Monday, August 31, 2009

Lucia John Key - another interview on smacking after the previous one

This interview is with Mike Hosking on NewsTalkZB last Thursday morning, in response to the fallout from the Government's stance on smacking. Sorry, it took awhile, I was finding it really hard to keep going through it, hearing the same crap over and over again. Mike Hosking was pretty good, though.

MH (15:18): So, wouldn't you know it, eh? The Government spent the first part of the week trying to hose down the public's upset over the lack of response to the smacking referendum when out of the old ballot box comes John's Boscawin's private member's bill on .... smacking!

The glimmer of hope from supporters that National might have a bit of a look at it is squashed when John Key says that he won't be supporting it so it is dead in the water. Why?

John Key is with us, good morning.

JK: Good morning, Mike!

MH (15:43): Were you even slightly tempted to give this a bit of support or not?

JK: Ah, do you mean in terms of the smacking, ah ...

MH: Yes.

JK: ...bill, that was drawn?

Oh, you know, I..ah, did check with a few colleagues just ah to make sure ah that people were comfortable with the decision I was making, but, ah, look, the, the basic principal here is a, is a relatively straight forward one. It's not that I don't understand that people are a little frustrated or have some unease at the current legislation.

(16:09) Not because I think [big breath in] or maybe even they think the way it's been implemented, um, but in the way the law is written, ah, but to go and change the law today when it is working in practise because of the way that the police officers are administering it, ah, would spend, consume a lot of parliament's time, ah, and I believe there is a way to navigate through this to give parents comfort without actually having to change the law.

MH (16:34): So, what we've got now is the ignoring of a referendum and the ignoring of a private member's bill. Are you not a fan of the democratic process?

JK (16:41): [Audible breath in] No, I am, um, and you know look, the referendum
didn't actually ask for specifically for law to be changed, um it did say that people thought they should be able to lightly smack and ..

MK: Well, the private member's bill does!

JK: [Big breath in] .. yes, ah and my (16:55) point would be this. You know
moves that we making on the back of the referendum, referendum said[?]
and that is a number of things. Number one is ah, we are gonna make sure that on an unfilterd, unbiased basis New Zealanders can see the information about whether there are actually complaints and convictions around smacking. [Audible breath]
We'll do that on a six-monthly basis If the trend changes and
parents are criminalised for lightly smacking a child, I'll change the law, I don't
need a member's bill to do that. It's a cast iron, ah [throat catch], assurance. [Throat clear] Excuse me.

The second
thing is that I think there is the need to, um..., do a better job in terms of
tidying up the procedures, not for the police so much, although we'll look at those because they're at the front line, but particularly child youth and family and the referrals between the two, and we've un .. undertaken that work.

MH (17:40): Why not a free vote?

JK : [Audible breath] Ah, well, w.. we could do, um ...

MK : But yeah but why not?

JK: Well, it wasn't a conscience vote in the end last time, um ..., although we could have done that, ah, but in the end, er, that was the view that, ah, that we took as a group.

MK: Do you fear a free vote?

JK (17:55): No, no, I don't actually, f.. fear that, ah, ah, very probably it wouldn't have got through actually, depending on what the other parties had done, ah there would be a decent group in National that ah would vote against it in numbers I think, I don't know how many that would be certainly a group that would have voted no, um ... and on that basis, you know, it probably wouldn't have got through if the other parties had voted no.

MH: Are ACT peeved?

JK: Oh look, I wouldn't have thought so
John Boscawin obviously feels strongly about it
and put the bill in the ballot, um..., but that's
you know, the nature of those things
we've voted pretty much against [laugh] every member's bill so far this year.

MH: Has Rodney threatened to quit.

JK (18:37): No.

MH: Despite you say that the law is working do you think potentially here misread the public's mood?

JK: [Audible in-breath] No, no [voice is a higher pitch, like someone is squeezing him] I think the public are frustrated, I understand that, um, the question is that if you want to go back to a bill that is about smacking your kids, you get into all sorts of definitional issues
and into all sorts of different challenges. Now
[in breath] if the law doesn't work, then that's where we going to have
have to go, parliament is going to have to draft a bill that says you can smack this
hard but you can't smack that hard,
you can use an implement or you can't use an implement
etc, etc, and I accept that
I said if the law doesn't work, I'll do that (19:14)
But in practise alot of laws are administered in a different way from the way they are written. People don't get a speeding ticket if driving 53K in a 50K area, um and in so on and so forth... there's many areas like that. [Audible in-breath] As I say, if you go back just in the last calendar year there were 33 complaints about smacking, one withdrawn from prosecution, 83000 for domestic violence

MH: What if you get hits in the polls next time?

JK: We will, um, slightly.

New Zealanders also have to say that ... they get frustrated if leaders don't listen, I understand that, but, you know I am a leader that um that listens I believe. There's lots of things I've done that
on your show a couple of weeks ago and you were pretty aggressively getting into me on folic acid.

But if we go back to this today, in the middle of an economic recession (20:21)
that we've got it will consume the time of parliamentarians around the country
and it's my view that we need to get out of the economic recession we're in
lift those education standards for young New Zealanders
We need to fix up the health system
[audible in breath] and I need to be solely focused on that
And in the end I suspect when we go to the ballot box in 2011
[audible in breath] New Zealanders will judge the National Government
and me over whether we've had the leadership to guide ourselves through
guide our country through through these challenging issues
[audible in breath] and whether as a leader [audible in breath] I've got some sense of what is a top priority and what is not. I mean that is the ultimate democratic test, um, it may well be that I get thrown out of office. That is the way that democracy works, but it may also be that I'm not and in the end I've got to make thousands of decisions and this was just another one that came along.

(21:14) [Interview ends]

Points of note:

"In the end I've got to make thousands of decisions..." - so, our Prime Minister's role is to decide what the Government does or doesn't do. Interesting. I wasn't aware the PM had that much power. Surely on that basis alone, the public ought to therefore be voting on who they want as the PM, if this is the case?

On taking a hit in the polls, I wonder what the other National MPs and the National Party think of this. Is smacking worth losing the next election over? So far, from the complete silence over this issue, it seems smacking is that important. How weird.

"But if we go back to this today, in the middle of an economic recession -
Money, money, money, that's all that's important. Stop wasting my time over anything that's not about money or the economy. Unnecessary government intrusion into your families just doesn't cut it as an important enough issue to bother me about right now ... In other words, anything is justified if something "more important" is going on at the time.

I love this comment, which sums up an easy counterargument, made on at NBR:
Why couldn't he just have said " Look, on the basis of the referendum results, I'm going to make changes to this law, but other more pressing matters need to be dealt with now. We'll put in place measures to ensure good parents are not charged, and once we've got the urgent legislation through the house, we can sort this law." BUT, because he had already said he wouldn't do anything, he shot himself and National in both feet.

~ Brian commenting on NBR, at 10:09 am on August 28, 2009


The whole interview is filled with inconsistencies, but I'll leave everyone reading this to judge the rest of them. I'll finish with a short excerpt on the science of lying:
Humans practicing mendacity, otherwise known as lying, exhibit numerous physical and verbal cues that can be objectively measured, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Researchers at the Smell & Taste Treatment Research Foundation in Chicago, IL reviewed 64 peer-reviewed articles and 20 books on mendacity. From these they derived an index of 23 clinically practical physical and verbal signs of dissimulation. Many of the books used in the project are standard texts for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies involved in interrogating suspects.

Physicals cues believed to be associated with lying include an increased incidence of leaning forward, licking the lips, touching the nose, averting the gaze and handling objects. An insincere smile, characterized by lack of movement of the wrinkle lines around the eyes is another well know indicator of lying. People who are lying also often reveal themselves verbally. Verbal cues include the increased use of verbal qualifiers or modifiers, the use of expanded contractions (e.g. I did not rather than I didn't), stuttering, throat clearing and speech errors.

Related Link: NewsTalk ZB Audio
Right-click on link, choose SAVE AS, change extension of file to .WMA
It probably exists in the interview section as well.

ZenTiger Sex Education in NZ isn't working

Ozy Mandias suggests that it's time for a new approach with sex education in New Zealand.

