Was chatting with a friend online when I used the term "self-confirmation", imbued with the concept of seeking to confirm one's own self-worth to one's self. However context and facial expressions don't travel so well over Facebook chat, and I wasn't sure at all that I was using the right term, which is to say that I had come up with it on the spot. Anyway, googled it - it appears to be a psychological term which the below excerpt from this article discusses.
The tremendous fear and publicity right now about swine flu is out of proportion with the actual number of deaths (however sad these individual cases may be). Apparently, during the 1990s approximately 36,000 people died each year due to the flu in the United States. So the current number of deaths, which is in the low hundreds, pales in comparison.
“Self Confirmation” [is] where we ignore data that does not support our fear, and only embrace data that does back our contentions. A good example would be the failure to think about the greater number of people who die from normal flu outbreaks instead of the swine flu.
Thought it was pretty interesting as the word is tied in with the (not so current) panic over swine-flu.
An article over at MercartorNet takes a look at Government advertising in the States - is it aimed at informing, or controlling?
Mornings on radio in the United States are filled with advertising. From the time we wake up until the time we fall asleep, it seems the advertising never ends. The jingles, catchy and appealing, sometimes want you to adopt a child or to pony up for National Parks. Sometimes they pressure you to wear a seat belt or to use a booster seat (4.9 is the magic age for using a booster seat -- according to the ad brought to us by the Department of Transportation). For its part, the Department of Health and Human Services wants us to adopt a teen. And so on, and so on…
Of course, they are all good ads with clever jingles and cute lines. At least they seem that way the first few times you hear them. And, obviously, listening to such ads is the price we pay for hearing the news or the music, or whatever the radio is offering. What is surprising, though, is the reversal that has taken place in radio sponsorship. Once the domain of private enterprise, it is now increasingly becoming the voice of government. Our own tax money is put to work to convince us of something politicians and bureaucrats think we ought to do...
...Once again, the messages do promote good causes. We all agree that people can eat too much or guzzle too much gas. And it is certainly a good thing to adopt a teen. But, what are the ads really selling? Why should citizens be urged to use more services which make them more dependent on Uber government? What is the real goal? To have us grateful for all the hovering government? Is this an effort to have federal and state governments dispense all goodies to a grateful populace? To me, that type of government has an overreaching, imperial ring, like the rule of the Caesars or Louis XVI or Czarist Russia.
The National Party under John Key has determined to ignore the result of the referendum - 87.4% of Kiwis voted No to criminalising smacking, but John Key says "the law is working". John Boscawen's bill to amend the law to allow light hand-smacking was drawn from the ballot on Wednesday, but John Key says "the law is working", and subsequently has determined that National will vote against the bill at its first reading.
The Prime Minister states that if parents are criminalised for a light smack, then he will change the law. The law specifically bans smacking for the purpose of correction, which means that parents are criminalised if they give a corrective smack. "But they won't be prosecuted; the police have discretion," retorts Dear Leader.
The Prime Minister states that if parents are prosecuted for a light smack, then he will change the law. It follows that he believes that until parents are prosecuted for a light smack, the law is working well. However the law is not working well - it is simply a case of a bad law (which John Key has admitted to), which the Govt. has instructed the police to ignore or adhere to at their discretion.
I'd expect more sense from a three-year-old at the pre-school down the road. However it's 1am and I expect the pre-school down the road is closed. So my brother Nathan's debut in political blogging shall suffice. Forthwith, an excerpt...
So a few months back old Larry drove his kiwi party caravan up to the B-hive, and loaded off the box's...and box's...and box's of signatures. Yeah!!! Score....but hey what do you know...uh oh suddenly, whoops, Labour decides to have the referendum at another date...hmmm interesting...another $9,000,000 later, and it comes round. Most people vote except for those who found the multi choice YES or NO quite confusing...
John Key has ignored 88% of New Zealanders who voted No in the referendum, and in response Trevor Loudon is encouraging people to make "The Pledge". I think it's a good idea and encourage everyone else who feels strongly about this to also make the pledge.
