Friday, January 07, 2011
DPB and the Herald apologists
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10698212
I have to say I completely agree with Mitchell. Its quite clear that some parts of society treat women like mealtickets.
There is nothing wrong, and a lot right with a society that supports abandoned mothers, or women fleeing failed or abusive relationships. But there is a lot wrong when personal responsibility is replaced with state charity and "entitlements" and when teenage mothers are involved, or where DPB beneficiaries have subsequent children that they then expect taxpayers to support.
As it happens, and as people like Lindsay Mitchell have meticulously documented, if you have 3 kids, you can support quite a few bludgers. The DPB has been, and continues to be massively rorted, and people like Donna Wynd are simply enablers.
Look at the statistics. 1/3 of DPB recipients start out as teenagers. 1/2 are Maori. Are these women fleeing failed relationships. or are they making, or being coerced into, calculated decisions.
3 kids gets you a house and $900 in benefits, accommodation supplements ets. That will keep 2-4 useless "adults: and hangers on in drugs and booze quite comfortably. Except for the snivelling brats of course, but give them the bash, and no worries, eh bro!
This piece from Donna Wynd who apparently is a researcher for the "Child Poverty Action Group" which I suppose is another covertly funded Government NGO purports to take issue with an article by Lindsay Mitchell on what is happening to children whose parents (Ok single mothers) choose to live on the DPB. Mitchell points out, using facts, that these kids are dramatically over-represented in abuse statistics, and then go onto being damaged citizens.
Wynd apparently has talked to "dozens of sole parents..." which makes her an authority, and all sole parents care only about the interests of the children. Unfortunately she seems to be unable to find, or interpret, the statistics about the other 113,000 beneficiaries.
Her article is supposed to be a refutation of Mitchell, but seems to fail at its task and becomes a rather random set of sentences which just says leave the DPB alone, because. and that stuff about abuse, and teenage mothers, well its just because of poverty, ok. She uses anecdote about abuse happening in all parts of society (true) to avoid the statistics that kids born to Maori welfare mothers are vastly more likely to be damaged, abused, or mistreated.
The following link is to Mitchell's op-ed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10696647
I have to say I completely agree with Mitchell. Its quite clear that some parts of society treat women like mealtickets.
There is nothing wrong, and a lot right with a society that supports abandoned mothers, or women fleeing failed or abusive relationships. But there is a lot wrong when personal responsibility is replaced with state charity and "entitlements" and when teenage mothers are involved, or where DPB beneficiaries have subsequent children that they then expect taxpayers to support.
As it happens, and as people like Lindsay Mitchell have meticulously documented, if you have 3 kids, you can support quite a few bludgers. The DPB has been, and continues to be massively rorted, and people like Donna Wynd are simply enablers.
Look at the statistics. 1/3 of DPB recipients start out as teenagers. 1/2 are Maori. Are these women fleeing failed relationships. or are they making, or being coerced into, calculated decisions.
3 kids gets you a house and $900 in benefits, accommodation supplements ets. That will keep 2-4 useless "adults: and hangers on in drugs and booze quite comfortably. Except for the snivelling brats of course, but give them the bash, and no worries, eh bro!
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Well another new year comes
Here we are in sunny 2011.
I guess 2011 is going to be something of an interesting year.
Will the Nats grow the cojones to run an election manifesto based on actually doing something to help the economy recover?
Will Obama manage to triangulate, and will this lead to resumption of a real Trans Pacific Partnership?
Will the US manage to restart its growth engine?
Will the Chinese finally achieve the glory of stagflation?
Which nutter will take a swing at the US while they think the great satan is weakened - North Korea? Iran? Will Tsarist Russia start running it's old proxy campaigns again?
...and will the UK finally decide that extreme cold does not equal global warming, "climate chaos" or any other indirect "proof" that its much vaunted climate centre at Hadley is not populated by scammers.
Finally, will I actually keep this blog running this year, or will the inestimable joy of painting the house finally prove too much?