It seems government funding is piped into the Family Planning sex promotion business, which in turn improperly "advertises" sex to our youth. I'm not going to bother with a link to the euphemistic "Family Planning" web site, but here's a better one: Attitude

Link: Ozy Mandias on Sex Ed: Time for a change

ZenTiger Exploiting the Loopholes

Sue Bradford's law was supposedly issued to prevent people who use unreasonable force on a child get off by arguing the force was reasonable. Her new law was supposed to prevent a mere handful of cases over 15 plus years from evading justice. The old law simply said a parent may only use reasonable force if disciplining their child. The law was clear, and the loophole (if one existed) was merely that a judge might not be able to understand what reasonable force was. Here's part of her new law:

Section 59 - Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of — (c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour;

Surely, the loophole remains? Clearly then, the sole intent of her law was only to ban correction. Technically, subsection 2 makes any form of child discipline illegal, whilst lawyers can argue on the same basis they always argued, using subsection 1c.

It's not a good law.

ZenTiger Sue threatens 1.4 million people

Sue Bradford has reportedly likened parents who lightly smack their child to the same category as child abusers and child beaters. She has allegedly indicated that all parents who smack are either religious fundamentalists, or being directed by them.

She first threatened to outlaw any form of smacking and to treat anyone guilty of this as law breakers, potentially placing good families under massive stress, and then later carried out her threat in spite of pleas for restraint and moderation from hundreds of thousands of parents.

Andrei Saul and Sue

You have to give it to Sue Bradford - she knows her Alinsky.

For those of you who have come in late Saul Alinsky is the guru of "community organizers". He systematized the process of remaking society in the way you want by stomping your feet until you get what you want.

One of Alinsky's favored techniques is demonization of your opponents.

Now poor old Sue suffered a minor setback a week ago when a referendum overwhelmingly rejected her Social Engineering Act outlawing smacking.

This was middle New Zealand speaking folks.

And middle New Zealand is not in favor of political violence - it just wants to go about daily life without disruption and interference from intrusive busybodies.

And Sue understands of course the way to get her way is to cast those who oppose her as wackos, which her opponents for the most part are not.

Hence we have her little tantrum over a twitter message suggesting she might be a target for assassination. And her attempt to cast of S59 opponents as being drawn from the same cloth as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Hell we have a fair idea who made this comment despite his pitiful denial and this gentleman is almost certainly in no position to cause Sue any harm.

On the contrary she knows his little twitter has come to her like manna from heaven -it presents an opportunity to cast those who oppose her look like fringe nutters.

And the last thing middle New Zealand wants to look like is a fringe nutter and so, she hopes, middle New Zealand will desert the cause and cease to oppose her radicalism.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Andrei Oh - the wonders of "non tactile" discipline made manifest

Well the elite are certain, smacking kids is not good for them. That's why we have a law that forbids it, whether we like it or not.

But despite this law kids are getting more violent and harder to control, according to this article in this mornings Herald.

Primary school pupils of all age groups are increasingly willing to resort to violence, worried teachers say.

Auckland Primary Principals Association president Marilyn Gwilliam said school heads were becoming more concerned after noticing an increase in violent behaviour among the 5- to 10-year-olds.

Figures show the number of stand-downs (set periods of time that children are not allowed to attend school) for assaults by 8-year-olds increased by 88 per cent from 2000 to last year.Seven-year-olds received 73 per cent more stand-downs last year than in 2000, 6-year-olds had 70 per cent more, and stand-downs of 5-year-olds increased by 33 per cent.

Mrs Gwilliam said schools were struggling to handle the children. "They kick and they bite and they hit."

It was especially difficult as teachers were not allowed to touch children, so must instead try "non-tactile" techniques to calm them.

Children aged 9 and 10 appeared the most violent of primary school pupils, with 214 stand-downs among 9-year-olds for physical assault on others and 327 among 10-year-olds last year.



They kick they bite and they hit - Oh don't they know its against the law to kick and bite and hit?

Surely by the time they start school their parents, kindergartens and play centers should have taught them "non tactile techniques" for tantruming or for use in dispute resolution whether it be disagreements with their peers or higher authorities such as teachers.

Perhaps "non tactile" techniques are not all they are cracked up to be.

Andrei The Press is still bashing Nixon after all these years

"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference."

Richard Nixon - November 7, 1962

The media has always loathed Richard Nixon, an upstart Quaker from rural California who became a giant in American politics and world politics as well as President of the United States.

Eventually the media succeeded in destroying his Presidency - quite possibly in their tiny minds their greatest triumph. And a great many readers will see Nixon as the epitome of corrupt and dirty politics, as if!

But it is no great surprise to find the Media trotting out anti Nixon stories on the occasion of the death of Teddy Kennedy, that great icon of Liberalism.

The contrast between the Kennedy's and Nixon could not be greater - the former were playboys born into a life of wealth and privilege whereas Nixon was born into an impoverished but strict quaker household. Two of Nixon's brothers died of tuberculosis one in childhood in the family home, the other in early adulthood when Nixon was still in high school - you could call it the "Nixon curse"...

Here is AP's anti-Nixon diatribe via Stuff: Nixon tapes: Watch Ted Kennedy

It reads as though Nixon set the secret service onto Teddy. But if you listen to the exchange another picture emerges. Teddy Kennedy asked for secret service protection and the discussion was about whether it was appropriate to provide it and the pros and cons of doing so.

Why did the press hate Nixon so? Probably because Nixon wasn't glamorous.

He was a solid family man, the picture at the left was taken in the 1950s when Richard Nixon was Vice President and it shows an ideal of family life which the elites have come to despise.

There was an attempt in 1952 to attach a financial scandal to Richard Nixon but he simply opened his books to the public which showed how modest his means really were and how he was living accordingly.

And Richard Nixon's real crime was - that he was a fundamentally decent, if somewhat dour man who didn't grope waitresses and didn't appear in Public with flashy, tacky women in tow and didn't live a jet set lifestyle to provide suitable fodder for glossy magazines.

In other words a peasant who got ideas above his station.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Lucia Friday night free for all

I'm having one of those days, made a lot more stressful by lack of sleep.

Why is it that the night I actually manage to go to bed early, I get woken by a catfight outside my bedroom window, have trouble getting back to sleep because my fearless kitten is too scared to go back to sleep on the bed, THEN get woken by an earthquake, which was a bit of a shakeup, but nothing too scary. And then have the kitten wake up early at 5am to get fed, and rather than going outside she wants to play under the bed. Something happened an hour after that as well, whatever it was, it's lost to fog of half-asleepness. I didn't feel the aftershock at 4am, that's once small mercy.

I wonder what will happen tonight if I try to go to sleep early?

Andrei Its all a game but with a guaranteed loser - you!

Have you heard about this BS going down with the ETS select committee. There was supposed to be a report tabled yesterday. Problem was that the Maori party had included a minority report from their viewpoint within the document and decided they wanted to withdraw it.

So no report.

And of course the usual suspects are going on about it: Govt runs roughshod over rules, stifles ETS debate But it is all posing and posturing.

What the argument is really about is how much can be stolen from the productive sector and who will get spoils.

And these pompous posing prats with their press releases are no different from a mafioso running a racket - no different at all except they do not use physical violence to accomplish their thievery. Instead they shelter behind the courts and the law and pretend they are civilized as they plot their latest extortion racket.

And whats in the withdrawn report - I have no idea but you can count on it that the Maori party's game is to maximize ETS slurping for those to whom they owe favors.

At least there is one politician that gets it and other things besides.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Andrei Grievance politics and gay marriage

Everybody has the right to live as they want to without interference from the authorities provided they don't interfere with anybody else's right along the way.

Now here is a story from Russia about two Lesbians who believe it is their "right" to have a state sanctioned wedding.

They were turned down, took it to court where their case was thrown out because they didn't appear. Ten minutes later they did turn up for a photo opportunity to whine to the world how hard done by they are.

Well whining to the world's media is a right I support as is laughing at clowns who make utter fools of themselves while doing it.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Lucia What is wrong with John Key?

National is not going to support a private member's bill that in effect, gave John Key a face-saving way out of further infuriating the nation over the smacking issue. Either he's mad, totally stark raving bonkers, or something else is going on in the background, something that John Key doesn't want to tell us about. My guess is the latter, given the extreme discomfort in his voice when interviewed a couple of days ago.

