Socialism's striving for medals

I remember well the Olympics in Seoul, one of the most competitive countries was East Germany, with an impressive medal tally - 102 - unfortunately what was also noticeable was how some of the female athletes looked little like being female. Critics at the time would be accused by leftwing feminists of being patriarchal and judgmental - the truth was bleaker, the steroid many were forced to take were changing their hormonal balance. Heidi Krieger (now Andreas Krieger), 1986 European shot put champion, had a sex change operation in 1997 directed attributable to the drugs she was forced to take to perform. She could have said no? Well of course, and no longer been an athlete and be seen to be disloyal to the great socialist state.

^

Of course, the Olympic spirit was that politics and sport should not mix, but that was hardly the case for decades. Hitler ensured the 1936 Berlin Olympics were to be a triumph of Nazi glorification of order and prosperity. Certainly Moscow in 1980, LA in 1984 and Seoul in 1988 were all about thumbing noses ideologically. The Stalinist authorities of East Berlin treated it as such, as East Germany's best athletes were encouraged to perform their best for the "German Democratic Republic" - this meant being forced to take steroids. Now, as the Sunday Telegraph has revealed it included construction of an underground training facility which included a depressurised bunker designed to mimic conditions at an altitude of 4,000 metres, as athletes would have to produce more red blood cells, improving their performance.

^

"Athletes were ordered to train underground for weeks on end, being sent off to big contests only when their red blood cell count was drastically raised. Because of the immense psychological strain of the hard training in an isolated subterranean environment, some considered it a form of torture"

^

Only slightly amusing is how in the underground facility, banned Western songs by Bruce Springsteen and Supertramp were among those played, as a "reward", so that they could be happier while training.

^

The tragedy of lives ruined by the 20th century experiment with Marxism-Leninism continues to be found. Around 2000 former athletes in the GDR had their health damaged due to Erich Honeker's enslavement of them for medals, how many in China face the same pressure today?

Global warming's agenda of fear

Few policies can be quite as bizarrely dreamt up as carbon trading at the purely national level by a small, export dependent economy, which faces highly subsidised and protected competition from around the world. We all know that if New Zealand became uninhabited tomorrow, that it would make not one iota of difference to global warming -it is similar to someone with a bach on Lake Taupo deciding that they better not pee in the lake.

*

The hyperbole about global warming is wrapped up in the armageddon complex that has had its previous incarnations in fear of nuclear holocaust (which was eased by the surrender of the Soviet Union - not by the bleetings of the peace movement which treated both sides of the Cold War as being morally equivalent), ozone depletion (eased by a technological solution, albeit agreed by global treaty), acid rain (never really a problem anyway, and partly cleared up by the end of the Cold War shutting down filthy communist era factories) and the coming ice age (yes in the 1970s that was the fear). Of course there have always been "end of the world" nutcases claiming mankind is doomed, driven either by eternal pessimists who are so bleak and depressed with their own lives they want everyone else to feel the same, or more importantly by the irrepressible human urge to judge and damn.

*

In the UK you can see it in those who engage in school prefect like finger pointing against those who don't recycle as much as they could, those who drive big cars, those who fly, even those not buying (heavily subsidised and sometimes more carbon intensively produced) local food. It has become a national obsession by some media (BBC, ITV, The Independent) to the point that it is akin to the days when people finger pointed at couples who lived together unmarried, or single men in their 40s and up who seemed to have male "companions", or women who got pregnant without a husband. I've encountered a handful of people who seem to get off on criticising people for what they do with their own money and property, because that - fundamentally - is what this is about. The Liberal Democrats are the biggest cheerleaders for this, but Labour and the Tories have joined in.

*

The Greens of course love it, Sue Kedgley is the pin up big sister who if she had half a chance would want to raid your kitchen and your home, police your parenting (ala Cindy Kiro) and tell you what choices you should be making. It is the new puritanism.

*

Now I don't mind choosing myself when to switch off lights, appliances and the like because it saves me a little money. Recycling would be a worthwhile activity if:

- It happens to be a commercial viable way of recovering basic commodities for reuse. It is for metals used in motor vehicles and aircraft, it isn't for plastic bottles;

- Councils privatised landfills and rubbish disposal so that people paid a realistic price for waste disposal. In other words, stop subsidising the act of throwing away rubbish and recycling might stand up on its own.

*

Recycling has always happened, it's just now an obsession. I can proudly say I virtually never recycle, because the apartment block I live in has no such facilities. I am proud of it because it is a big "fuck off" to the people who want to tell me what to do, and it makes no difference.

*

I buy food from wherever I want to, and I tend to prefer buying it from outside the EU because of the vast economic (and environmental) nightmare caused by the Common Agricultural Policy. Food miles are (of course) bullshit.

*

I like flying, it is one of the most remarkable achievement of humanity in the past century, it is cleaner and more fuel efficient than it has ever been, and it would be more efficient if it weren't for governments propping up inefficient airlines (Alitalia, Olympic Airways), or engaging in protectionism (virtually every country barring NZ, Singapore and a handful of others).

*

I like driving too. However, governments own almost all roads, in the case of the UK and USA they often get poorly maintained, increasing fuel consumption. Moreover, governments strangle road building and don't properly price the roads to smooth demand, which would reduce congestion and significantly improve fuel efficiency. Roads are congested because they are operated effectively as public domain.