The picture in this post, if it manages to come up, is one I took in Montevideo (Uruguay) when it was built it was the tallest building in Latin America. I think Uruguay, much like Argentina before it, used to be a bit more successful back then... I will probably have a yarn later about the opportunities for New Zealand to do business in Latin America.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
NZ blogger profiles
and oh dear, poor phul, all that effort to get a bite and still no readers...
to coin a phrase.. heh
some thoughts extended in the spirit of sunday
1. learn to spell. Lose..!the silly/ *syntax+... it makes./ anything.. you.. say.. irritating..and =hard/.. to "read
2. stirring isnt really conversation.
3. if you don't like being slagged, don't slag others.
4. no-one really gives a toss about your family circumstances, so stop waving them as a badge of honour.
5. what do you actually have to say? try and say something - you are quite interesting on green politics, but could say more about what you think are the good/weak points, who the people are and where you think the movement should go - try and find an interesting angle.
The best right bloggers never hesitate to criticise their own when they do something stupid (i appreciate that being apostate on the left means being treated worse than the same condition on the right however...).
people read David because he has an interesting take on things, because he's a bit of a nutter because he's not really a nat (sorry David but its true, you are far too libertarian) and because he has chutzpah.
Most of all he gets read because they think he is influential - that he is helping to shape the thinking of his party - what are you doing to help shape the thinking of yours?
People don't read phul because he's irritating, but more importantly because we already know what you are going to say - you have a very predictable take on life.
People don't read me either for much the same reason, so i will stop now :-)
...On second thoughts, I might do a diagnostic on a few other bloggers (and regular commentators) while I am at it (evil laughter to fade out)where to start:
Tim, never knew an israeli i didnt call a Nazi -and by the way where are my tax cuts - Barclay?
Aaron - look at me so modest and so well groomed and so centre right, by the way did i mention I was right again about Hubbard - Bhatnagar?
f***k*N oath hate all rightwingers for trying to murder us in our beds (or at least make unionism voluntary which is objectively the same thing) Millsy?
Jordan "things are going to improve just as soon as we bother to start campaigning" sleep walk over the cliff Carter?
Gordon "outahere" back to the farm King who has discovered that 3mm molluscs are in fact more intellectually stimulating company than most people in Wellington - and who might be right?
AL/zentiger/lemur - labour embodies all evil - and we might be right, but we do care - ah where to start?
Craig - you looking at me - Ranapia the ann coulter of gay right leaning politics, but with more personal charm?
or Gazza "nolife" delsud for whom the horror, the horror i tell you of life in Welly is daily becoming so grinding he is forced to spend his entire life on the net to avoid human contact?
to coin a phrase.. heh
some thoughts extended in the spirit of sunday
1. learn to spell. Lose..!the silly/ *syntax+... it makes./ anything.. you.. say.. irritating..and =hard/.. to "read
2. stirring isnt really conversation.
3. if you don't like being slagged, don't slag others.
4. no-one really gives a toss about your family circumstances, so stop waving them as a badge of honour.
5. what do you actually have to say? try and say something - you are quite interesting on green politics, but could say more about what you think are the good/weak points, who the people are and where you think the movement should go - try and find an interesting angle.
The best right bloggers never hesitate to criticise their own when they do something stupid (i appreciate that being apostate on the left means being treated worse than the same condition on the right however...).
people read David because he has an interesting take on things, because he's a bit of a nutter because he's not really a nat (sorry David but its true, you are far too libertarian) and because he has chutzpah.
Most of all he gets read because they think he is influential - that he is helping to shape the thinking of his party - what are you doing to help shape the thinking of yours?
People don't read phul because he's irritating, but more importantly because we already know what you are going to say - you have a very predictable take on life.
People don't read me either for much the same reason, so i will stop now :-)
...On second thoughts, I might do a diagnostic on a few other bloggers (and regular commentators) while I am at it (evil laughter to fade out)where to start:
Tim, never knew an israeli i didnt call a Nazi -and by the way where are my tax cuts - Barclay?