Related Link: National will not support Boscawen bill ~ NewsTalkZB

Lucia World conservative leader with vision to past, present and future

Rejection of God leaves society, and our very civilisation, weak and vulnerable. Far from secularism being the great liberator, it is the great enslaver, enslaving societies until their ultimate death or destruction. For that reason, Pope Benedict's vision of what is needed (the restoration of Christendom) is the only way out of this quagmire we've created.
Conservatives are searching for a leader. Move over Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. Pope Benedict XVI has emerged as the great conservative champion.

In his recently issued and much anticipated third encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate" ("Love in Truth"), the pope lays out a brilliant blueprint for addressing the seminal problems of our age.

Contrary to headlines, the encyclical is not an anti-capitalist tract. The pope is not a red Tory who puts "social justice" and statist economics above free markets. He does not call for big-government liberalism. Instead, he upholds free markets while also addressing the moral and theological roots of culture.

The pope rightly argues that the current economic crisis was caused by rampant greed, irresponsible financial speculation and the failure of government regulation. In other words, it has occurred within a moral vacuum, where Christian love and truth have been abandoned in favor of crude materialism.

The crisis has become "an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future." The economic debacle is simply a symptom of a deeper and more dangerous moral crisis. The only solution, he says, is to restore Christendom -- what used to be the essence of Western civilization.
Read more: A real conservative vision ~ Washington Times

Andrei Another Blow for the "no need to change the law brigade"

After a devastating result (for the Bradford Act supporters) in last weeks referendum and John Key's triangulation on not changing the law on smacking - guess which private members bill has been drawn in this weeks ballot.

If you guessed John Boscawen's Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill you'ld be right.

It will be introduced in Parliament at 2pm today.

The timing's impeccable to create a lot of MP squirming.

Andrei Pushing the envelope

Laura Dekka is a thirteen year old Dutch girl.

She was born on a yacht off the coast of New Zealand during a round the world trip undertaken by her now divorced Dutch father and German mother.

And now her father, who has custody of her, has applied to the authorities in the Netherlands for a two year leave of absence from school so that she can undertake a solo round the world yachting venture.

Now the child protection authorities in the Netherlands are seeking temporary custody of Laura to prevent this venture.

According to the Herald this morning Laura's lawyer is seeking a New Zealand passport for her which would short circuit this making the New Zealand authorities responsible for her welfare of course. I can't see that one flying. Apart from anything else my understanding is that under New Zealand law you can not leave a child under fourteen unattended and you certainly cannot conceive as anything more unattended than a thirteen year old girl by herself the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Now I am all for kids spreading their wings as early as possible and nor do I like Governments interfering in decisions made by parents in regards to child rearing but somewhere there is a limit.

And call me an old fashioned stick in the mud but I think the limit has would be well and truly breached if this child were to undertake this voyage.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

ZenTiger Suicide Booths

FuturamaWeeknights, 9p/8c
Suicide Booth
www.comedycentral.com
Joke of the DayStand-Up ComedyFree Online Games


The joke here of course is that it will not be a mere 25 cents. There's bound to be a tax on it too. Anyway, forget the suicide booths for the moment. I think it's going to go much further than this. Once society embraces a culture of death, all sorts of opportunities will pop up for assisted suicide.

How about criminals? Rather than put them in for life, I suspect one day we'll see them given the option for "voluntary execution". Maybe they spend a year in jail, with some approved luxuries in exchange, sorry, in respect of, their wish to be executed at the end of that year rather than face life imprisonment?

Maybe it will become more popular when they factor in that the family outside has to meet a pay scale to cover imprisonment. Throw in organ donation bonuses, and it becomes a "noble option" to settle all debts on the way out.

Will it come to this?

ZenTiger John Key Lied Today

John Key lied today, as reported in this mornings DomPost. He said words to the effect that "smacking is legal". [Update: I've finally got to have a proper look at the article. I got it wrong, and owe Key an apology - he didn't quite lie, he just misdirected by avoiding the substance of the issue. I cover off here why his weasel words actually create a different problem with the smacking legislation.] Meanwhile, I reaffirm what Key is avoiding saying - that the law bans smacking for the purposes of correction or discipline.

This is what the act says:

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

How clearer could this possibly be? All forms of discipline (such as a smack) are technically illegal. Whether or not the police choose to prosecute is another matter. Actually, I would prefer the police prosecute all infringements of the law. We need to respect the laws, not be told to ignore them. If this results in injustice, the law must be changed to be just.

It is hard to debate when even the Prime Minister willfully misrepresents the facts.



Lindsay Mitchell: Go ahead - Break the Law

What Section 59 really says: Why parents are criminals

Andrei Marriage and Family - oh fie that is so twentieth Century

I am begining to wonder if the concept family is past its use by date.

The Families commission has just released a report showing just how horrible and dangerous family life is. Especially for women, one in three will be assaulted by her "partner" But men don't escaped unscathed either, one in five will be assaulted by his "partner".

We don't need families to perpetuate the species any more.

With modern science we could set up a Ministry of Reproduction. This ministry would collect genetic profiles of all New Zealanders and determine the optimum genetic make up of the next generation. The Ministry boffins could match a particular female to a particular male, they wouldn't have to meet. A letter would be sent to the male first telling him to report to the closest Ministry clinic for sperm collection, likewise for the woman who would report to her local clinic for egg donation.
After fertilization in a petrie dish, the egg would be implanted in one of the Ministry of Reproductions low level employees, the Birth-Mother.

A Birth-Mothers job description would be the gestation and care of infants up to one year of age.

When the infant becomes a year old the Birth-Mother would hand it over to a Ministry of Child Development home where it would be raised in an environment where it could be steeped in the values of the Modern Liberal State and groomed for whatever function the State determined most appropriate for this particular child at the time they had ordered its conception1.

The cycle could then begin anew for the Birth-Mother.

All this is feasible with modern reproductive technology and family violence would be a thing of the past.

Why are we waiting?
 

(1) Discipline in these homes would be firm, loving and appropriate - not a smack in sight.

Monday, August 24, 2009

ZenTiger The Anti-Smacking Law - Why Parents are Criminals

Sue agrees: While it is true that [the] use of force for correction will technically be an offence, this does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking this kind of action.

Any kind of force is illegal, but says Sue, the Police are overstretched and too busy to enforce it.

John Key doesn't seem to care that smacking IS ILLEGAL.

Furthermore, the referendum asked the question: SHOULD A SMACK BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE? 87.6% of the million plus responses indicate most strongly that the only way of fixing the problem is to make this legal.

Lucia Transcript of interview this morning with John Key on smacking law

This is pass 2 of transcribing the interview with John Key on smacking derailing Parliament that I talked about yesterday. Still fixing it up. Updated 25 Aug, 2pm.

MH: Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's with us, good morning!

JK: Good morning

MH: Are you going to ignore the 88%?


JK: [Audible breath in] Ah, well, no, I think
[obviously thrown before getting into the prepared speech]
what I am going to do is take to Cabinet today a series of
proposals I think can give parents an
increased levels of confidence
I've always said that if the law doesn't work
then I would change it
important that we make sure that we can understand clearly
without bias whether
the law is working or not
so, you know, I think you can't ignore
when such a large number of New Zealanders
express their view didn't necessarily say
they wanted the law changed
and that they said quite clearly
they thought that if they smacked a child
in a minor or inconsequential
way that should not be something that sees them hauled
before the courts or their children taken off them
nor do I believe that would ever be the case
I think the current statistics support
that view that I hold

MH: Yeeessss... but they would disagree with you the public, wouldn't they?
I mean you say the law works [JK saying something in the background that I can't make out] but you said it doesn't. Why are you right and they wrong?

JK: He said ... No, I don't think that's absolutely right
They said is, and that was the question, wasn't it
could you lightly smack a child

MH: Well, not it wasn't, it wasn't
it wasn't in there at all
anything about changing the law at all and I would suggest to you
if it was about changing the law, you would have got the same result

JK: (Audible inbreath heard) Maybe ...
but look you know as I've said
before, um, if you look at the statistics
the law has worked
um in the last sort of
year when it comes to
it comes to the situation of whether they've been
um complaints made about smacking
they've been 33 in the calendar year of 2008
of which there was one which proceeded to a prosecution
it was ultimately withdrawn

MH: Yeah, but you're making parents criminals
that's what people get upset about you know
I don't happen to smack my kids but I am a criminal
if I do and that's what's wrong with the law and that's what
88% of people suggest to you

JK: Well, what I'm going to ensure is that's
not the case and what I will tell you now is that's not the case at
the moment as I say there were 33
where there were complaints about smacking
one that almost lead to a prosecution
it was withdrawn
in the same time period 83,000 complaints
about domestic or family violence
I think we need to put it into perspective, my view
the law isn't perfect, but
put in there a compromise to ensure that in practise
that's what's actually important [laughing heard in the background]

MH: [incredulous tone] This, John,
this sounds like a complete muddle, the law's not perfect
just toss it out, what's the big deal about it

JK: Well [clears throat] you have to have a look at
through an enormous process that ah would
completely derail parliament, it's not as simple as people

MH: [More incredulous] Derail Parliament?