I, Andy Moore will never vote for the New Zealand National Party, or any National Party candidate, in any future General Election in my lifetime, until the right of parents to responsibly smack their children is legally restored
To make the pledge, simply copy and paste and insert your own name.
Prolife NZ has responded to the news that Right to Life and the anti-life Abortion Supervisory Committee are set to head back to the Court of Appeal early next year.
"Prolife NZ is today welcoming the news that Right to Life will again be representing the unborn in the Court of Appeal. On 20 August 2009 The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against Justice Miller’s 9 June 2008 judgement. Right to Life will once again cross-appeal on behalf of the unborn children in New Zealand who are unable to speak for themselves.
In his 9 June 2008 judgement, Justice Miller stated that ‘There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants,’ and ‘The [ASC] has misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law.’
“Why is the ASC so desperate to reject the Justice’s judgement in a bid to retain what is essentially abortion on demand? The ASC was established by Parliament to ensure that New Zealand’s abortion law is carried out as it was originally intended.”
Click here to continue reading the media release. The ASC is intent on ignoring Justice Miller's damning June 2008 judgement of their poor record at ensuring the proper application of abortion law. Not only are they concerned at the implications of the Justice's findings, but they are upset that Right to Life is set to be awarded costs (aprox $40,000) for the case so far. Right to Life on the other hand is welcoming this second Court of Appeal hearing as "an opportunity to represent their case for the legal recognition of the unborn child from conception as a human being".
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? New Zealand says NO. While an average of polls taken since 2005 indicate a 82.9% level of opposition to the law, tonight's preliminary response blows those polls out of the water. It's official, 87.6% of Kiwis believe that there is a difference between a smack and child abuse. Preliminary results here. Family First is calling on the Government to immediately repeal the law: something Prime Minster John Key has already stated is all but inevitable.
No wonder the “Yes Vote” were so bitchy about the victory party – they simply had no hope of having one themselves.
And high-profile blogger and pollster David Farrar comments,
1,622,150 votes cast which I think is a 54% response rate. That is higher than most local body elections and pretty good for a referendum not held with a general election... A massive victory for common sense.
Click here to download an Excel spreadsheet with detailed information of the response in each electorate. Prior to the results coming out, I was projecting a modest NO vote between 70% - 80%, however Simeon said he thought it would be 86%. Good on ya Simeon, and thanks for all your tireless work without which this referendum would never have come about.
An Australian joke this week, as told to me earlier this evening by a friend named Mark Sadler. Mark had popped round to drop off a book for me entitled The Birth Controllers. Had a quick flick through before and notice that the book contains discussion of the ideas of Thomas Malthus - a name I came across when researching on Obama's controversial new appointment as his science advisor; compulsory-abortion advocate, John Holdren. I hope to conduct a second exclusive interview on Star Studded Super Step with Mark sometime soon, as he has some intriguing points of view on such subjects as population control and abortion. Anyway, back to the joke.
Bruce and Blue were two good mates that went way back. It was a nice sunny day and they were playing a 9-hole game of golf together. They had reached the 9th hole and Bruce was just getting himself lined up for the final putt. Just then, out on the main road alongside the golf-course came a slow-moving funeral procession. All the cars had their headlights on and the big black hearse leading the way. Bruce laid down his golf-club, bowed his head and raised his hand to his chest. "That's pretty sentimental of you isn't it?" asked Blue. "I lived with her for 15 years," Bruce responded tersely. "A mintue of silence isn't to ask is it?"
Reading through a few of the 3439 submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and came across one from the Centre for Resource Mangement Studies (CRMA), dated 21 July. The CRMA brings to the commitee's attention the relevance that changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) has to the restructuring of the proposed new Auckland Super City. The RMA is a law in New Zealand with the stated purpose of "promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources." You can read the CRMA's submission here, but below are a few excerpts which just scream out freedom and progress.
Last week the Rodney District Council declined an application by a Maori-based joint venture to develop a luxury resort on Te Arai Beach, near Mangawhai.