Aaron - look at me so modest and so well groomed and so centre right, by the way did i mention I was right again about Hubbard - Bhatnagar?
f***k*N oath hate all rightwingers for trying to murder us in our beds (or at least make unionism voluntary which is objectively the same thing) Millsy?
Jordan "things are going to improve just as soon as we bother to start campaigning" sleep walk over the cliff Carter?
Gordon "outahere" back to the farm King who has discovered that 3mm molluscs are in fact more intellectually stimulating company than most people in Wellington - and who might be right?
AL/zentiger/lemur - labour embodies all evil - and we might be right, but we do care - ah where to start?
Craig - you looking at me - Ranapia the ann coulter of gay right leaning politics, but with more personal charm?
or Gazza "nolife" delsud for whom the horror, the horror i tell you of life in Welly is daily becoming so grinding he is forced to spend his entire life on the net to avoid human contact?
undead from unzud: thoughts from the colonies
Saturday, February 19, 2005
drugs and prohibition - how should a libertarian think about it
hmmm
I think we are in a cleft stick here. Libertarians should believe that people can poison themselves in peace as long as it doesnt harm others - fine by me.
but what where there are externalities - ie., societal costs not bourne by the user - well this is where I for one feel that some form of societal sanction is justified.
BUT. These sanctions don't really work, they create monsters (cf prohibition) and can severely harm the less dangerous idiot (code for drug user incidentally).
Tricky. I am with the anarchist friend noted in Gordon's comments. To live in a true anarchist, or libertarian world requires considerable maturity and a real sense of self responsibility. If you don't have these things then the anarchist commune, libertarian state - or for that matter your socialist welfare state, is going to be open to exploitation by your standard social psychopath. I recall the author of Citizen Shweyk (sp?) who was expelled from his anarchist commune for stealing their bicycle and selling it to buy beer.
What i think is the solution is a sliding scale - one that reinforces personal responsibility. Yes liberalise dope - but use it on the job, accept you get sent home and your pay docked. Yes Meth is seriously bad news and perhaps education is the key here- as with crystal in the 80s the epidemic in the States died off because the kids could see what it did to the shrivelled 25yr olds ahead of them. Maybe if you use meth, compulsory education and drying out centres are needed. If you sell meth or P or whatever, then I think you need to be hunted down and dealt to, and for this i think hard labour not sitting around in a cell watching DVDs and planning your next business venture.
But i do think we are in a conundrum here.
Personally I agree with banning meth, and with educating people about it. I know this causes me dissonance with my beliefs, the above is an attempt to reason it through. I guess if you have to have a state - and clearly you do, you might as well put it to some good use. I'd rather it was educating people to be responsible about drugs than hassling me about obesity or smoking, or driving too fast, or not being nice enough to the tangata whenua...some of whom seem to fit well into the social psychopath category themselves. Step forward Messrs Iti, Tamaki, Wetere et al. (To be honest Mr Tamaki doesnt fit here, he is an entrepeneur not leaching off the state's tit and good luck to him- except for the creepy blackshirt bit).
I think we are in a cleft stick here. Libertarians should believe that people can poison themselves in peace as long as it doesnt harm others - fine by me.
but what where there are externalities - ie., societal costs not bourne by the user - well this is where I for one feel that some form of societal sanction is justified.
BUT. These sanctions don't really work, they create monsters (cf prohibition) and can severely harm the less dangerous idiot (code for drug user incidentally).
Tricky. I am with the anarchist friend noted in Gordon's comments. To live in a true anarchist, or libertarian world requires considerable maturity and a real sense of self responsibility. If you don't have these things then the anarchist commune, libertarian state - or for that matter your socialist welfare state, is going to be open to exploitation by your standard social psychopath. I recall the author of Citizen Shweyk (sp?) who was expelled from his anarchist commune for stealing their bicycle and selling it to buy beer.