*

Carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant", if you're that concerned about it slit your wrist now, you'll produce more of that than you will any bodily fluids or gases in your life. Don't have kids either, because they'll breathe, drive, fly, use electricity. If humanity is contributing to climate change then ask yourself this - what are the solutions put forward by those who claim to care?

*

If the solutions are new and innovative technologoes, then ask yourself whether there are wider benefits to these? Such advocates at least appreciate science, although there is a risk they are engineering bound.

*

If the solutions are government stopping the protection and subsidy of carbon intensive activities, or the taxation and regulation of carbon neutral activities, then they are being advocated with the desire for more freedom, and to let choices to be made on an economically neutral basis.

*

If the solutions are to subsidise "green" initiatives with little clear evidence that the initiatives actually are "green", then they are probably bandwagons - a bit like recycling fanatics.

*

If the solutions are to call for you to restrict your behaviour, move around less, punish you for owning or using things you bought yourself and involve widespread setting of rules and judging those who fail to follow them, then call their bluff - these people are little Hitlers, tell them to fuck off and get a life.

*

It's about time more people told the environmental nazis of our day to leave us alone - maybe they might care about the child slaves of North Korea instead of whether I drive or catch the bus - but then most North Koreans throw out little rubbish, don't own cars and never fly anywhere - and most environmentalists seem to care less about human beings that are tortured and enslaved than animals. The proof is in the Greens.

Christian politics NZ - the triumph of commonsense

MMP brought with it high expectations from the Christian Heritage Party. It saw a chance to hold a government to account according to Biblical principles - you know, reversing the Enlightenment concept of separation of church and state - as it believed it could easily rally 5% of voters to stand behind "traditional values". Meanwhile another group had a similar idea, backed by the homophobic advocate of strong censorship laws, ex. National MP Graeme Lee. The Christian Democrats and the Christian Heritage Party were competing at the soft and hard end of Christian politics, but even when they came together as the Christian Coalition in 1996, 5% couldn't be reached.

Brian Tamaki promised great things for his flock - the flock that sadly or stupidly, depending on your point of view, present tithes to keep him and his comrades in a style very few of his flock would be accustomed to. It certainly shouldn't be banned, but there is something immoral about spreading judgment among the ignorant, and convincing them to pay him to live a lavish lifestyle, while condemning those who don't to hell. Tamaki's promises that the Destiny NZ party would enter Parliament in 2005 and be in government in 2008 were either a marketing exercise or the voice of the truly deluded. No one looking relatively objectively at NZ politics can see fundamentalist Christian politics having much of a market.

The best a Christian party has done in NZ was when Peter Dunne's centrist (middle muddle ground as Bob Jones once called it) United Party, which had been languishing at 0.9% merged with the happy clappy Christian Democrats (once led by a charismatic young preacher, of whom it has been said fell from grace following allegations of conduct that is all too often laid at the feet of high profile Christian politicians, although nothing like Graham Capill). Dunne becoming the media darling in 2002 saw his party hold the balance of power then, and now - and we have the Families Commission. However, with United Future halving its vote in 2005, and Dunne distancing himself from the Christian dimension, AND Gordon Copeland slipping away, it would look like United Future will be a party of Dunne only in 2008 - which of course, is a triumph of commonsense. Dunne after all is a man with more intelligence than he has shown, with a political career of highlights such as creating the useless Families Commission, appealing to homophobes by not debating civil unions, but saying they are a proxy for gay marriage (without saying whether he thought that was bad or not, but implying that it was), and campaigning for a cargo cult highway with a billion dollar cost that the funding system he supported in Cabinet has constantly rejected.

The relaunch of Destiny as PC has pointed out, has to make you laugh.

What the new party will do is continue to attract a small number of voters who, in all probability, would either have voted National or stayed home. However, Brian Tamaki's time will come.

I believe fundamentalist pre-enlightenment Christian politics are a potential disaster for humanity, fortunately in New Zealand (as in the UK), the appetite for going back to witch hunts, jailing heretics and abolishing free speech on Christian grounds, is not high. What good that some churches offer their members in setting some rational moral rules around treating others, and instilling some discipline and respect is not seen in Christian politicians - the likes of Tamaki have no respect for those of other religions or no religion - they are the wannabe Taliban of New Zealand.

Over 95% of New Zealand voters reject this, now if only the US could follow...

National socialist Party again - John Keycescu

I see the Dominion Post reporting that on Cindo Kiro's Stalinist plan to track all NZ children, that
^
"The proposal calls for a database to track the development of New Zealand children, which Mr Key would not oppose. "You have to balance the intrusion of privacy over the need to try to get a resolution to an issue that is of quite great concern. In this case the issue warrants that." "
^
Kim John Key, John Keycescu, Mao Key John.
^
What a fucking waste a vote for National is then - want a reason to join Libertarianz? Don't want your family tracked by the state and Cindy Kiro's social worker mates? Well go on go here.
^
Yes I know Family First is against it, but they'll track your internet use and burn books.

Media useless in protecting our freedoms - Big Sister Kiro

So finally the mainstream press reports on Cindy Kiro's Orwellian plan to save "our" children, collectivising families under a Big Brother state which spies on every family, all those which are happy, healthy and fairly well balanced, to capture the small number which are dysfunctional, abusive and negligent.