This was celebrated by many as a ‘victory for the community,’ although we can presume that this ‘community’ does not include many of the unemployed tradesmen in the area, or the young people who might have found employment in the 180 chalet complex.
Some months ago another proposal for a luxury resort on the Te Arai point was ended when the ARC bought the property, for a Regional Park, from the project financier – leaving the developer, and the resort operator I was negotiating with, high and dry.
A third resort project, also in Mangawhai, is teetering on a knife-edge, dependent on whether the Kaipara District Council will process the application to expand the facilities to meet the needs of the US operator as a non-notified application. It has taken two years to get the present proposal through the system. If the additions are notified the investors may have to wait a further two years – and they simply will not do so.
So one small town on the East Coast of Northland faces the prospect of three resorts being abandoned because of the RMA process – even though all these resorts were intended to be ready in time for the Rugby World Cup...
...Any RMA decision-maker is required to finally assess any application against Part 2 of the Act, and, given the present wording of the Act, the ecosystems or natural character, will almost always trump economic development and job creation.
Luxury resorts are naturally built in locations of great beauty and natural character. That means they cannot get built in New Zealand because the protection of that natural beauty and character almost always trumps economic development and employment. The current wording of the Act says economic growth and development are not matters of national importance, or indeed of any importance at all. The developer cannot compete with the national importance accorded to the natural and physical resources of the environment...
...We are in a time of crisis and the ordinary people are expecting Government to provide a stimulus to economic development, productivity and employment. But Government cannot fund this activity – it does not have the cash and cannot borrow more. Our credit rating is vulnerable.
The key is to remove these obstacles and mop up the unemployed in privately funded construction projects and the downstream activities they generate.
The Centre believes these extraordinary times legitimise a major re-write of Part 2 of the Act.
The submission follows this introduction with the proposed re-write; I have included a few of these below,
Section 6 (b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.
Pedantic legislation on the protection of landscapes can be vague and extremely detrimental to proposed investments in an area. Such legislation often takes the form of opposing windmill farms or deforestation.
Section 6 (g) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, and in particular –
(i) the use of market mechanisms to promote their efficient allocation.
(ii) the need to promote this efficient use by reducing transaction costs to a reasonable minimum.
(iii) by councils collecting data bases relating to previous applications so that applicants do not have to provide information already provided by previous applicants.
(iv) The need for communities to have access to locally sourced mineral aggregates for construction purposes.
The Act also states that regard must be given to a number of things including,
Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources,
the effects of climate change, and
the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.
To which the CRMA suggests the Committee read Julian Simon, strike out the reference to climate change and ask what benefits there are from using renewable energy. Love it.
I was interested to note that ACT MP Sir Roger Douglas, ex-Leader of the National Party, Don Brash and highly-successful businessman and ACT supporter Alan Gibbs are all trustees on the board of the CRMA.
John Key is expecting more people to tick NO than yes. He says if the law does not work and good parents get criminalised for lightly smacking a child, the law should be changed.
But he says it is hard to put up a case to change the law when no one has yet been prosecuted. The smacking referendum closes in a week.
Whereas the Prime Minister has tended in the past to refer to the undesirability of seeing "good parents prosecuted for a light smack", he is now predominantly referring to "good parents being criminalised". It is clear that good parents are being criminalised in their hundreds of thousands, and John Key knows this. Sue Bradford's new law makes one thing crystal clear:
A smack for the purpose of correction is a criminal offence, making parents criminals if they use a smack for correction (no matter how light the smack is).
Scrubone's being silly, so I think I should be allowed to as well. Anyway, time for a break from this essay I'm writing ;)
toilet roll held between index and middle finger
I just made the earth-shattering discovery that it is impossible to squash a toilet-roll with just two fingers, as is shown in the photo. Try it for yourself. You're not allowed to use your thumb like Mum and Lyd were doing.
"There has been a 20 per cent increase in maternal deaths between 2005 and 2007, when compared to the previous three-year period, with and AIDS accounting for over 40 per cent of the deaths (43.7%)...
...The report defines 'maternal deaths' as 'deaths of women while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes'...