JK: [Stuttering] It would arguably be
an extremely explosive issue going back the other way

MH: With who?

JK: A whole lot of people.

MH: Like who?

JK: A whole lot of people.

MH: Like who?

JK: Well, like a lot of peo..

MH: You could pass it by lunchtime!

JK: I don't think that's actually right

MH: Who would, who would object to it?

JK: Well, it's a free vote, potentially

MH: Well, not it's not

JK: Well..

MH: It doesn't have to be

JK: Potentially it could be

MH: wouldn't be because you've got the numbers in the house
You could change this by lunchtime today

JK: Ah, well not by lunchtime today

MH: Ok well by 3 o'clock..
come on ..

JK: The law could be changed, there's no argument about that
my point to you is that, in in practise at the moment
the law is working, now
that doesn't mean that we can't put in additional safeguards
and that would be the process that I would support at this time

MH: Alright, fair enough, let's deal with other stuff ...


Related Link: Audio File ~ NewsTalkZB
Right-click on file, Save As, change extension to .wma and start listening at about 40.50

Lucia Changing the smacking law would derail parliament!

On NewsTalkZB this morning, John Key said that if they changed the smacking law, it would "Derail Parliament."

Derail Parliament???

Unbelievable!

Key was definitely on the back foot this morning. The radio host really pressed him on why he couldn't change the law, saying he had the numbers, he could change the law by lunchtime. Ok then, by 3 o'clock. But this was an explosive issue, people opposed changing the law...

Who? What people? John Key wouldn't say.

The interview was priceless.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

ZenTiger Another Referendum

The YES lobby were upset that Helen Clark and Labour wasted 9 million dollars by delaying the smacking referendum. The result justifies every dollar.

Now John Key wants to do nothing, but will go through the motions of appearing to do something, anything, but make a change to the legislation.

So lets get another 300,000 signatures (as if the 1 million plus last Friday wasn't enough!) and force another referendum.

This time the question can be something like "does the law need to be changed so that a smack is not illegal?"

When we have the 300,000 signatures we explain to John that he and parliament can stop stuffing around and actually do the job they were elected to do, or HE and NATIONAL waste another 9 million dollars.

However, by the time the signatures have been presented to parliament, and they have dithered over it, it will be just about election time. Does he really want to risk revisiting this at election time? Just imagine the pressure a second referendum question would generate.

If John Key does not listen NOW and change the law, then he risks a second referendum. This time however, the citizens will be voting not just to reverse a badly worded law, but to tell the government they do not appreciate being ignored.

Key better think through his current "strategy" of making no changes to the law.

Andrei More Palm Oil hypocrisy

Look at this jungle.

Look at those vines, the way they twine around the trees, swaIIowing everything.

Nature's cruel, Staros.

Lieutenant colonel Tall in The Thin Red Line

A millennium ago North Western Europe was covered in forest. The ancestors of modern environmentalists cleared those forests and replaced them with pastures to graze sheep and cattle. and as a result Western Europe became wealthy.

A result of wealth is that when it is no longer necessary to hard scrabble in the dirt just to survive societies can support artists, scientists and thinkers. So the societies of Western Europe prospered and grew wealthier.

And as life became more secure they also became more humane along the way - because they could afford to be.

Look at this story the SST this morning: Rainforest dies for your cattle feed, NZ farmers warned and its companion piece: Our destructive ways. It seems clear cut -no? We should not be buying Palm oil or its derivative products!

Wrong!

You see the people who are creating and working in Palm Oil Plantations do not have the benefit of having a 1000 years of wealth behind them. Their societies cannot afford education, health care and all the other things we take for granted. To get them they have to build wealth with the resources they have.

And palm oil is a boon to them. Its an opportunity to move beyond hard scrabble survival, to enjoy a higher quality of life and build a better future for their children.

The only reason pampered, over privileged western environmentalists can even think about whining about clearing rain forest is that their ancestors did exactly the same thing 1000 years ago in Europe and they are the beneficiaries of that.

The biggest irony of all is now the West is wealthy the forests Europe and North America are recovering, they are recovering because those societies can afford that luxury along with the luxury of supporting newspaper reporters and eviromentalist agitators.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Fletch Anything Less Than Law Change Unacceptable

Yes, we won in the referendum, but what happens now?
According to a comment from John Key this morning, he would take to Cabinet -

"options which fall short of changing the law but will provide comfort for parents about this issue"


This is not good enough. It falls into the same status as the unwritten idea that gives Police discretion in whether to prosecute in situations where a child has been smacked. There is a reason why we write down laws: it is so that everyone understands them; lawyers, judges, police and the public can refer to them; use them to prosecute or defend; determine whether laws have been broken or crimes committed.

What is going to happen in 50 years when the "general understanding" around the issue has long passed from human memory? All that those in the future will have is what we have written down or prescribed in law - the law that must be obeyed and enforced.

That provides little "comfort" for me, or for the parents and future parents of this country.

The same article states that Yes Vote spokeswoman Deborah Morris-Travers said -

New Zealand was still the only English-speaking nation that had banned physical punishment for children and other countries were watching to see if the ban would be reversed.

"If we were to go backwards, I think it would be embarrassing for New Zealand."

What is the more embarrassing? To try an experiment, admit we were wrong, and change back, or to go on blindly ahead irregardless of the negative consequences (and there will be) to our children and our country? That is false pride - that was Labour's downfall - I hope it will not be National's as well.

Friday, August 21, 2009

ZenTiger YES, NO WON

YES! NO WON. Some of my initial thoughts:

The referendum was non-binding. That means the government will only listen if it believes in democracy, not because it has to. Your call John.

John Key thought the question was confusing. However, he's apparently good with numbers. 87.6% John.

With 87.6% voting NO, it looks like the people too stupid to understand the question were the ones who would have voted YES :-)

Any referendum achieving a greater than 50% turnout can be judged a success. We hit 54%, a solid result. Many people would not have voted because the referendum was non-binding and John Key had already signalled he wasn't interested in listening to the outcome. On that basis alone, a solid result.

Bradford is apparently trying to count the abstaining votes as all belonging to the YES camp. Bradford is either deluded, or her nose will serve as a second harbour bridge by morning.

ZenTiger Friday Night Free for All

I've come up with a new definition of blogging:

Blogging - the process of dumping all your really crazy and stupid ideas so that your brain contains only good stuff.

So don't hold back tonight. Your brain will be sparkly and new by tomorrow morning. Just like mine :-)

ZenTiger Consensus Science

Note to the Global Warming camp: The science isn't settled when it relies on consensus. Settled science is backed by proof. Currently we have theories and counter theories. New information is produced almost daily that turns old information on its head. We've got a long way to go before the science behind Global Warming can be confirmed (proven) as being man-made.

This does not mean I'm against sustainability and good management of our natural resources. Slightly different discussion.

Hat tip: Investigate Magazine Sep? edition

Thursday, August 20, 2009

ZenTiger The United Nations turns the screws on NZ

New Zealand’s highly conditional emissions reduction target of 10-20 per cent has been strongly criticised by the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

Dr. Pachauri said a stronger commitment was required from New Zealand if the world was to have any chance of averting runaway climate change.

Pachuri announced this from India, one of the world's biggest polluters. India is conveniently exempt from Kyoto targets because it has the status of "developing nation".

The UN are firing a shot across the bows in public. What screws are they turning on NZ in private?

We make our crust by exporting food. We will end up bearing the taxes on the food other countries eat.

If the UN and the IPCC get their way, perhaps that will be the least of our problems.

Andrei Gender issues in sport

The 1936 Olympic games were held in Berlin. In Nazi Germany it was a matter of pride to show the superiority of the Germanic race and several scandals resulted.