^

I reported on this atrocious proposal in October LAST YEAR. It's not NEWs, it's just that the standards of journalism in NZ are often shockingly low.

^

and what's the headline in the Dominion Post? "$5m-a-year to save our our children" (sic). I don't care if it is $5 million, $50 million, $5 billion or $50 - THAT isn't the story Keri Welham.

The headline should be "Shades of Orwell in plan to cut child abuse" or the like.

^

Think about it, all "caregivers" (not parents, no we must have a euphemism that places everyone on the same footing) must nominate a Nazi/Stasi agent - I don't use the term lightly - because it is someone to essentially spy on their parenting, or face being reported to the authorities. In other words, it doesn't matter how good a parent you really are, you must nominate some busybody to intrude.

^

It will allegedly save five children a year - I don't doubt that a strategy of targeting the perpetrators - the scalpel rather than the sledgehammer - could easily achieve much of the same. However, we could easily reduce crime by having a Police state, squads could march around the streets, detaining people without charges, threatening, going into the houses of suspicious people - after all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear - expect THAT phrase from anyone wanting to interfere with your privacy.

^

I recall the tale of one victim of Ceaucescu's Romania that what people didn't have in those abominations of Stalinism was privacy - your job, your home, your day to day life, you couldn't get on with your life without the state intruding into everything - requiring you to report, go to meetings, to prove that you were not to be a suspect. It is the world of the Police State, and Cindy Kiro - not a fool by an stretch of the imagination - is either bereft of any understanding of philosophy and history, or is herself a Stalinist who sees the states involvement in people's lives as positive and embracing, not the gloved fist with the authority to give, take and regulate what you do. Nazi Germany is alien to her, perhaps the history of totalitarian societies was not part of her education, perhaps the experience of the world is not seen as important as understanding the Tangata Whenua. Who knows? All I know is that this proposal should be resisted at all counts.

^

Kiro should be given a strongly worded "f... off" by any parents who love and care for their children. She wants to take away the privacy of your family for the sake of an underclass of virtually useless people who are at best parents in absentia, at worst undiscovered criminal abusers. Her strategy to deal with child abuse is about as sensible as putting tv cameras in all homes to spy on people who might do illegal things, with the right of the Police to randomly switch them on to catch you doing something "wrong".

^

and if you want an answer as to how to stop the vermin who damage, torture and kill children? Start by prohibiting those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences (I mean grievous assault and rape, not just a punch in a pub or the 16yo boy with the 15yo consenting girl) from being able to live in the same home as a child. This includes prohibiting any men or women with such convictions from having custody of their own children. In addition, how about denying those who have abused children the right to any state welfare whatsoever.

^

So go on Rodney Hide, John Key - say something...

Death

Dead – what a word, how final, empty and completely awful. I never understood people who said death is a part of life. It is like saying war is a part of peace, or bankruptcy is a part of property ownership. It is cold comfort that it is, currently, inevitable. I say currently because I don’t doubt that as long as humanity proceeds on a path whereby science and reason can continue to make significant advances, that the onset of death will continue to be delayed. One need only look at comparisons in life expectancy. In 1800 in London it was 28, today living to your 60s is the norm, and averages now tend to lie in the late 70s and early 80s.

I don’t think there is anything beautiful or wonderful about death, the only comfort I ever think there can be is when it is the alternative to excruciating agony. Those who consciously choose euthanasia for themselves are to be respected in that light. Beyond that though, death of those you love is a loss, a waste. It isn’t a “fact of life” or anything beyond what must be accepted, it is a cruel devastating removal of someone that is valued and loved.

The loss is noticed because you can’t talk to the person anymore, can’t hear their thoughts, share laughter, stories and experiences. That is irreplaceable because people are individuals, and the pain is only real because you have loved and lost.

You can avoid grief rather easily, be a hermit. You’ll never get close to anyone, never enjoy who they are, their mind and their sense of life, and you’ll never attend a funeral. However I don’t want that, and I value what time I’ve had with those who I have lost recently. That time is precious, and so easily wasted and frittered away on nonsense.

One point is to value memories, and to have memories to value you have to create them, live them and as you get older you can share them, smile and look back upon all those years.

Eventually technology will allow more transplants, the growth of replacement components for the body, and may even allow consciousness to remain forever intact. The desirability of this will be the subject of much debate, who wants to be conscious without a body, and who wants to be forever patched up in old age. This sets aside the typical debates about the sustainability of perpetual life and breeding. However, as lives extend it will continue to become more interesting, until, of course, I am dead.

I don’t have religion for comfort, as easy as it would be and in some moments I did wonder if those I lost could hear and see me. However, I don’t feel they are in a better place, there are no place, they are no more, as romantic as alternatives may seem (and frankly as pleasant as that seems at first). The most recent loss has also hit me about my own mortality, dying at 56 of a blood clot to the brain from a varicose vein, with cancer also spreading. She was a fit, slim, non-smoker.

I’ll do what I can to delay it all, but it is only when a parent dies young that the truth of ones own mortality is clear. Realism strikes hard, and I have to live, frittering away time is over. It is not a time to be reckless, but a time to embrace life and those who you love – for some of them will die before you, and then your time will come, and if in the moments beforehand you can reflect, then reflect upon what you had – and remember every day from now until then is all you have.

Carpe Diem has never felt so true.