...Deaths due to non-pregnancy related infections peak at 25-29 years and this peak is mirrored in deaths due to complications of abortion and pregnancy related sepsis following a viable pregnancy."
Matt A. who is a practicing Obstetrician/Gynecologist from Minnesota has written an article on his blog about the killing of late-term abortionist, George Tiller. In his article Matt first unequivocally condemns his killing and then continues to discuss the nature of Tiller's occupation. The whole article is well worth reading, however I was particularly affected by Matt's first-hand description of what exactly occurs during an abortion.
The typical woman seeking an abortion is young and has never had a baby, so the exam itself is not comfortable, not to mention injecting the novacaine, dilating the cervix and suctioning out the baby. Once done, the canister containing the baby and placenta may be emptied into a container to count arms and legs and identify head, thorax and placenta as confirmation all the parts are out. Many places don’t even do that. The woman may be watched for a short time–very short time–and hustled out the door with a prescription for pain meds and instructions to go to the ER if problems develop.
And those are the easy ones.
abortion at 9 weeks (1st trimester)
An abortion done after 14 weeks entails more risk and more time, but the encouragement to proceed, the tight organization to make maximum money with minimal effort, the quick discharge and use of ER for complications is the same.
Abortionists prefer D&E (dilatation and evacuation) from 14 to 18 weeks. The procedure is like a suction, except 1) the baby is more developed and doesn’t collapse into the suction tube easily 2) the cervix has to be open to a bigger diameter to get it out 3) the blood loss is greater 4) the risk of perforating the uterus with an instrument is greater and 5) the pain is more severe. After opening the cervix overnight with laminaria or cervical ripening medicines, the abortionist dilates the cervix even more, then inserts a large grasping forceps with tissue-crushing teeth into the uterus, crushes the baby and removes it in pieces. Then the abortionist suctions out the remaining pieces and the placenta.
Past 18 weeks, the abortionist may inject a strong salt solution into the uterus through the abdomen which kills the baby. The patient then labors over the next 1-2 days and delivers a dead baby. (Not always, of course, but that’s the plan.)
abortion at 24 weeks (2nd trimester)
Also, past 18 weeks, the abortionist may choose D&X (partial birth abortion). I would imagine this technique would have been the one done most by Mr. Tiller, as he specialized in late term abortions. With a D&X, he would open the cervix as in a D&E abortion. Then an assistant would scan the baby with the ultasound while Mr. Tiller would insert grasping tools through the cervix into the uterus to grab the baby’s feet or legs and deliver the baby up to the head. The head stops in the cervix because it is too firm and too big to get through. Mr. Tiller would then take a long, sharply-pointed scissors and poke it into the skull, spread it apart to make a hole and insert the suction tube into the skull. Then he would apply suction to empty out the brains which collapses the skull. The now-dead baby then comes all the way out.
Picture this if you can without vomiting. The baby is 3/4 of the way out, wiggling and squirming in the abortionists hand when he sticks the scissors into the skull. The baby stiffens to the trauma. When the abortionist applies the suction, the baby goes completely limp, dead, is removed and then discarded into the trash.
If you find the images offensive, I can offer no apology. These images of broken and bloodied bodies are the result of legal abortions which are defended by the action or inaction of our members of Parliament, and also by such groups of dubious repute as the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand.
You saw my post a couple of days ago with that video me writing an essay. Kinda weird... but it's soundtrack was a song by a band called Anodyne, entitled Be There. Anyway, hunted round the web a bit but couldnt find any info about the band so I quickly threw together a bit of a webpage about them. You can also download some of their songs - I figure it's ok 'cause they're not playing anymore and you can't buy their (only?) CD anywhere. I would be lying if I said they were an amazing band, but they grew on me - I picked up their album, Subtle a few years ago for $2 in the bargain bin at the Christian Superstore. Even so, they have a pretty unique punk sound that isn't too bad at all.
The Press has an article today which looks at adoption in New Zealand...
It is the curious thought that strikes most adolescents at some point. What a fluke to find myself born and alive.