One of the lesser known scandals was that of Dora Ratjen who placed fourth in the women's high jump. Later on Dora Ratjen went on to set the women's high jump record in 1938 at the European Championships in Vienna. Shortly thereafter it was revealed that Dora Ratjen was in fact Hermann Ratjen, a male.

So began the long saga of top female athletes being accused of being male. And some athletics careers have been cut short as a result. Gender testing was mandatory in the 1960s right through until the 1996 games when several competitors failed the tests but all were later ruled as female.

Here is the latest Athletics gender controversy. South African runner Caster Semenya who cleaned up the field at the world athletic championships in Berlin last night has a very masculine appearance and athletics authorities have ordered gender testing. If she fails she will be stripped of her title and that will be that.

Two things puzzle me about this.

Firstly if there is ambiguity about Caster Semenya's gender why didn't the South African Athletics authorities get it resolved before sending her to Berlin. That would seem a no brainer, much less harmful and painful for her if she failed before going than if she fails now.

Secondly the IOC ruled in 2000 that transgender Athletes can compete as their new gender provided the reassignment occurred more than 2 years before the event and they are taking their hormones . It hasn't come up yet but it will.

Whatever the truth about Caster Semenya's real gender unless she is an actual fraud like Dora Ratjen she must surely have a greater claim to being female, having lived as one since birth than trans gender mountain biker Michelle Dumaresq, for example, who seems to have disappeared from sight after winning the 2006 Canadian Downhill Championships in a storm of controvery.

ZenTiger The right to scream at your wife

The smacking debate is truly tiresome. I will sum up a couple of key points, because a quick look around the blogs and I see many people are distracted with irrelevancies as far as this law is concerned.

1. The government has made all forms of correction technically illegal (s59.2).
2. The government has decided a smack, regardless of how soft, or how infrequent, or how preferable it is to say, being electrocuted (like when a child wants to stick objects into a power point), is a sign of bad parenting and made bad parenting (in this context) illegal.

These two points are really the core of the issue. We can argue if a smack is really bad parenting or not. We can argue for better parenting techniques, and how they could be taught. We can discuss alternatives. We can reduce the frequency. We can educate and train. We can prosecute and lock up cases of real abuse. However, these points have nothing to do with the referendum question, which points out that "bad parenting" (using any form of force for the purposes of correction), is now illegal and the police have the power to prosecute at will.

Imagine if all arguing between couples was made illegal?

We would have some liberal types saying they never argue; it's aggressive and unnecessary and you should be locked up or at least investigated if you happen to have an argument with your spouse.

Many would no doubt point out that an argument can lead to violence, and bring out stories of men beating their wife to death over burnt toast. Maybe they would produce cases where a husband hit their wife during an argument and got let with a good behaviour bond - a massive loophole in the law.

On the other hand, some would cogently argue how a mild disagreement can clear the air, and gives the opportunity for the couple to make up. They might suggest that some minor disagreements, whilst classed as arguments, don't do any material harm to the relationship. It's all part of life. It's all part of marriage. To not have the occasional disagreement might be construed as a lack of healthy engagement in the marriage. They might suggest all couples approach this differently, and to suggest an occasional disagreement is a sign of a bad marriage would be preposterous.

The "anti-arguers" would respond by conflating a disagreement with a violent argument; and demand all disagreements are banned. "You just want to legalise the right to scream at your wife" they would declare. "You are incapable of using other non-aggressive methods to resolve disputes" they announce smugly.

Perhaps they would explain that it is too hard to define the difference between a disagreement and a full on argument. If you raise your voice, that's as good as a scream. If you don't get your point across by screaming, maybe you will throw something? Think of the damage an argument can cause to the children, innocent witnesses!

Do those people really think legislation would be the way to improve communication between couples? Could they not accept that not all disagreements are a big deal? Could they not accept that making all disagreements illegal to send the message that only valid forms of intercourse are acceptable? Because this is the way they have approached the smacking debate.

This is one of the key reasons why I am opposed to such legislation. It puts the State right into the homes of families, and makes a judgment call about what constitutes bad parenting, and justifies it by conflating the mild with the extreme, and by default, at the low end of the spectrum, it's still illegal.

This kind of law is unhealthy for us individually, and as a society. It promotes acceptance of using the blunt instrument of the law to effect changes, yet targets the wrong groups of people.

The husband bashing a wife or child will not be stopped by such a law. A mother incessantly nagging a husband or putting down their child will not be deterred by such a law. But basically good families will be caught on the fringes, accused of bad parenting, potentially being reported on shaky evidence.

Worse, anyone reporting an argument to the police, and suddenly finding themselves a key witness in court, might be tempted to strengthen their words so as not to look like a fool for wasting the courts time.

Do you remember the recent case of a Christchurch father found guilty for hitting his child in public? I note that by the time the sentence was passed, the "abuse" had gone from a clip around the ear to a "punch in the face". If a man punched a child in the face, this would almost certainly result in hospital time. The medical evidence would have been splashed across the front page. Yet, as far as I know, the six police that showed up on the scene spent all their time arresting the father, because there was no need for first aid at the scene. Maybe he was guilty of something more than a smack, but I suspect he was innocent of something less than a punch in the face.

So I'm not arguing for the right to scream at one's spouse. I'm not arguing for the right to beat children. I'm arguing that the State has no right, and will deliver no benefit, by making all forms of discipline illegal.

Think the same law through but ban instead all disagreements between couples. Even if the motive is to produce a world where couples never argue, knowing they are breaking the law, does it really make sense?


Also: IV2 takes stock of his reasons for voting NO.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Andrei Judges are not appointed to change society

Paul von Dadelszen Acting Principal Family Court Judge thinks that gay people should be allowed to adopt children.

Society has changed he says using the Civil Unions Act as a justification for this assertion and that it is discrimination to not allow gay couples to adopt children.

Bringing up children isn't a right! It is a duty and a heavy responsibility.

The Liberal elite have done incredible damage to the family over the past thirty odd years and are we better off for it?

No way - a lot of people have been severely damaged by these peoples noble experiments and odd notions of "rights" and no notion what-so-ever of "responsibilities".

I have no idea why the Good Lord created men and women but whatever his reason it is apparent to all but liberals that it takes one of each to create a child and no activist judge can alter that fact.

Children do best if they have in their lives strong adult role models, one of each gender and preferably both being biologically related to them.

This is not rocket science folks

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

ZenTiger Sponsor a Child II

Earlier, I suggested sponsoring a child to direct your donation is a great idea, and it's a low cost way to really make a difference in the world. Some children can be sponsored for as little as $30 per month, and yet receive vital education and health resources that really give them a chance. It seems readers know of many such unfortunate children in need of love, attention and a a few bucks a month. At FFM's suggestion, here are a couple more:

Roger

Roger is a delightfully cheeky lad, who has had a troubled past. Many years ago, he was sponsored by a generous family who sent their monthly donation to him to supplement the meager earnings he made working two jobs in the sweat shops of the Rowling and Lange Factories, living on a diet of fish and chips. However, his benefactors eventually died and Roger was not able to face up to that loss. He still thinks they should be sending him the monthly cheque for the rest of his life, and that is why we need your donation. A mere $40 a month and 600,000,000 frequent flyer points will maintain the fiction in his mind that this kindly couple are still alive and able to sustain him. Socialists and psychiatrists think this is the only thing keeping him barely sane. Whilst Rodney has taken Roger under his right wing, the danger of a socialist relapse cannot be understated.

Chris

Chris has known from a young age that he is somehow different from the rest of the boys. Whereas they would dress up in jeans and a T-shirt, he was drawn to the Khaki pant suits commonly seen on Explorers of the "Dark Continent". His mates could not get him near a double breasted suit, but he'd slip into the pantaloons of a Gondolier from Venice in the blink of an eye. Chris would shun the school uniform, and yet often be dressed as a sailor in the Navy.

Such tendencies could mean only one thing. It was obvious to all that this young man wanted to travel!

But coming from a small village with no running water, clothing donated from the Salvation Army and an education budget that barely covered the cost of chalk, travel was likely to be nothing more than an empty dream for Chris.

However, if you can find just $40 a month, Chris can commence studies to become the Minister for Education in tiny New Zealand. Chris has set his sights on the bottom of the world, to be hired as the Minister for Education, traveling the world as befits such a position. Failing that, in the back benches as member of the opposition should get him over to England once a year.