It's not the fault of the child torturer because

structural issues have made them do it.

^

Consider why most people who survived the Killing Fields, or the Holocaust, or the Cultural Revolution didn't, perhaps the revolutionary experience of being part of a new society that had nothing to do with evil capitalism meant the trauma of their family, friends and neighbours being executed helped.

^

I wonder in a world of feminist post-modernist jurisprudence whether rapists could claim that they are so broken by the structural issues of society that it makes them rape women? "Sorry I raped that woman judge, I've been unemployed for three years, can't afford a Nintendo Wii, my favourite food and don't have a girlfriend to beat up to resolve my structural disadvantage because of capitalism - will you join me in revolution against these capitalist scum, or lock me up like the capitalism scum you are because I want to rape women like we proletariat are raped by the capitalist exploiters?"

^

You see my problem is that I am part of this "It's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level"

^

I'm so damned stupid, poor people don't make bad choices - they were put there. When you look at their lifestyles most of them work just as hard as everyone else, and they are just as intelligent and skilled, none of them did anything stupid or self destructive, and they are all supportive of one another in bettering themselves. I'm astounded at how brilliant they are at breeding without having the means to support themselves and the kids, abusing substances, gambling and other habits that aren't THEIR choices. They are legally insane or forced to do those things, or maybe another species. Self-destructiveness is never your fault is it? It is "society's".

^

By and large most people are dealt a hand in life in terms of opportunities, some have far more than others and waste them (a man was recently in a major UK paper for having been a millionaire a couple of years ago and is now homeless living off charity), other have next to nothing and make something of them. Those who choose to evade this fact are either stupid or simply beholden to an angry agenda of violence, like most Marxist Leninists.

^

but you've seriously lost touch with the real world when you think that people torture children for "structural reasons", and those who believe that will only be challenged to rethink if it happens to their children. Explaining child abuse as anything beyond something the abusers are responsible for is the last bastion of the lunatic. You can understand why it happens, but it does not mean it is not a choice. Only the insane do not choose, and perhaps only they don't believe you can choose.

^

Notice John Minto (the man who couldn't give a flying fuck about his mate Mugabe halving life expectancy in Zimbabwe or his mate Kim Jong Il's gulags in North Korea) is part of this "blame capitalism for torturing kids" brigade. He doesn't look at other times of economic hardship or other cultures and see kids being tortured because the family is poor. Chris Trotter even more disgustingly says WE pay a toll for our comfortable lives somehow linking those of us who don't abuse our kids being to blame for those who do. The culture and philosophy of Marxists has always been to play the card of historical inevitability, as if our lives are not ours to control, but we are cogs in wheels being manipulated. It is a complete disconnect from reality.

^

Go on Chris, go to the poverty stricken communities you care about, go rescue this kids, go give a damn - or maybe you can ask why so many low income families would never ever abuse their kids, and why you would excuse them if they did, but not richer families?

^

New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years, but until the likes of Minto, Trotter and Maia see blood spilt in wealthy homes they wont be happy - whereas deep down I wonder if they are glad when the see the blood spilt by the poor, because it allows them to blame anyone but them for it.

2007 will forever be in my memory

In 1970 a young woman from South Canterbury gave birth in Kenepuru Hospital north of Wellington. She went there following the placing of an ad in the three daily newspapers of Auckland Wellington and Christchurch some months before - she did that because she was pregnant, unmarried and it was 1970 in South Canterbury.

^

She wanted to give birth to this child and adopt him out because of the shame attached at the time to unwed mothers. I had only been a fling with a young man who was a boarder at the time, a bottle of wine and a romantic evening for a couple of teenagers produced the unplanned result. She informed the young man, who fled and was never heard of again. She then did what she could to resolve this little problem growing inside her. She tried a number of options, but decided on temporarily moving away in order to spend the last few months of pregnancy outside of public gaze and judgment. She had arranged this when her mother found her crying, she told all, and both her parents lovingly supported her during this pressing time.

^

So it happened, and as was the custom of the time after giving birth, she had to ask to see the baby, but was not allowed to touch. She was, after all, a sinner in the eyes of the state.

^

She would not touch that baby again for 28 years. Following a change in the law, some research and support from loved ones, he wrote to her at that time, placing a delicate toe in the water to say hello. What followed were more letters, an admission to almost her entire family about her past. After an initial shock, especially from her husband - they accepted and welcomed the new family member.

^

He had been brought up by two very hard working and loving Glaswegians who always treated him as their own. They supported him during this process, met his birth mum and then followed nine years of visits, phone calls, cards and presents.

^

She was diagnosed with bowel cancer late last year, went through extensive surgery to remove the tumours, and chemotherapy. She was diagnosed clear of cancer only two months ago, although further surgery was required.

^

Last weekend she collapsed and in minutes had passed away in her own bed, at the tender age of 56.

^

Life is too fucking short at times. Blogging will be light... again.

New Zealand to be friendly to murderers

Will Winston bring up the gulags? or will he do what almost all diplomats do, simper and say nothing - like they did in the 1930s when dealing with Germany or Japan?

^

Or does Winston think it is more important to worry about who owns an airport than the enslavement, torture and execution of children?

^

Well the Greens care far more about the airport, they have introduced a fucking Bill. These sanctimonious self-serving self-styled defenders of peace and justice are anything but.