Mum and dad. A different day, a different mood and, well, a different tale. You have to be grateful for the haphazard chain of events that means you even exist in this world.
Hannah Duckmanton, 22, a newly trained primary school teacher, says she feels it more than most. Not hard when by another fluke you end up living streets from the clinic where you were once so nearly aborted.
The story goes that her biological mother had a final meeting with her biological father in Hamilton, then stopped off at Taradale in Napier on the drive back to Blenheim. "She had an abortion booked, went to the appointment and everything, and just found she couldn't do it," Ms Duckmanton says.
But what were the other options? Her mother was already struggling with bringing up one child on her own. Adoption? What mother could bring herself to give her baby away? Abortion remained the obvious choice. However, recent law changes meant New Zealand was pioneering a new way of adopting open rather than closed. Adoption with parental contact.
A Christchurch couple came forward who frankly "would have agreed to anything" to have a child. So on a frosty morning in July 1986, Ms Duckmanton dropped into the world the birth took just 15 minutes and became a test case for the open-adoption philosophy.
Great article. It goes on to explain how difficult adoption is in New Zealand, and mentions that there were only 77 children adopted out to non-family members in 2008.Trevor knows more about this than I do, so I'm going to have to talk to him about it and write more on adoption in New Zealand.
I have read through Justice Miller's judgement which was released on 3 August 2009. I have made comments throughout the judgement either on things Justice Miller has said, or in places where it's a bit hard to understand what is being said.
Click here for a 7-page PDF document of the judgement with my comments.
Wrote this article for CANTA, the student magazine of the University of Canterbury Student’s Association.
We’ve all heard about it and we’re all sick to death with it. The smacking referendum. The Electoral Office will have posted us all a voting form on 31 July, and we’ll have 3 weeks to fill it out and post it back to them. The $10 million dollar question being asked is, “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand”, and not surprisingly there will be two cute little tick boxes next to the question: Yes or No.
Why are we going through this whole rigmarole of having a referendum about smacking? In 2004, Sue Bradford’s bill to amend Section 59 of the Crimes Act was drawn from the ballot. She referred to it as her “Anti-Smacking Bill”. Thing is, the law doesn’t just ban smacking - it bans any use of reasonable force when parents or caregivers need to correct their children. And yes, that includes placing your children in time-out when they’ve been naughty. However unsurprisingly, polling since 2005 has indicated with incredible consistency that 82% of Kiwis think that Bradford’s bill should never have been passed. (check out voteno.org.nz/polls.htm) Heck, I have personally spoken to several thousand Kiwis while I was collecting signatures on the petition for the referendum. A few people were absolutely disgusted at the concept of a “loving smack” - one anti-smacking advocate got so wound up that he “smacked” myself and an elderly woman who stood at the table signing the petition. The irony was lost on him.
An overwhelming majority of the people I spoke to told me that they would never beat up their children - but that an occasional smack to reinforce that they had disobeyed really seemed to work well. I was surprised at the number of children and teens who came up asking to sign, annoyed when they were told that only people 18yrs and older could put their name to the petition. For the most part, the mainstream media in New Zealand has ignored this groundswell of opposition to the law - preferring instead to espouse the same tired old drivel that we’re hearing from Parliament and branches of the bureaucracy.
The new law criminalises all parents who use a smack to correct their children from time to time. “Yes, but they won’t be prosecuted - all the new law does is to remove a defence under which parents were getting away with beating their children with blocks of wood and horse-whips to within an inch of their lives,” say Sue Bradford the Yes Vote lobby. It’s all smoke and mirrors. It is correct that at this stage few parents will be prosecuted for giving a corrective smack. However parents will still be criminalised for smacking - what are the kids going to think? Mummy’s giving me a smack for stealing money from her purse - but my school-teacher told me smacking is illegal. The law-change was purported to ensure that the defence of smacking was not able to be used when parents abused their children. However in the entire history of the law there were only 7 or 8 cases in which the jury reached a perhaps less than satisfactory decision.
