gang patches is akin to treating gangs like Jews. I thought Jewish people were made to wear insignia. Her comments will no doubt cause a good deal of offence. I wonder what she hopes to achieve?
Loss
Yesterday was a terrible day. Fourteen parents lost beloved children. I'm not sure people who aren't parents can actually appreciate how precarious and vulnerable being one makes you. Most would lose their own lives before their child's.
Most.
Not this one.
Reported by the NZ Herald;
...Ms King told Kahui the twins were in critical danger and were they were unlikely to "make it through this one".
"I'm sure I got the point across. They're f***ed."
Yesterday I found Macsyna King's crying in the witness box repugnant. You think I am too hard. But picture this. What do the other three children she has abandoned feel as they watch their mother on the telly supposedly grieving over her lost babies. Do you think they might wonder what is wrong with them that she never shows any care for their mere existence?
What some would give to have their cherished child returned to them. She just tosses them aside. It is a cruel contrast to stomach.
Most.
Not this one.
Reported by the NZ Herald;
...Ms King told Kahui the twins were in critical danger and were they were unlikely to "make it through this one".
"I'm sure I got the point across. They're f***ed."
Yesterday I found Macsyna King's crying in the witness box repugnant. You think I am too hard. But picture this. What do the other three children she has abandoned feel as they watch their mother on the telly supposedly grieving over her lost babies. Do you think they might wonder what is wrong with them that she never shows any care for their mere existence?
What some would give to have their cherished child returned to them. She just tosses them aside. It is a cruel contrast to stomach.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
You can lead a horse to water etc
Yesterday I blogged about why a national register of domestic violence offenders wouldn't achieve much. I am still of the same view. Consider the following passage from Theodore Dalrymple, a British psychiatrist who has worked with thousands of abused women.
Note the last sentence. So their blindness is wilful.
Note the last sentence. So their blindness is wilful.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Sharples on fighting domestic violence
He said that when he grew up in the small Hawkes Bay community of Takapau, Maori Affairs officers knew who lived in every house.
"Now there are young people setting up a relationship and having children they're not ready for in a flat at the back of a flat that you don't even know about. We have got to get back to knowing our communities. We have got to get back to empowering our communities."
You can't empower communities while empowering the government to provide cash incentives to do exactly what Sharple's is railing against. When are he and Tariana Turia going to face facts? It's no good promising some sort of hard line work-for-the-dole policy, while leaving the DPB untouched.
From last year,
Dr Sharples said he was not promoting a crackdown on the domestic purpose benefit, for "we have a culture of accepting solo parents, [and] we have to take care of them".
The culture of 'solo' (they often aren't) parents is at the heart of the domestic violence problem. They are too often women with a secure income and home who attract self-centred trash.
"Now there are young people setting up a relationship and having children they're not ready for in a flat at the back of a flat that you don't even know about. We have got to get back to knowing our communities. We have got to get back to empowering our communities."
You can't empower communities while empowering the government to provide cash incentives to do exactly what Sharple's is railing against. When are he and Tariana Turia going to face facts? It's no good promising some sort of hard line work-for-the-dole policy, while leaving the DPB untouched.
From last year,
Dr Sharples said he was not promoting a crackdown on the domestic purpose benefit, for "we have a culture of accepting solo parents, [and] we have to take care of them".
The culture of 'solo' (they often aren't) parents is at the heart of the domestic violence problem. They are too often women with a secure income and home who attract self-centred trash.
A dangerous vanity
There are calls to set up a national register of the worst domestic violence offenders to protect potential new partners and victims.
The trouble is many women get involved with these characters knowing they have a history. They think he will never hit them because they are different. And in the first flush of 'romance' he probably won't. And she won't nag or criticise him either. But that changes.
Men who repeatedly assault women - either mentally or physically - have a personality problem. They also have a kind of split personality. When contrite they are sad, vulnerable, lonely little boys. Highly lovable to someone who is herself very insecure. Hence a mutual but sometimes deadly attraction is at work.
All the legalistic intervention in the world will not change human nature.
The trouble is many women get involved with these characters knowing they have a history. They think he will never hit them because they are different. And in the first flush of 'romance' he probably won't. And she won't nag or criticise him either. But that changes.