^

He is reported saying "I want to see for myself how New Zealand might contribute to international efforts to assist development in North Korea."

^

It's called do nothing until the gulags are all opened and the people set free or given asylum outside North Korea (and China). North Korea makes apartheid look like a holiday, and it speaks volumes than virtually nobody who fought apartheid gives a moth's droppings about the Korean gulag archipelago.

^

If New Zealand has an independent foreign policy that means anything (and you leftwing lot out there think that being anti-nuclear is so bloody moral) then Winston go to North Korea, demand that the gulags be opened, and that North Korea at the very least stops imprisoning children along with their parents for political crimes. You might then guarantee you wont be reported in the North Korean media as another patsy coming to pay homage to Kim Jong Il et al, and you might show that your not simply an opportunistic bauble seeking lazy populist.

^

So come on Winston, show you have some spine, ignore the wimpering MFAT advisors who will want a "success" which will no doubt be reported in North Korea as another victory against the Japanese/US imperialist forces as North Korea makes new friends. Ask your new friends about Camp 22. Yes it will embarrass, but frankly FUCK that - would you be embarrassed telling Nazis you found the Holocaust unacceptable, preferring to negotiate a peaceful way of coexisting?

^

and the Greens? Your belief in human rights and what is important in the world isn't worth pissing on. I guess North Korea's carbon footprint is so low, and they've said they'll dismantle their nuclear facilities so they are probably better than the USA aren't they? Arseholes. There is NO fucking excuse for this.

^

Why am I angry? Well it's another day and 5 people probably died in Camp 22 today of starvation or violence, some of them children.

^

Go watch this Winston, see who you're new friends are, and tell me you can be "tough on crime" and be concerned about child abuse in New Zealand, when you cozy up to a regime that abuses children directly on a daily basis. 200,000 people in gulags in North Korea, thousands of them children down to the age of infants.

^

So come on Winston, Keith Locke and all you others who pretend to give a fuck... this is more important that who the fuck owns Auckland airport!

^

oh and it might be nice if Rodney Hide and John Key said something to, so go on.

^

and frankly if this doesn't get any NZ politicians agitated then the lot of them are so fucking useless they deserve to get the abuse hurled at them. It is nothing compared to what the children of Camp 22 put up with every single day - and every single day there is appeasement, they stay there.

Politically correct sledgehammer

So the next time my mother enters hospital, she'll be asked:

^

- Has anybody hurt or threatened you?

- Have you ever felt controlled or always criticised?

- Have you been asked to do anything sexual that you didn't want to do?

^

Perhaps if it is asked of someone who enters hospital with injuries that could be attributed to violence then yes, but to ask every woman? What utter nonsense.

^

For starters, many people have had those things happen from those outside family. I've certainly felt the first a few times (threatened more than hurt, and what does "hurt" mean), and as for the third - well how many adults haven't had that?

^

Imagine this. A couple are being intimate, snogging, touching, playing, and one of them asks "could I insert a dildo into your bum?" the other says "no". Does this mean that the one saying no, being a woman, must report this to the hospital if she happens to be going in after having broken a leg in a skiing accident?

^

I understand the idea, but it must be targeted, targeted at those seen to be "at risk", not every woman.

^

I have another idea, let's ban all those convicted of serious violent offences from claiming welfare. Who can morally justify that, why should they live funded by others?

Nat MPs boycott junket

Refreshing it is. A schedule that is lazy as reported by the NZ Herald involving basically 5 hours work on Monday, 5 hours on Tuesday (I'm sure question time doesn't involve NZ MPs working), 6.5 hours on Wednesday (if a meeting is confirmed), 6.5 on Thursday and 1.5 hours on Friday. Staying at the Hilton (very nice) and flying Biz Class which according to Labour MP Lynne Pillay is "irrelevant".

^

Good, she can swap her ticket with someone who is paying for it all (a taxpayer) flying on the same flight down the back, if it is "irrelevant". Besides, most MPs have so many bloody airpoints they can use them to buy the upgrade for "free".

^

Good for National MPs Chris Finlayson, Chris Auchinvole and Nicky Wagner refusing to go along with it.

^

The problem is that most Labour MPs couldn't ever get a job to earn enough that it would pay for such a trip!

It is time to play the blame game

The CE of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, Heather Henare - regarding the abominable instances of brutal assault against children was recently in a press release saying:

^

"Just playing the blame game will achieve absolutely nothing. Nor will evermore punitive sanctions, which will only serve to further alienate individuals from their whanau"

^

Blame is an inflammatory word which means attributing responsibility, and while some are of a political bent to not ever make anyone responsible for anything (other than government or business or any group perceived as having "power") responsibility for the abuse of children lies primarily with one party.

^

The abuser is to blame first, and any accessory to the abuser is also culpable. Serious abusers (the systematic and brutal) should be sentenced with a permanent prohibition on having custody of children or living in the same premises as children. The real need to protect children from abuse has been distracted by campaigns for sex offender registers, plenty of abusers do not sexually offend. If you are brutal towards children you should never be allowed to live with any.

^

However, there is also responsibility when another adult responsible for the child does nothing. Being an accessory means doing nothing while the child is being abused, a few revel in it, many fear repercussions in confronting it or leaving. However, remaining with any person abusing your child should be considered criminal negligence, unless you report the person to the Police. In this case the Police must be effectice and competent in providing protection and apprehending suspects.