Related Link: Sponsor a Child

ZenTiger The Crime Exchange

Police have backtracked on a decision to stop issuing information on drink-drivers because of privacy.

What? Who are they kidding? Now that they've committed a crime in public, don't they realise Paula Bennett is going to publish all their private data anyway?

It's certainly angered Police Minister Judith Collins who hit out at police: "Drink-drivers are potential killers and they should be treated as such"

I don't think she was suggesting police therefore publish their potential names. Indeed, as far as Judith Collins is concerned all New Zealanders are potential criminals, and perhaps we should be treated as such? That certainly explains the thinking behind the anti-smacking laws.

I've read the "name and shame" lists from time to time, and always failed to recognise a name. Not only do I have few friends, obviously they are either master criminals that can escape detection, or living saints. None, it seems, are able to meet the criteria of the name and shame lists.

So I figured we need to make these lists far more interesting. There's no shame to be had with the protection of anonymity from large populations shielding real scrutiny, so we need to get these names out in the lime light. Thus my new idea: Exploiting the Crime Market.

I suggest we set up the equivalent of the Stock Exchange - The Crime Exchange. The stock are criminals. Criminals are listed according to the list of court judgments for the day. Stocks are sorted into lists with relevant statistics: The stock's crime, the crime committed, the cost to the community, and the sentence.

We'd also have a running total tracking the stocks overall performance including number of convictions to date, total amount of fines, amount of fines outstanding, the write-offs, the amount of carnage they have caused, and just how many hours of community service they have failed to perform.

Now this would make things far more interesting. Throw in photos, blue chip performer list, and some "inside tips" from the police on the big movers and "name and shame" is moved to a whole new level.

With GPS enabled bracelets, we could have a Google Map overlay of where the top performers are at any given point of time. How handy when thinking about buying a house! How about flashing red when all those people on home detention are more than 5km from their TV? When this number hits 90% we know to lock the doors and windows and stay in for the night with a good DVD. Pedophiles show on the map as flashing blue lights. Oops, time to change schools.

Given share traders make money simply by predicting movements in stock, perhaps there's an investment angle? Why not allow citizens to invest in crimes, as they move on the Crime Share Index?

Insurance companies could offer changing premium rates by analyzing current stock movements.

Want to take a position on the effects of the anti-smacking law in 5 years time? Seeing CYFS persecute 100 families by over-reacting to reported smacking could make you a cool grand. Excellent.

Take an option on a speed camera setup near a pub. Purchase shares on its initial market launch and you could yield a 20% return.

Think microchips for cats will result in a 30% increase in Council fine revenue? Why not buy into that stock and watch your portfolio skyrocket?

If we want to name and shame our criminals, it has to be worth our while. A new Crime Exchange will publish up to date information on our criminals, and we will have all the right stats to tell them just how shamed they should be if we come across them doing the shopping when we know they are on home detention.

Even better, we all have an opportunity to make some money out of crime. Far safer than investing in the housing market. I heard crime will be exempt from a capital gains tax and death duties. Even the GST on shares will be rebateable if purchased through a trust.

The Crime Exchange - you know it makes sense.

ZenTiger Sponsor a Child

The concept of sponsoring a child to direct your donation is a great idea, and it's a low cost way to really make a difference in the world. Some children can be sponsored for as little as $30 per month, and yet receive vital education and health resources that really give them a chance.

I urge all to sponsor a child today. Here's a sample list of worthy candidates. Remember, your donation can make a difference. Please consider.

Bill
Young Bill barely has a roof over his head. He holds refugee status, being separated from his homeland in the southern parts of wild and untamed New Zealand. Forced to relocate to a squat in Wellington, he finds it hard to make ends meet. Your 12.5% GST and 39% tax rate helps keep a roof over his head. He's managed to find a job which brings in a mere $276,000. Yes, it sounds a lot, but remember, that is in Kiwi dollars. His recent accommodation allowance has ended, and he has debts of over $12,000 to repay. If you could find an extra $40 a month, and get another 100 mates to chip in it will save the finance minister (no relation) from putting death duty on your 90 year old mums house, which is a fancy way of saying you don't deserve an inheritance. Please help.

Hulun
This young waif is known fondly in her global village as "Hulun". Her dream is to set up a welfare scheme for poor families, and call it "Working For Families", or WFF. Indeed, after a massive fund raising effort over 9 years she managed to do just this. However, on finding that some families are raking in extra money by moving their mortgages into an "LAQC" the WFF scheme has been renamed WTF!

This should have caused some embarrassment to young Hulun, but instead she's been adopted out to the United Nations and given a multi-billion dollar fund to do the same thing all over again.

Your donation of 160 million dollars a year via taxes is not enough to help her with her grand vision. Hulun receives a mere US$400,000 tax free income per year, so she will at least eat cake. However, she wants your cake too, so please cough up an extra $43 per month and encourage a million mates to do the same. Otherwise she'll have to put pressure on the Greens to convince John to instigate a capital gains tax. This means that if your 90 year old mum wants to move into a retirement village and sell the holiday batch she used as a savings vehicle, she'll be taxed all over again. And you can forget the inheritance. Please, think of Hulun.

Phil
Phil has learning disabilities. He's not very popular. Sometimes he throws his toys out of the cot. He is a victim of war, having been shot in the foot many times. Admittedly, by his own weapon, but that's what you get when you send children into a war zone. It's people like Phil that need your help the most. An extra $50 a month could help him hire a communications adviser, and be able to reach the hearts and minds of the village that has ostracised him. Yes, his home village called "Labour NZ" has ostracised Phil. This practice is worse than smacking, which has been outlawed, because it requires you to ignore everything anyone says, a bit like an ostrich with their head in the sand, or like a politician with their heads up their err, like a politician who heads up a pointless commission of inquiry whenever they want to defer meaningful action. Phil would really like to see everyone like himself on welfare. You can make this dream come true with a small donation and about 500,000 votes next election. Please help little Phil before it is too late.

Michael
Michael, or "Cullen" or "Rich Pr**k" as he is affectionately known, is one of our successful graduates on the "sponsor a child" program. Our last fund raising efforts were so successful, he ended up with a huge surplus of funds, which he used to buy a train set. Unfortunately, he left it out in the rain and it's now rusted and mostly worthless, but the smile on his face was reward enough. At least that's what we tell ourselves.

Cullen is now all grown up and working, delivering mail and licking stamps and sitting on various boards and living the high life. Whilst he no longer needs your money, there are many others like him needing your donation. Maybe you can write a cheque and post it somewhere. Preferably express post, to improve profits and help Cullen keep his job.


Related Link: Do I really need to put in all the links?

More children in need of sponsorship: Sponsor a child II

A real link: World Vision - Sponsor a Child

Andrei Are Labour MPS really this clueless

The "greatest generation" fought World War 2. A significant number of them sacrificed their youth to that great struggle facing great hardship and deprivation as they did so. Of course there were many who gave more then their youth, the ones who didn't return.

And when the battles were over those who had come through it began their lives, started their families and raised their children. They had lots of children and were encouraged to do so by the Governments of the day who saw the value of Children and the merits of creating the next generation to perpetuate the species.

It was a period of great prosperity and the children of the greatest generation grew up in a world of privilege and opportunity beyond the wildest imaginations of their ancestors.

And here is what the Greatest Generation produced. The baby boomers. A selfish and self absorbed hedonistic bunch.

And for many of the boomers having families raising children was not a high priority. So they didn't.

Now of course this idolent generation is approaching retirement, the summer has gone and like Aesop's grasshopper who spent it fiddling instead of storing grain for the winter, they have not stored anything for their old age which would be the next generation to support them in their dotage and to carry on after they have gone.

Which brings me to this post from Labour MP Darrien Fenton: Will we need migrants to care for the baby boomers?

In which he muses
Caring for older people is considered a low-end job. Yes, increase training and career paths, but bottom line, increase the wages and the respect for the job. I think a good model is Early Childhood Education, where former “childcare workers” have been transformed into early childhood education teachers through degree programmes and decent wages.


Which is all fine and dandy but who exactly is going to pay those wages? If the population is top heavy with the elderly, which it is already and this is going to get steadily worse, who is going to do the real work that keeps society functioning? Things like producing food, generating electricity, maintaining roads and so forth.

