Posts by Mellopuffy
-
I'm in the process of applying for a Job Seekers Benefit. First thing I have to do is attend a seminar about my obligations when on the benefit. Once ive done that then I *may* get a appointment with an actual person, which is like to do so I don't make any errors when reporting me and my ex's child support arrangement. The time of the seminars? 1.45pm daily. So I can't go on the days I'm responsible for school pickup. If I was a sole parent I'd be in a pretty difficult situation - as it is I have to wait an entire week before I can get into a seminar. So it's another week before I can apply for the benefit. The person I spoke to to make the appointment acknowledged it was a stupid time to have the seminars. But they're not held at any other time. *sigh*
-
Up Front: So Farewell Then, UCSA, in reply to Jarrod Gilbert,
I remember you adopting this kitten that couldn't walk properly and keeping it in your office.
-
Wow. Lots of memories. Tripping out (but totally straight, I was working later that evening) to Roy Montgomery in the Ngaio Marsh. Hanging in the smokers cafe through lunchtimes. The falafel wraps, cheap build your own sandwiches and filter coffee. Sitting chatting to Paul & George in the Student Activities office. Having beer poured on me while I snogged a random guy on the riverbank. Drinking jugs at Bentleys. Photographing Bailter Space, working backstage at Shihad, almost starting a fight with some loser that tried to sneak in the back door. Working UCSA reception for a time. Reading the news (badly) at RDU. 3Ds, Lemonheads?!?, moar Shihad. Sweet & sour pork and rice from the Chinese takeaway. Truly awful espresso coffees from the new café because Robert Harris was the chosen coffee. Thursday's in Black. The Woman's Room. Another landmark building from my youth gone.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to Danielle,
Check out the school's values and ask questions about those is my suggestion ;) . Also take note of the nature of the response to questions about their processes to deal with inappropriate behaviour and bullying etc. In retrospective our boy's principal kinda blew these questions off with more of a 'we don't have many of those problems' answer, but he was so charismatic and forceful that I didn't think to challenge it at the time. Our boy is quite happy at school so it's not such a big issue for me that I would withdraw him at this point but i'm not as happy with the school as I was when he first started.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to Emma Hart,
Yep, and I mentioned in my twitter discussion of this my disquiet at the 'values' of 'obedience' and 'duty'. I'm continuing in my discussions of this with the principal. So far the evidence he's presented as to the efficacy of the approach? - "We use it and it works." A discussion I had with a teacher friend last night led me to understand that this is quite common in NZ education however (the paucity of appropriate research evidence/poor quality research evidence used to justify the introduction of 'innovative' programmes in schools). Frankly I don't have the energy to fight this at the moment but I have gone back to ask that the school provide better support to teachers that have to teach the apparent contradiction between these values and the 'Keeping Ourselves Safe' programme.
-
My son's school doesn't have Bible class. But it does teach this set of values, under the auspice of 'character education'.
-
Few thoughts: My sister and I were discussing Cunliffe's choice of words last night. I said I was pleased he'd said something but when she said she would have preferred he had used the word 'embarrassed' rather than 'sorry', I thought, YES! I also agreed with Marama Davidson's tweet about hat all the other great stuff at the forum that got passed over for Cunliffe's words. However the cynic in me did think that were it not for the attention paid to Cunliffe there would have been little mention of the forum in the MSM :(. As you say Russell, the responses have been somewhat telling. I made reference to it on FB - ALL commenters were male, roughly half in half for/ vociferously against what Cunliffe said. Lots of 'but,but I'm not like that myself'. Women 'liked' my statement and subsequent comments, but the 'debate' was had by men. :(
-
Further to my previous comment (just had to duck off for a shower) – perversely, the Key govts reticence to progress with mandatory fortification *does* make the folic acid issue into one of access and education. Since the halting of the planned programme, bread companies have leapt upon the marketing opportunity that the addition of folic acid affords, bringing out fortified (and more expensive) ‘women’s breads’. Additionally Key’s assertion that ‘women can get the required nutrient by other means’ is not borne out by evidence. US data from the 90s found that at least 15% of women of childbearing age had inadequate blood levels of folate (ie were considered clinically deficient, and there is debate as to whether the cut off of risk for neural tube defects is actually higher than outright deficiency). The majority of NZers are known to consume less than the recommended intakes of vegetables (an important source of folate). Intake of appropriate amounts of vegetables to have a protective effect with regards to ntd is more likely among women with the means to consume a varied diet. Oh, and in contrast to folic acid, there *is* a known toxic upper level of intake of iodine (particularly in pregnancy) - yet again, no fuss about mandatory fortification there (because, quelle surprise, the amounts recommended for fortification have been carefully calculated to be at levels that make it impossible to consume a toxic amount) Key’s statements make absolutely no sense.
-
Just wanted to add some factual info to the food supp thing as there seems to be some common misconceptions around mandatory fortification that are persisting in the discussion (which is kinda off topic but still being drawn into this wider discussion) . Since the halting of the proposal to make folic acid supp mandatory, mandatory fortification of bread products with iodised salt has come in with little to no fanfare at all. Secondly - important re the mandatory folic acid thing - it is primarily neither about education nor access per se. Folic acid supplementation needs to be commenced before conception occurs as neural tube formation occurs in the 3rd week, well before many women know they're pregnant. As a significant proportion of pregnancies are unplanned (I've heard around 30% but don't quote me on that, can anyone clarify?). So major intent of mandatory fortification with folic acid to to catch those who have become pregnant unintentionally. By the time most women find out about their pregnancy (let alone be in the position to make a decision about continuing their pregnancy) it is already too late for folic acid supps to have any effect on reducing risk of neural tube defects.
-
A friend who is a psychiatrist stated on FB this morning that she was disappointed that she wasn't rostered on to work today, as no doubt the mood would be celebratory amongst her colleagues following this weekend's announcement. In a discussion we had about the Act last week, she recounted major issues with patients becoming threatening and aggressive towards staff and other patients whilst high on the synthetic products, and that their legal status was a significant barrier to the staff and police preventing patients from using them (unlike cannabis). So how can the regulatory process be adapted to account for substances that may be harmless (or not) for the average user, but that become mjorly problematic for people with psychiatric illness or on psych meds. And before some smartass mentions alcohol, please note that alcohol (and weed) consumption is a hell of a lot easier for medical staff and police to monitor or control than tiny pills.