What i think is the solution is a sliding scale - one that reinforces personal responsibility. Yes liberalise dope - but use it on the job, accept you get sent home and your pay docked. Yes Meth is seriously bad news and perhaps education is the key here- as with crystal in the 80s the epidemic in the States died off because the kids could see what it did to the shrivelled 25yr olds ahead of them. Maybe if you use meth, compulsory education and drying out centres are needed. If you sell meth or P or whatever, then I think you need to be hunted down and dealt to, and for this i think hard labour not sitting around in a cell watching DVDs and planning your next business venture.
But i do think we are in a conundrum here.
Personally I agree with banning meth, and with educating people about it. I know this causes me dissonance with my beliefs, the above is an attempt to reason it through. I guess if you have to have a state - and clearly you do, you might as well put it to some good use. I'd rather it was educating people to be responsible about drugs than hassling me about obesity or smoking, or driving too fast, or not being nice enough to the tangata whenua...some of whom seem to fit well into the social psychopath category themselves. Step forward Messrs Iti, Tamaki, Wetere et al. (To be honest Mr Tamaki doesnt fit here, he is an entrepeneur not leaching off the state's tit and good luck to him- except for the creepy blackshirt bit).
Friday, February 18, 2005
swedish rounding?
and in hindsight so might I, one or two not usually equalling three!
oops
oops
made an impression already
looks like http://norightturn.blogspot.com/ deletes comments from people who don't slavishly agree - either that or this interwebtechnology thingy is beyond my limited skills to comprehend!
all i did was suggest that Sweden had one or two natural advantages not shared by NZ, namely
1. its located in Europe very close to major markets
2. it had reasonable resources of oil and gas to fund its welfare state; and
3. it was probably the only major european industrial economy not devastated by WW2 and thus had a real advantage in terms of selling things into Europe after the war.
i then went on to comment that as our shared traditions, culture, laws and economic systems had more in common with Australia and the US than Northern Europe, perhaps the idea of emulating Sweden wasnt really so smart afterall.
But anyway, lets deny history and geography - not to mention logic and commonsense (the rest of the screed was moonbattery of the highest order) and become sweden. but more swedish and with less of that messy private sector getting in the way of the income redistribution.
excellent clear thinking.
my guess is that Idiot must have all the benefits of a liberal arts education.
all i did was suggest that Sweden had one or two natural advantages not shared by NZ, namely
1. its located in Europe very close to major markets
2. it had reasonable resources of oil and gas to fund its welfare state; and
3. it was probably the only major european industrial economy not devastated by WW2 and thus had a real advantage in terms of selling things into Europe after the war.
i then went on to comment that as our shared traditions, culture, laws and economic systems had more in common with Australia and the US than Northern Europe, perhaps the idea of emulating Sweden wasnt really so smart afterall.
But anyway, lets deny history and geography - not to mention logic and commonsense (the rest of the screed was moonbattery of the highest order) and become sweden. but more swedish and with less of that messy private sector getting in the way of the income redistribution.
excellent clear thinking.
my guess is that Idiot must have all the benefits of a liberal arts education.
On being the Swedes of the South Pacific
this will be a relatively infrequent exercise I expect. Still its good to be here. This blog will from time to time allow me to vent various bits of spleen about life and politics in unzud, land of the wrong white male, and home to those well known "swedes" of the southern hemisphere the New Zealand Labour Party and its humourless minions.
Considering NZ as the Swedes of the South Pacific is really quite laughable, not least because NZ already has a series of cultural traditions surrounding the mighty swede, best prepared in a mutton pie, but also eaten raw as a sign of manhood at various Southern university parties. That is when its not being used as cheap stockfood.
So, New Zealand the flavourless stockfood vegetable, i guess its better than a rather stringy flightless bird that has to be casseroled for hours to get any decent flavour out of it?
Considering NZ as the Swedes of the South Pacific is really quite laughable, not least because NZ already has a series of cultural traditions surrounding the mighty swede, best prepared in a mutton pie, but also eaten raw as a sign of manhood at various Southern university parties. That is when its not being used as cheap stockfood.
So, New Zealand the flavourless stockfood vegetable, i guess its better than a rather stringy flightless bird that has to be casseroled for hours to get any decent flavour out of it?