And how are they going to feel about having a significant part of their income diverted into paying for transforming immigrants into "highly payed carers of the elderly".

And if you think about it resources diverted from the working age population in the near future will limit their opportunities for them to raise the next generation to carry on from them.

There is one certain thing, whoever inherits New Zealand will not share the values of the Boomer Generation.

Footnote

I am a boomer, I saw this coming many years ago. I raised four kids.

One has already left New Zealand for greener pastures and now earns more money than her mother, who is, somewhat ironically, one of Mr Fenton's vaunted early childhood education teachers, complete with degree.

Another is completing her nursing degree and supports herself by working in the high needs unit of a rest home. When she graduates maybe she will stay, maybe not, only time will tell.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Andrei Baying mob increases third world poverty

In a triumph for the mindless, Cadbury has stopped using palm oil in its confectionarys.

In recent years Palm oil has become the most prevalent vegetable oil on the market. The reasons why are economic, the African Oil Palm, Elaeis guineensis produces more vegetable oil per hectare than any other known species.

This has been a boon to the poor of Indonesia and Malaysia, a cash crop with a huge international demand and an opportunity to earn an honest living.

Needless to say over privileged westerners are none too pleased that the poor of these nations have an opportunity to better themselves and so begins a concerted campaign against Palm Oil. You will not be surprised to learn that the palm oil industry is apparently Greenhouse Gas emitter for example. Nor that it is responsible for the needless deaths of cuddly orangutans.

The trouble is with these environmental noisemakers is that they have no concept of life on the margins, of going to bed hungry and watching your children die of preventable and easily curable diseases.

They have been spoiled rotten their whole lives and are quite willing to blot out the harsh facts of life for the worlds poor by watching nature shows on their High definition plasma TVs all the while lamenting mankind's greed (other ignorant people, not themselves of course) for creating farms to feed themselves and their families.

And if that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is.

Andrei Just when you thought you had seen it all

Something new surprises you - in this case a blogger leaving troll comments on his own posts.

Andrei A proposal or a done deal?

The headline reads: Agency to rule on new cures

And the lead paragraph says
A powerful agency will decide which treatments to provide at public hospitals under a major revamp of the health system.

The Government yesterday made public a long-awaited report on the health system after details of a Ministerial Review Group's recommendations were leaked to The Dominion Post last week.

But by reading through to the bottom, if you have the stomach for it, reveals that this may not be a particularly popular idea amongst those who will actually make the final decisions.
Health Minister Tony Ryall said the Government was not obliged to accept any of the report's 170 recommendations, and he would not support any that increased bureaucracy. The Cabinet is likely to consider the report in the next few months.

So the whole story turns out to be a think tank piece which the Dominion has obtained and gone off the deep end with.

And the headline and first paragraph are utter BS

Update: Homepaddock has posted on the substance of this report in a manner that puts that of the Dominion Post to shame. The efficient delivery of health services is a matter of interest and concern to us all and one worthy of debate which will not be assisted at by the muddying of waters by poor reporting.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

ZenTiger A Good Korea Move

Former US President Bill Clinton made a good "korea" move in negotiating the release of two US Journalists (Euna Lee and Laura Ling) held in prison in North Korea. They had serviced 4 months of a 12 year sentence for being caught engaged in hostile acts (being found near the border with film equipment).

My first thoughts were "good on him" and I was glad he could do some good. Those thoughts remain, but my second thoughts were "what was the price?" When I read nauseating statements like: State media said Clinton apologized on behalf of the women and relayed President Barack Obama’s gratitude. The report said the visit would “contribute to deepening the understanding” between North Korea and the United States. I wonder how much appeasement Obama is prepared to grant for "peace in his reign". And aside from those thoughts, my biggest reaction was actually about a peripheral issue.

With the imprisonment of these two journalists, the world heard about how brutal the conditions were in these "gulags". The world learned about how many people are locked up in these places, often without fair trials, possibly innocent of any crime. American newspapers were aghast at the conditions two US citizens would have to endure.

And now with their release, the thousands of other prisoners will be forgotten. There will be no US President advocating to release them, there is no meaningful United Nations program underway to bring North Korea into line and ending these gross violations of human rights. It's back to business as usual.

It was much the same in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people could be gassed and tortured by Saddam, and the liberal left remained largely against all moves to stop this. When we finally got the chance, because Saddam was making noises about not just threatening his own people, but others in other countries, the liberal left were not interested.

Such disinterest in allowing totalitarian governments to flourish, let alone to exist could be our downfall. I think it might even blind us to the dangers inherent in our own system. We can see the hard totalitarianism of places like North Korea, and are left to shrug our shoulders, unsurprised that the collective might of the democracies are cowed into inaction. Do we have some kind of soft totalitarianism happening around us? (I'll explain this in a separate post)

Perhaps, with the vaunted principles of the United Nations Charter drive a mandate for the United Nations to step in? Don't be daft. That charter sits in cobwebs when it comes to the big things about life and death for millions. The only exercise it gets is when there is an opportunity for western governments to justify another set of law changes to restrict freedoms or raise taxes.

Our governments are failing us, and at the same time, we are being herded literally towards a new world order. The only lesson we can learn from North Korea is that a western government may step in when there is PR value from a token action. Unfortunately, however much appreciated, there remain tens of thousands of others trapped in a North Korean prison that have little hope in being granted any freedom.

Bill Clinton rescued two people, and it was a good career move. How much better for all of us if the Western World, on a bigger scale, made a similar good Korea move? Sadly, such a move is not a priority. Carbon taxes. That will save us.


Related Link: Bill Clinton makes a good Korea move

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Andrei Axion Estin



About this hymn

Related Post

ZenTiger Clayton Weatherston Appeals

Clayton Weatherston has put in an early appeal, offering shocking new information that the judge agrees puts an entirely different perspective on the killing of Sophie Elliot.

Said Clayton: "As everyone well knows, Sophie was a nice person. And yet I claimed she was not. The reason for this is clear. She was possessed by a devil and I tried to expunge the evil through a loving exorcism. Unfortunately, in spite of my best efforts, she died."

Based on this startling new evidence, the judge was understood to be considering reducing the charge to manslaughter and letting Clayton off with a stern warning.

"Enough damage has been done."

This new defence strategy was the brain-child of Judith Ablett-Kerr QC, who remained unrepentant with this new line of defence.

"Our justice system is an adversarial one, and it is my duty to use every trick in the book, no matter how distasteful. That is why this new line of defence is appropriate, especially now there is precedent. It was my job to ensure we demolished the integrity of Sophie Elliot, and we called into question the reliability of the witness, her mother. It was necessary, so we did it."

"Indeed, any normal person would have probably murdered Clayton and used the provocation defense to justifiably get off. The fact she didn't surely is pause for thought?"

This attitude found no truck with Christchurch Anglican Priest Father Tim Hurd. He said, in a private email to the defence team that her line of defence was "appalling" and "at every point you have subjected Miss Elliott's family to unnecessary and traumatising suffering. I have no vehicle but this to express my lack of respect for your practice."

Defence Team Member Greg King responded strongly: Hurd's "vitriol" showed a lack of understanding of how the criminal justice system worked..."

It's our job to use every underhanded trick in the book, and if that means distressing the Elliot family, then so be it. The fact that Father Hurd used his democratic right to express an opinion, and to put his name to it, and then to send it to us privately is appalling, and quite frankly, distressing.

We should not be subject to such criticism for doing our job. This kind of carry-on has got to stop, and I am glad the judge got stuck into Hurd. You wouldn't see me acting like this outside of the court room, except perhaps to vilify Hurd publicly using the same kind of emotive language for expressing an opinion."

Related Link: Priest in trouble for pointing out the obvious

Related Link: Weatherston Defence Team Claims New Precedent can get Clayton off

ZenTiger Maori Dead Accorded More Respect

Two bored 9 year old boys vandalized a local cemetery. The picture in the paper showed a typical cemetery scene, with large traditional tombstones. One was around 5 feet high and in the shape of a cross. Some of the graves had wrought iron fences around them. As I said, a typical cemetery.

Except to the reporter, this one was significantly different. Not just any dead people were buried there, but Maori dead people. So the whole tone of the story took on a new slant.