^

Yes, I know that some feminists will excuse this negligence by women because of fear, but frankly any mother who is so scared of someone that she simply refuses to protect her child is not worthy of the custody of that child. Who else is meant to do it? Is the state meant to monitor everyone (like Cindy Kiro seems to want)? What is being a parent about if it is not first and foremost to protect your child? When do those who peddle "no blame and no responsibility" for anyone about anything accept that there IS responsibility here? Any parent worthy of that title and certainly almost all the ones I know would sacrifice themselves to save their child's life, it is not just instinctual, it is a rational reaction to the love for that child.

^

Her nice words such as "We need to make sure we are not alienating whanau and that increased support goes into preventing such abuse from happening".

^

Oh, "alienating whanau", the only ones that should feel alienated are whanau who sit by and do nothing, who cover up for the abuse of each other, who collectively parent and hold no individual responsibility. Children are being battered, abused and killed, and she worries about upsetting people - well Heather, there is a reason for getting upset - brutality upsets and if it doesn't upset any particular whanau then what the hell are they? They are part of the problem. It is not a race issue, except that apparently more Maori abuse their children than non-Maori, and that is nobody else's fault other than the abusers. Anything else is direct denial of the facts.

^

The "support" needed are a combination of law enforcement, support for womens' refuges (which perform an invaluable role) and appropriate means so that abused children and adults can turn to someone to get redress. It's about breaking down the walls of large families who look after each other, including the abusers and who refuse to confront the cancer within. That refusal is costing lives, and I don't care who the hell gets upset in the process.

^

and Heather you're wrong when you say "people must accept violence and abuse are issues for every part of society to confront". As a collectivist, you talk about parts of society. There is a part of society that doesn't need to confront it - those of us who don't abuse. We're not the problem.

^

By contrast, Family First NZ (hardly an organisation I'd have much philosophical support for) has presented a programme which, on the face of it, isn't a bad start:

1. establishing a non-political Commission of Inquiry comprising community leaders who are working with at-risk families to identify causes of child abuse and effective solutions, and examining specifically the role of drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, race-based issues and poverty in these high rates. Well I'd want more than community leaders, I'd want some decent expertise across the intellectual, philosophical spectrum but it may be helpful;

^

2. an immediate increase of support and resourcing to grass-root community organisations who are working with at-risk families attempting to stop abuse in the first place - for example HIPPY Foundation, Early Start, Family Help Trust and other early childhood home-based programmes. In principle, this could be helpful too, though I'd be careful about what organisations to support, and in the longer term this should be through donation not state funding.

^

3. an increased investment in parenting organisations such as Parents Inc and other community based positive parenting programmes. More sceptical of this, although by donation this could also be helpful. Indeed, supporting non-partisan, secular parenting support organisations may be a far better use of taxes than welfare.

^

4. a media-based anti-child abuse campaign, in the same way road safety ‘shock’ campaigns are run, raising the awareness of and encouraging ‘positive’ parenting and identifying what is abuse. The UK National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children already does this, there should be the same in NZ, and people should contribute towards a fund to support this.

^

5. sentencing for those who abuse and kill our children to be substantially increased to provide both a deterrent and a clear message of our community’s disgust with the actions of people who abuse children. Like I've said, there should be a clear increase in sentences at the severe end of the spectrum. Recidivists should be the priority. Anyone who is convicted a second time for any violent/sexual offence against children should be considered for preventive detention or denial of custody sentencing.

^

There is a severe problem in New Zealand of systemic child abuse, particularly in lower income Maori families. The problem is not poverty, most poor people don't abuse their kids. There is no excuse for the vile behaviour spread across the media as of late - it's just a shame that some want to evade individual responsibility as the sole cause.

David Benson Pope - good riddance

I have one simple reason for cheering this, is goes beyond the scandals behind this man, it is his sheer hypocrisy on one thing.

^

His press release on his resignation states "I have had more than my fair share of personal abuse and attack from the opposition, their fellow travellers and parts of the media. No one should underestimate the toll that this has on family members. I would urge opposition politicians to focus on policy not personality"

^

Would you David? So when you sat on the Local Government and Environment Select Committee, and taunted the Libertarianz spokesmen who were presenting a submission on the bill on dog control by saying "Why are you a party? if you believe in individualism how can you form a political party? Are you a party? Do you have any members?" constantly interrupting the submission, talking over the spokesmen attempting to answer his questions until the Chair requested that he let the spokesmen talk, were you focusing on policy not personality?

^

Of course not you rude prick, now fuck off you obnoxious hypocritical bully!

The National Puritan Party

You can almost always rely on the National Party to roll out some do-gooding busy body who wants to regulate what people do in their privates lives.

The incessant demands for prohibition of party pills from Jacqui Dean are a tiresome example, reflecting a peculiar middle class conservative opposition to all drugs except alcohol - with a stereotype that everyone taking anything like party pills is probably poor, unemployed, in bad health, committing crimes and needing to be looked after. It also reflects an even more peculiar stereotype that banning it makes the problems lessen. The idea that, in fact, people might occasionally take certain drugs and suffer no damaging effects is about as far away from that philosophy as womens' rights are to the Taliban.