But the question’s loaded - it’s a leading question! John Key and Phil Goff can’t understand it and so have said that they won’t bother voting. Over the past few weeks reporters have been churning out articles faster than you can read them, explaining why the referendum question is hopeless and completely destroys the credibility and effectiveness of the whole process. They have intentionally sought to shift the debate from the real issue - parental authority, to a side-issue: the wording of the referendum question. However when mother of two, Sheryl Savill submitted her petition question to the Clerk of Parliament it was put to the public for a month, to get feedback on the wording of the question. The question originally read “Should a smack within the context of positive parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. The Ministry of Justice among others contacted the Clerk raising various issues with the question.
After this process, the Clerk - who has the reputation of being the most balanced and respectable clerk’s in the history of New Zealand Parliament, approved the final version of the question; “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. When proponents of the new law claim that the question presupposes that smacking is, by definition, a part of good parenting, they are applying preschooler logic to the issue. I tell you what, the 390,000 Kiwis who signed the petition didn’t have any trouble reading the question. It is pathetic that I should have to explain this, but the correct way to understand the question is as follows. Should a corrective smack that is administered as a part of good parenting be illegal? And in other words, should decent parents who love their kids and want what’s best for them be criminalised for giving their child a smack for the purpose of correction?
“Save the country $10m, withdraw the referendum, give the money to victims of abuse” bleat the anti-smacking brigade. Of course the thing they conveniently forget is exactly who is responsible for this huge cost being imposed on the hardworking taxpayers. It is a convention of Parliament that when a petition has been successful, the referendum should take place within one year, and usually at the general election - estimated to cost around $2m. Helen Clark decided that the referendum would not be held at the election though, as it would be extremely detrimental to her party as well as making smacking a key election issue. Just recently, Savill made a statement in which she offered to withdraw her petition for a referendum if the Government would amend the anti-smacking law so that it better reflected the will of the people of New Zealand. This offer was not accepted.
Don’t be fooled. Voting yes will do nothing that will even remotely help lower New Zealand’s deplorably high child abuse statistics. Voting no will send John a clear message that we’re not going to stand for Nanny State. Let’s get this confounded referendum out of the way and then roll up our sleeves and put our effort into initiatives that will drive a stake into the heart of child abuse.
This week, a poem from the much loved children's author Roald Dahl. Miss Gibson used to read these poems out loud to us back at Windermere Christian School.
The Pig
In England once there lived a big
And wonderfully clever pig.
To everybody it was plain
That Piggy had a massive brain.
He worked out sums inside his head,
There was no book he hadn't read.
He knew what made an airplane fly,
He knew how engines worked and why.
He knew all this, but in the end
One question drove him round the bend:
He simply couldn't puzzle out
What LIFE was really all about.
What was the reason for his birth?
Why was he placed upon this earth?
His giant brain went round and round.
Alas, no answer could be found.
Till suddenly one wondrous night.
All in a flash he saw the light.
He jumped up like a ballet dancer
And yelled, "By gum, I've got the answer!"
"They want my bacon slice by slice
"To sell at a tremendous price!
"They want my tender juicy chops
"To put in all the butcher's shops!
"They want my pork to make a roast
"And that's the part'll cost the most!
"They want my sausages in strings!
"They even want my chitterlings!
"The butcher's shop! The carving knife!
"That is the reason for my life!"
Such thoughts as these are not designed
To give a pig great piece of mind.
Next morning, in comes Farmer Bland,
A pail of pigswill in his hand,
And piggy with a mighty roar,
Bashes the farmer to the floor…
Now comes the rather grizzly bit
So let's not make too much of it,
Except that you must understand
That Piggy did eat Farmer Bland,
He ate him up from head to toe,
Chewing the pieces nice and slow.
It took an hour to reach the feet,
Because there was so much to eat,
And when he finished, Pig, of course,
Felt absolutely no remorse.
Slowly he scratched his brainy head
And with a little smile he said,
"I had a fairly powerful hunch
"That he might have me for his lunch.
"And so, because I feared the worst,
"I thought I'd better eat him first.
And in this time of global uncertainty I decided to put together a quick video message alerting people to the threat of swine flu, and what they can do about it.
