Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Not stupid enough to believe your own BS, but cynically dim enough to expect others to.
I rest my case.
This trainwreck of a thread is not worth any more of my time.
-
People take a big social risk when they express opinions that are outside group norms. Labels like "troll" need to be used sparingly.
dude was depressingly dodgy
people have said to me they're uncomfortable sharing a thtread with him, and, frankly, I doubt his good faith
Now for sensitive and intelligent comments eh
that we can find a village idiot wiling to defend any behaviour
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Red herrings, insinuation, wilful misunderstandingI wonder how I would feel if I was Ron.
-
What I'm noting is the moral posturing around the issue, mainly from the media, rounding up the perennial unfixables to indicate deep seriousness and sincerity, and the absence of much in the way of specific policy discussion.
Yeah. OTOH, I think people are genuinely appalled by this in the same way they are by most serious crime. The reflexive inclination to want to harshly punish the offenders is only tempered by the realisation that the causes are complex and the preventative solutions are not straightforward.
Although I think we would all benefit from learning how to be better parents, I can understand why some people are reluctant to say that "we" have a child abuse problem. Most people do not physically abuse their children, and only in the sense that we care about the welfare of others do we have a collective responsibility for the actions of a few.
While its frustrating that so much of the policy discussion involves vague references to socio-economic conditions and education, things that involve long-term structural adjustment, I don't really see an alternative. If those closest to the problem decline or are unable to intervene, we are left with only second tier options and the intermediation of the state. CYF have a tough job.
-
People with liberal perspectives are likely to view our child abuse problem as a systemic failure. People with conservative perspectives are likely to view child abuse as a failure of individual responsibility. Social policy deals with the former, criminal law deals with the latter, and maybe this explains the split in reaction. It seems to me that both types of failure are present in child abuse cases.
I tend to think we need to find a way of giving our parents the skills they need to cope with raising a family, and a way of protecting the most vulnerable from unacceptable risk of harm. I guess the question is how?
-
One who sees violence as a normal part of life, I think.
A friend who works who works with offenders says you wouldn't believe how badly many were mistreated as children. Its the only thing that stops me from demanding that this tool's head be put on a pole.
-
At the risk of stating the obvious, people aren't just born with the skills they need to be good parents. Some individuals will have lifestyles and learned behaviours that will ensure they are very poor parents.
There must be some way of linking the welfare, education and child intervention systems to compulsory parental classes and additional oversight and assistance for at risk families. If this is linked to welfare payments so be it.
Seriously, what kind of a terrorist puts a baby in a tumble drier.
-
In McKayVer's defence, he did seem to take his appearances on Pulp Sport pretty well. There is something about filling someone's car with polystyrene that is really funny.
All this talk about Robbie Deans has reminded me how good his 2003 AB TriNations backline was.
-
Lo, and the Cat of Doom brought wailing and gnashing of teeth to all that beheld it.
-
Where is the downside of pegging the NZD to a basket of our trading partners currencies? Wouldn't this deliver relative stability over the medium term, and encourage investment in production rather than property? Real products to real customers.
I'm no expert, but NZ used to have a fixed exchange rate, and some people and countries do favour them. As I understand it the orthodox position (which is not very well) currency pegs are usually maintained by the state's buying and selling of currency, which can become costly (like the 1984 devaluation and Black Wednesday). Rich pointed out some of the other disadvantages, a good brief summary is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_exchange_rate#Maintaining_a_fixed_exchange_rate
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=541My own concern is that our interest rate is rising because of our RB's need to control inflation in the housing market. The RB believes that we should take the housing market to the wood shed (rather than the entire economy) and thus avoid the problems created by the high interest rate and the resulting appreciating currency. I think that this makes a lot of sense, but it is not likely to happen because it isn't a very popular suggestion.
Most of the problem with our political economic ideas is that we even bother to have them. [...] Guess what, who gives a shit what policy the government is running? I really don't care what the tax rate is, what the interest rates are, what the government's monetary policy is, what the long term economic strategic plans of other nations are.
I reckon we would have all got to the moon a lot sooner if it hadn't been for all those crazy boffins interfering with their useless theories. :)
-
Yes as Rich says unemployment is low (even though some of those employment statistics measure employment as 1 hour or more a week) and inflation is now back in the 1-3% range. But interest rates are very high by global levels, mortgage affordability is at extreme levels and the exchange rate is at abnormal levels, driven not by trade flows or productive investment capital but by speculative capital.
I agree. Its the effects of monetary and fiscal policy on the real economy that make this debate interesting. An exports-based economy needs to keep prices, interest rates and the exchange rate stable. This is needed to ensure that people continue to make products here, and that people overseas buy those products in the face of global competition.
Ultimately this is a debate about our long term real national (read individual) income.