The latest campaign is the one against a teacher who, disgustingly, Katherine Rich refers to as "porn site teacher". It is pretty much a cheap shot at someone who has done nothing illegal and indeed there is barely evidence at all that he sought to do anything illegal. However, it involves sex and it involves having an unconventional sex life, so that makes this teacher fair game in the world of politics.

The facts appear to be:

• The teacher in question posted nude pictures of himself on an online dating website. This website only allows registration of users 18 years and over. Katherine Rich calls them "hard core pornographic" involving himself and two women. Some were probably of him having a stiffie, the sort of image half the population gets to see in person most days, and a good part of the rest of the population gets to see a little less often. Other would involve him committing legal acts with the women. Nothing illegal about it, and hardly immoral given that the vast majority of the population "commits" them regularly (and the remainder usually want to). Online dating websites are NOT porn sites, though some get perilously close;
• The only people that would get to see these photos are other adults registered on the dating website who searched for someone with the teacher's profile;
• He sought other women to commit legal acts with, presumably consensually, although Katherine Rich has focused upon the phrase "the younger the better" to imply that he is a pedophile, or seeking underage sex. While he COULD have said 18 plus, the implication is that given it is a legal dating site, given that the dating site has strict rules about these things, that it is borderline.

The teacher appears to have committed no offences, or even attempted to do so. He has not solicited anyone underage, there is no evidence of handling illegal pornography and no evidence of any untoward activity towards students.

The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that he should continue teaching, presumably because there IS insufficient evidence to support that this teacher is any more a risk than say, a quiet demure understated man who doesn't show his cock online. Indeed, an adult swinger may well be LESS of a risk than the quiet lonely male who never seems to have much of a profile. Two out of five on the tribunal dissented, but then again that is not enough to end someone's career,

The fact that the teacher's ad could be accessed by past present and future students is truly irrelevant. Are teachers meant to live an ascetic life, or maybe the National Party stereotype of heterosexual married couples breeding happily, without threesomes entering into their lives, or large age gaps?

When can people have private lives when they have committed no crime, have not even done anything sufficient to be charged of the attempt of a crime without politicians taking cheap shots?

Would I be comfortable with this teacher teaching my children (if I had any)? Well frankly, I either wouldn't know or I wouldn't care that he advertises for other women, including young legal age ones if there are NO outstanding allegations about actual behaviour towards students or sex crimes more generally. It is no different to the scaremongering over gay teachers not too long ago that implied that a gay man in front of a class of boys was probably wanting to fondle them. Does "the younger the better" mean illegal? Well, the question you have to ask is, do you want to give someone, for whom you have no other evidence, the benefit of the doubt or do you want to engage in a witch hunt?

If he had been caught asking for schoolgirls, or flirting with them, or been caught with any, then fine - this is all justified. However, there are hundreds and hundreds of teachers who, secretly, will fantasise occasionally about their students, and I mean particularly younger teachers with the oldest students. You will never know who they are, because 99% of the time you never get to know who fantasises about whom. As long as it remains so, it is nobody else's business. As long as teachers pursue sex lives that do not break the law or do not involve students, then it should not be anyone else's business.

Winston in a time warp

NZ First press releases can be funny, they read like North Korean ones at times. Statements like "New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters said today that despite misinformation campaigns being undertaken by some in the media, the fact remains that our major strategic assets and land cannot be allowed to fall into foreign control."

^

No Winston, a misinformation campaign is not defined as those who have a different political view of the world compared to you. "The fact remains" does not make anything a fact, it is a political point of view. What sheer utter arrogant nonsense to think that an alternative political view from Winston is not a fact, and is simply a "misinformation campaign". Colin Espiner can write what he likes, but clearly he has annoyed Winston who seeks to win votes from an anti-foreign investment line.

^

What's funnier though is this statement "Auckland Airport is a strategic asset. It was clearly defined as such in the coalition agreement of 1996, and nothing has happened between then and now to change its status in our view".

^

In the what agreement??

^

So the fact that:

1. The coalition agreement terminated in force when the coalition with National broke up in 1998;
2. The remains of that government was voted out in 1999 and remains so;
3. The confidence and supply agreement with Labour does not cross reference the 1996 coalition agreement as a basis for policy;
4. The coalition agreement is not the word of some sage, it's a political document of convenience.

means nothing?

Sorry Winston, reread the calendar it is 2007, not 1997.

Yes, if you had a gun and a bullet and could get away with it

you might remove these oxygen thieves from the planet as well:

^

The Rotorua ones

and the British ones.

^

and the Rotorua ones are only charged with assault, so far.

^

Yes I know people have abused children since time immemorial, and I know yobs have been the gutter trash of Britain for decades, but what is this culture that scares people into retaliating, the culture that denies ambulance workers the means to defend themselves?

^

Here's a simple response:

- If found guilty, the Rotorua accused are permanently denied custody of children;

- The yobs in Manchester are denied access to the ambulance service unless they pay the full cost.

Peter Dunne does occasionally have common sense

Well, just this once.

^

On Auckland airport the NZ Herald quotes him saying "the sale of the airport was a matter to be sorted out by its shareholders"

^

Amazing Peter, such common sense!

^

JohnKey on the other hand is pandering to a group that Winston thrives on by saying according to the NZ Herald that "in principle he would like to see the airport remain in New Zealand hands". Fine John, you put together a consortium!