Men who repeatedly assault women - either mentally or physically - have a personality problem. They also have a kind of split personality. When contrite they are sad, vulnerable, lonely little boys. Highly lovable to someone who is herself very insecure. Hence a mutual but sometimes deadly attraction is at work.
All the legalistic intervention in the world will not change human nature.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Not quite Churchill
I was searching The Welfare State We're In on the subject of tax when I came across this gem from the Daily Mail;
Gordon Brown has been comparing himself to Churchill (as well as Gandhi).
I look forward to his first prime ministerial broadcast. "We shall tax on the beaches, tax on the landing grounds, we shall tax in the fields and in the streets.
"Never in the field of human taxation, has so much been owed by so many.
"I have nothing to offer but tax, tax and more tax."
Gordon Brown has been comparing himself to Churchill (as well as Gandhi).
I look forward to his first prime ministerial broadcast. "We shall tax on the beaches, tax on the landing grounds, we shall tax in the fields and in the streets.
"Never in the field of human taxation, has so much been owed by so many.
"I have nothing to offer but tax, tax and more tax."
Chris Carter's 'choice'
I wonder where Chris Carter was educated. He doesn't appear to understand what the word 'choice' means. Let me just confirm that I do by referring to the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Yes. Choice is a decision made between possibilities.
On the current education system,
“....ordinary New Zealand families like the choices they have now and they don’t want to see money from their local school being siphoned off into private education.
“Families can send their children to a private school and that is their choice but real choice is about having a quality, world-leading education system that can be accessed by all New Zealand families.
What on earth is he on about. How can families like choices they don't even have. Real choice is about having more than one option for your child's education. If you can't go outside a prescribed zone, have no discretionary income left after tax, then you will likely have no school choice for your child, especially at secondary level.
ACT's policy would allow the funding for each individual's education to be available to the parent's school of choice be it state, integrated or independent.
When Labour cannot properly debate what choice is they just up and change the meaning of the word. Very handy. But a bad look for the Minister of Education.
On the current education system,
“....ordinary New Zealand families like the choices they have now and they don’t want to see money from their local school being siphoned off into private education.
“Families can send their children to a private school and that is their choice but real choice is about having a quality, world-leading education system that can be accessed by all New Zealand families.
What on earth is he on about. How can families like choices they don't even have. Real choice is about having more than one option for your child's education. If you can't go outside a prescribed zone, have no discretionary income left after tax, then you will likely have no school choice for your child, especially at secondary level.
ACT's policy would allow the funding for each individual's education to be available to the parent's school of choice be it state, integrated or independent.
When Labour cannot properly debate what choice is they just up and change the meaning of the word. Very handy. But a bad look for the Minister of Education.
Dependency about more than just the dole
Here's the headline, Unemployment benefit numbers at lowest since 1979
On the other hand there are over 100,000 more people on sickness and invalid's benefits than 30 years ago. And there are almost 60,000 more people on the DPB. Don't let Labour kid you that they have solved the dependency problem.
If, like the Swedes, we were to measure welfare dependence in time spent on benefits, instead of numbers at any given time, the picture would tell a different story. For instance in 1971 only 3 percent of people on a sickness benefit claimed it for more than a year. In 2007 that figure had climbed to 50 percent.
The economic conditions of the past few years have provided jobs for people who want to work. That does not solve the problem of people who do not want to work; who believe it is up to the rest of society to accommodate their lifestyle choices. As long as governments tolerate that we will continue to have high dependence and the social problems that ensue.
On the other hand there are over 100,000 more people on sickness and invalid's benefits than 30 years ago. And there are almost 60,000 more people on the DPB. Don't let Labour kid you that they have solved the dependency problem.
If, like the Swedes, we were to measure welfare dependence in time spent on benefits, instead of numbers at any given time, the picture would tell a different story. For instance in 1971 only 3 percent of people on a sickness benefit claimed it for more than a year. In 2007 that figure had climbed to 50 percent.
The economic conditions of the past few years have provided jobs for people who want to work. That does not solve the problem of people who do not want to work; who believe it is up to the rest of society to accommodate their lifestyle choices. As long as governments tolerate that we will continue to have high dependence and the social problems that ensue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
