Posts by Jeremy Andrew
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The furthest I'd go would be to say, disciplined sleep-pattern setting works for healthy babies.
Sorry, I meant to imply that. I should have been more explicit, our firstborn had reflux, although not as bad as Bob's sounds. We found using a saf-t-sleep velcro thingy and elevating the head end of his bassinet made all the difference there. We didn't get on to the controlled crying stuff till well after the colic & reflux were sorted. And even then, we weren't fanatics or anything, the boundaries were negotiated not dictated.
-
It's not the treaty that gives the crown sovereignty over Tuhoe people and their land.
Thanks, Kyle, that makes sense.
-
I second what Mark said. Kids need boundaries, everyone knows that, they just tend to forget that it applies from day one.
I was telling my 8y.o. last night that it my job as a parent to make sure that he knows how to be a grownup when he gets there. Its his job to be a kid and to make mistakes, its my job to help him see his mistakes, why they were mistakes and how not to make them again.
Remember, you're not raising kids, you're raising adults. If you don't tell them where the lines of acceptable behaviour are, its your fault if they grow up not knowing them.
-
That is a good quote, I'll add it to my files...
Its not really my position though, although it could well be Tuhoe's. I was just wondering if Tuhoe do use the Tribunal, and if that makes their position on not having signed the Treaty less tenable.
Depends if you view the Tribunal as having sprung directly from the Treaty, or if its more a part of the overall legislative framework of the country. If you are going to try to work within the system, that's the system you'd be stuck with.
-
Jeremy, if I were a canny Tuhoe person, I'm sure I would go for both options. Certainly other iwi and hapu have.
If you were were a black American in 1960, would you only confine yourself to legal strategies, because equal treatment was your legal, constitutional right? Or would you practise civil disobedience and break the law, which after all has failed to protect you and your rights? Or would you, shock horror, do both?
If the black americans had been making a point of saying the constitution didn't apply to them, because their didn't sign it, then they might have felt differently about using constitutional grounds.
The Tuhoe (or the media on their behalf) are proudly pointing out that they didn't sign the treaty, so if the refuse to be bound by it where it suits them, then it seems hypocritical to to use the structures that the treaty has engendered to their benefit.
Of course, pragmatically, the ends might justify the means, but I'd be interested in hearing the philosophy behind it. -
PS Did anyone else have strange "don't go there" visions when Craig R wrote this
"And anyone who screws with my pussy is asking for a world of hurt -- don't care how you do it."
Yup, but I didn't go there...
-
What would you do in their position?
That's why I asked.
I'm assuming the Waitangi Tribunal itself wouldn't tell them to get lost because their name's not on the list.
So it would come down to weighing ideology and pragmatism.The pragmatic side would need to work out if they thought they had a better chance of getting their desired outcome (presumably dominon over 'their' lands) via:
1) a claim through the official channels, or
2) by occupying it and claiming it by fait accompli, traditional ownership, that homefires burning thing, finders-keepers, and possession being nine-tenths of the law.Idealistically, if they maintain their position of not being a party to the treaty, than using any processes based upon it would seem hypocritical, which would limit them to option two above, or various other diplomatic solutions such as attempting to negotiate their own treaty with the crown on their own terms (which would at a glance seemed doomed to failure as the crown doesn't recognise their sovereignty).
-
Can Tuhoe use the Waitangi Tribunal, and still claim that the treaty doesn't apply becasue they didn't sign it?
-
Our most difficult time with John Sebastian was a series of ear infections that began at around 6 months that finally culminated in having tubes put in his ear drums. We had about 3 months of having an ear infection every other week.
I'm with James on this one, if I ever meet the doc who invented ear grommets, he/she is getting a great big hug.
Our oldest had them inserted at just under 12 months and like James says, it was like flicking a switch, all of a sudden - literally 20 minutes after the operation, he could hear clearly, and no more infections.
We didn't stuff around with our second sprog, after the second or third bout of ear-itis we had him checked for glue ear & grommeted. Its a hassle when it comes to swimming, what with plugs etc on very small kids, but for sure worth it for the relief of both child and parents.
-
Don't they auction that kind of thing? Why not - seems like a big waste of money?
I know! Because it had been imported through all the wrong channels there was no way to know it was all authentic and safe to drink etc. I was willing to take that risk, but the rules said it had to be destroyed, and officially certified to have been destroyed.