^

Winston meanwhile is satisfied that national security issues will be taken into account.

^

Of course he is pandering to the racist, bigoted, largely monolingual constituency who drag their knuckles to vote for him, because you see Dubai... well they're foreign aint they it's Iran isn't it? They want nukes and they stop girls going to school you know. They ummm are ummm Muslims u know they have beards, they're not like us, they're probably bloody terrorists those Iraqis who want our airport, they like camel riding, well I wont use the word, but you know. They have funny ways and that weird music, you know, for belly dancing and stuff. They are not like us those Arab types, they eat funny spicy food that isnt our sorta thing not like steak and chips, real tucker. you know they'll bomb our planes those Palestinians you know, they're just going to use it to train terrorists, they'll hire their own kind, they do that.. probably bring their families over and fill up our schools and hospitals then where we'll be? We fought them in Gallipoli those Turks too.

^

Hysteria, seen also in the Greens who say on their website that "Auckland International Airport is the single most important piece of monopoly transport infrastructure in the country".

^

1- It's a monopoly partly because you don't want Whenuapai developed as a competitor;

2- Given it is more important that the rail and road networks, can't we sell those too now? (foaming at the mouth foreseen) (I mean give away the rail network, since it was bought for $81,000,001.

They're taking the piss... aren't they?

What things are government good at? Solving crime? Prosecuting fraud?

^

No, I know - recipes!!

^

That's what taxes are for, to force you to pay for the food industry to study better recipes for making chips to make them healthier.

^

I kid you not. This is Nanny State par excellence.

^

Who has demanded this? Consumers? Well, if they have then the food industry should pay for it themselves. Surprisingly, it seems to respond to what people want.

^

"No Minister" calls the Ministry of Health food nazis. They are!!! When did anything delicious and desirable come out of the Ministry of Health? (besides the odd staff member) Will there be research into healthy chocolate cake? How about funding pies that are healthier? How about a nice cup of fuck off?

^

and by the way, just to help them out. Tomato sauce is one of the best sources of antioxidants (better than fresh tomatoes), but a lot of people already appreciate this.

^

A proper Minister would tell the food industry to figure out healthy chips on their own. Of course Sue Kedgley will be frothing at the mouth with excitement at the idea that the government is paying to make some food healthier - imagine a restaurant that Sue Kedgley designed recipes for, with help from the Ministry of Health. Mmmmmm NOT!

Chavez turns the screws, once more

According to the Guardian, Venezuela's soon to be dictator, Hugo Chavez has announced that any foreigners in Venezuela that "denigrate" his leadership will be deported.

^

He ordered cabinet ministers to monitor statements made by visitors to Venezuela and then, without a hint of irony is quoted as having said:

^

"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?"... "No foreigner, whoever he may be, can come here and attack us. Whoever comes, we must remove him from the country. Here is your bag, sir, go."

^

Like most socialists, Chavez makes the mistake of thinking that he is Venezuela, by saying "attack us" instead of "attack me". So if you say he's a tyrant and he acts like a tyrant then....

^

The Guardian also notes that this follows "an acceleration of his self-described revolution by ordering the armed services to reflect socialist values and telling education officials to purge the "perversity of capitalism" from school textbooks."

^

but that's ok the fawning sycophants of the self styled "liberal" western left will still say he's better than Bush.

^

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (you do have to wonder about that title) said "Venezuela is not moving towards an authoritarian regime. It's just that when he speaks Chávez doesn't have a pause button. These sort of remarks cause enormous misapprehension and misunderstanding but don't really represent his convictions."

^

So i guess the nationalisation, the closing of a TV channel and the press release about deporting foreigners critical of the regime don't really represent his convictions. However as the Council on Hemispheric Affairs treats statistics Cuba sends to the UN on its healthcare system as being fact, when there is no way for Cubans (or anyone else) to verify conditions or criticise the figures with empirical analysis), it would be fair to say that it is another sycophant of Chavez.

A game

Which political party said the following? (and yes I know it is easy to search for it, but read it first and ask yourself who would probably agree with virtually all of this)

^
“By achieving a relatively self-sufficient economy, it is possible to greatly cut back the amount of energy and resources that are needed to provide the goods and services that people need. By using local economies and small local factories, we largely eliminate the need for transport and heavy packaging. It also becomes much easier to recycle all waste products into fresh goods, given that manufacture takes place locally and recycled materials do not need to travel far. Local economies will also provide a much fairer distribution of wealth. Enormous factories and economic outlets have a tendency to concentrate wealth into the hands of just a few people.”
^
“Ultimately it is quality of life that matters most. A truly localised economy, which blends the benefits of modern technology with the more friendly, quiet and socially integrated communities of yesteryear, could offer people the best of both worlds. The advantages that such a society would bring, in terms of quality of life, care for the elderly, greener and quieter surroundings, freedom from crime and traffic, better health, safety for our children”
^
“Empirical data show that a good supply of domestic capital is still more likely to lead to investment, as capital doesn't flow perfectly across borders (nor should it).
Dependency on foreign capital means we have to run our economy like a tart on the streets of global capitalism, always primping to be attractive for other people's money, and setting everything from interest rates to worker-protection laws to please them.
This means turning ownership, and thus control, of much of our economy to foreigners. When their economic interests coincide with ours, this is tolerable, but they often won't, and on fundamentals, they never will"