"Boys smashed up a Maori Cemetery"

..."At first the boys, who are not Maori, did not seem to realise the full impact of their vandalism"

..."They did not understand the gravity of their actions. Maori take this very seriously."

..."The Maori families had starting repairing..."

I'm astounded at the slant on this article. You think a European family would not be upset that a family member's grave stone had been vandalized?

The use of the word "Maori" in this article was unnecessary, and is actually disrespectful to non-Maori to imply only Maori would be upset to see tombstones and flower arrangements vandalized.

Friday, August 14, 2009

ZenTiger Friday Night Free for All

We've made it to another Friday. I have some things to comment about, but my duty to provide food and sustenance to my family must come first. Drop in and leave a comment. Service will resume in due course. Or at least, after the main course.

Andrei The passing of a legend

If you are a muso then the name Les Paul will be familiar to you.

He is the innovator who set the stage for modern music with the invention of the solid body electric guitar as well multi track tape recording. He accomplished the later by adding extra heads to an existing tape machine.

Mainstays of the modern music industry.

Of course when he played his first version of the electric guitar in public way back in 1942 it didn't look like a guitar but a block of wood with six strings and he looked like a crazy man.

But it sure caught on, especially after he made it look more guitar like.

And after Gibson started manufacturing his guitars in 1952 the stage was set for rock and roll and all that has followed.

Anyway news has just come in that Les Paul has just died aged 94.

Memory Eternal





ZenTiger Honour Killing in the West

A 41-year-old Jordanian man was charged with premeditated murder after his raped teenage niece was shot dead on Tuesday to "cleanse" the family's honour, police said.

"The man was arrested and charged after he shot the 16-year-old girl eight times in different parts of her body," a police source told AFP.

"The suspect, who was arrested while carrying his gun, confessed to the crime, saying that he wanted to cleanse his family's honour after his niece was raped last year."


Honour Killings such as this are met with understandable revulsion here in the West. Fancy murdering the women because she was raped. Murder a victim to restore honour? That does not make sense in the West. In the civilised world.

But then again, we have our own version of honour killings.

In the civilised world, many believe abortion is an acceptable way to resolve an ethical dilemma. Of course, aside from the small point that a life is forcibly terminated, there are far more "acceptable" reasons for not putting such actions in the same category.

Moving back to Jordan, let me finish my story of this brutal crime. The raped women actually became pregnant. She gave birth to a baby boy two months ago and her family kept the child. They supported her and the child in spite of the assault on their "honour". The tragedy of this women's murder becomes more heart rending, knowing her child now has no mother.


Related Link: Honour Killing in Jordan

Thursday, August 13, 2009

ZenTiger The unattainable is unknown

Welcome to http://www.zombo.com/. Everything is possible at Zombo com. The unattainable is unknown at Zombo com.

That's why Zombo is ZenTiger's recommended site for August. Go wild.

Lucia What to say about National?

They are just incredible.

The other day I listened to Nick Smith talking about how NZ'ers weren't bludgers and that we would do our bit to prevent climate change, ie pay more for electricity and petrol.

And then, was it yesterday? I listen to Jerry Brownlee say that NZ'ers were paying too much for electricity based on some commission or investigation of the electricity companies.

Errr.... I thought paying too much for electricity was good. If I listen to the climate change spin. But then it's not good if that overpayment is not tax, ie paid to the UN or some other country who doesn't "pollute" as much as we do.

I just have to thrown my hands up at the stark contrast to the two stories.

Sorry, no links, just getting a quick post off before dinnner!

Andrei Un-fricken believable

The mayor of Porirua Litea Ah Hoi is gratified that St Johns Ambulance has admitted it erred in the case of baby Cherish who you might recall was bashed by her Grandmother and later died.

Porirua Deputy Mayor Litea Ah Hoi, who spoke on behalf of Cherish's father, Nofosione Wright, said she was "really pleased" St John Ambulance had fronted up to its mistakes and was making changes.

But she was astounded that a doctor and paramedics had to call for outside help to insert a breathing tube.

"While it's too little too late for Cherish, Nofo is pleased it won't happen again, that another child's life could be saved," she said.

"I just hope the extra government funding also goes to training and retraining staff. And if that doctor, who is primarily accountable to St Johns, is not sure how to insert a breathing tube, that needs to be addressed as well.


Meanwhile back in the New Zealand of 2009:

Woman remanded in custody after toddler dies
'Breakthrough' in injured baby case: police.

And I am sure Litea Ah Ho will be "astounded" to learn that these children's misfortunes are not a result of rural front line ambulance staff being untrained in and ill equipped for the practice intensive care medicine in situ.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

ZenTiger Parenting and Smacking

Sue Bradford can set the scene for us:
“it’s too soon in this country to criminalize parents who lightly smack their children.” ... “Repeal of s59 is only one small strand of what we need to do.”

Smacking is violence:
I have lost count of how many times I've heard the phrase 'it never did me any harm' — whether it was a light smack [or worse] ... so many of the victims of this violence seem determined to perpetuate it on future generations.

Discipline is religious violence:
There is no getting away from the fact that a huge part of the opposition to my bill has come from people who truly believe that bringing their children up with violence is not only their right but also their literally God-given duty.

On fathers:
This is the question of the connection between sexual perversion and the beating of children and young people. Very few of us want to acknowledge it up front, but in fact the more I've been immersed in this issue, and the more I've heard groups predominantly made up of men proclaiming and lauding the right of adults to beat children ... the closer the unspoken connection gets.

Sue is well versed in maligning her opponents by lumping a few obvious cases of abuse in with implications all people who have a different point of view about discipline are evil. If it weren't for the sheer number of signatures gathered for the referendum, any opposition would have to bear much worse, I suspect.

Anyway, I'm re-advertising an earlier post I wrote rebutting an article by Chris Trotter. I thought it revealed not only his thoughts on the "typical" family, but how Sue Bradford and her ilk (Trotter being one of the ilkier) end up characterising families as part of their justification for "ending child abuse" or "the right to beat children" or whatever they claim.

It's a long read, so only follow the link if you are interested, and it probably helps to read Trotter's appalling article [at end of post], as you might think I've made some of the quotes up. I didn't.

Related Link: Educating Trotter

Also of note: The inhuman liberal left

ZenTiger MP Perks protected under contract - hah!

Hands off our Perks! say 140 ex MPs, fighting to keep their lifetime entitlements.

"Our conditions were set at the time for those members...and it's a contract between the Government and them which would be broken if it was changed by mutual agreement"

Unfortunately for these MPs, this argument falls flat in so many ways.

Let's play:

Bankruptcy
Auditors were called in today as John Key revealed the deficit was 8 billion dollars. Technically, the government is bankrupt and will have to be wound up. All previous contracts are null and void and we are expecting to pay out around 15 cents to each MP as compensation once other creditors have been paid. A new government will be formed once a new contract with the tax payers is established.

Legislation
Bill English today announced retrospective legislation, in the same style that the previous Labour Government used to ensure they were not found guilty of misspending. This retrospective legislation sets in place the illegality of MPs claiming life time perks for a short term job. All current MPs receiving these illegal benefits will be put on trial for flagrant violation of the new legislation, back dated to 1980.

Contracts
John Key has announced that the constant tax increases over the last 40 years have been illegally obtained, as no signed contract can be found between the government and the tax payer. Consequently, all funds received by MPs are now classified as coming from an illegal activity, and are forfeit under common law. National will be looking at a tax payer contract to go out in the next tax pack, and in the meantime are asking for voluntary donations. All MPs have announced that they will not be leading by example.

Politics
MP life time benefits have been cancelled. In spite of the supposed "contract" with MPs, the government pointed out it has constantly screwed other parties and arbitrarily changed the rules of the game. The government is about to do this again with superannuation rules. "As retired MPs well know, the government of the day can do pretty much anything it likes. They are fully entitled to complain, just like every other New Zealander, but that's it. Besides, when they retire they get a gold card offering free off peak travel. They should use it while they can, because we might even cancel that next week."

Referendum
The 140 MPs campaigning for life time entitlements today failed to gather the required 300,000 signatures to force a non-binding public referendum on the issue. They were only 299,861 signatures short, with one MP refusing to sign the petition in the absence of a party whip. John Key expressed great disappointment that the required number of signatures had been reached. "This would have been the ideal referendum to ignore, but unfortunately, I'll never get that chance. This is a great failure in democracy."


Related Link: Front page Herald