If At First You Don't Succeed, Tri, Tri Again
this triangle is the same shape and size...
same pieces: where did the hole come from?
topics
|
quick links
|
subscribe  |
this triangle is the same shape and size...
same pieces: where did the hole come from?
Timeless Cinematic Moments 18
John Roakesmith (Steven Mackintosh) embraces Bella Wilfer (Anna Friel) towards the end of BBC's 1998 adaptation of Charles Dickens' Our Mutual Friend. Thats about the third time I've watched this excellent film, however the first time to see all of it. Previously we had watched the version that we taped when it was on TV, however the DVD version gave even greater depth and intrigue to the mysterious story. Numerous sub-plots with seemingly weak links to each other come together weaving one of Dickens' most complex and celebrated novels onscreen. This moment in the film is one of the defining points as the mysterious Mr. Roakesmith and his love Bella are finally reconciled. The film is wonderful but not without some annoying aspects that could have been avoided. Not only this but Charles Dickens in his infinite wisdom saw fit to bring together two people: one an arrogant, lazy, hateful man - Mr. Eugene Rayburn, with another - a lovely, noble and selfless young woman, Lizzie Hexam (played very well by period drama favourite, Keeley Hawes). Argh!
There's more than meets the eye... with you.
Labels: timeless cinematic moments
On A Scale of 1 to 10...
...this set of instructions would have to get a 9 just for sheer ingenuity and unintentional hilarity! Dad bought a new-fangled set of scales on Trademe and they were there sitting at the door; dropped off by a courier when we got back home this morning. Hahahah, I can't wait to read the instructions... Mum unwrapped the thing and we were confronted with a budget blue box stating "Personal Scale - Not For Business Counting". It sure as heck didn't dissapoint! Click on the picture for a larger version if you can't read it.
Oh yeah, anyway the scales work. Apparently I'm 81kg.
w00t!
Labels: ;)
The Magpie Said
CANTA is the magasine put out by the compulsory student union at the University of Canterbury. In the 25/May 09 issue of CANTA the political commentator Hayden Munro (aka the Magpie) wrote an article entitled "Ok, this could get kind of tricky" which he has also posted on his blog. In his article he discusses minority politics in general, the "Christian Right" and more specifically, myself. It is essentially a response to an article of mine that was published in the previous edition of CANTA which discussed abortion law in New Zealand. Hayden is not only on the ball when it comes to discussing this subject, but he does so in an impressively balanced and reasoned way. I'll let you have a read of the article - all I want to do here is address one or two comments in the article which Hayden's thrashed out onto the keyboard perhaps a wee bit too quickly."Andy is... strongly against any gay marriage"
As far as I know I haven't stated this anywhere. Just to be clarfiy though, I believe homosexuality is immoral, but if two homosexuals wish to enter into a civil union - to be officially recognised as a couple before the State, I have no problem with this. However the issue of gay marriage is so convoluted that I will not deal with it right now.
yellow card: that's not on!
"...even intelligent, dedicated activist’s [sic] like Andy can slip into really rabid rhetoric. Insinuating that Helen Clark shouldn’t try to save a dieing [sic] friend, since she believes in abortion, is not going to win you any friends amongst moderates."
That's just bad logic. One thing I try hard to avoid is rabid rhetoric, character slurs, exaggerations and the like. Helen Clark should be commended for attempting to resucitate her dying friend. However I was questioning the inconsistency in her actions rather than implying that she should have left her friend to die.
My major ideological disagreement with Hayden in this article though, deals with the issue of homosexual couples adopting children. He states that legislating against this would "deny them the chance to raise a family, one of the fundamental joys in life". Heck yeah, I completely agree. But that's their problem. I stand by my comment on 4 May, "It is empirically evident that two homosexual adults are unable to provide children with the stability and security that is essential for every child as he or she grows up." Raising children isn't a flippin' game or an experiment or a right. Rather, it is a privilege.
But what's with the magpie? Hayden's weekly column is named "Quardle Ardle Oodle Wardle Ardle Doodle" and is a reference to a famous New Zealand poem. Flicking through the glossy colour pages of half-clothed drunken students, bizarre and disturbed cartoons, screeds of large advertisments and (almost always) boring opinion pieces is Hayden's political column which is more often than not a good read in a particularly mind-numbing lecture. Anyway, oneday the overpaid staff at CANTA may get their act together and regularly upload Hayden's column which you should be able to find here.
Labels: children, civil unions, homosexuality, marriage, politics
Give Me Something For The Pain
smoking a joint
All five ACT MPs voted in favour of the bill which would have made a provision in the Misuse of Drugs Act for seriously sick people to use marijuana for pain relief. Obviously the bill's intention was to get a foot in the door for the ultimate decriminalisation of marijuana use and sale, however it was introduced under the banner of improving health-care in New Zealand. This is a standard method of bringing about social change, as can be illustrated with the passing of Sue Bradford's Anti-Smacking Law. It was passed under the guise of lowering child-abuse, however its passing is merely one step in the agenda to make children autonomous from their parents: wards of the state.
"We would be sending a signal that it's okay," said National MP Jonathan Coleman who is also a doctor. This is a commonly held postion however it doesn't make sense. There are plenty of things that are not ok, and yet we do not legislate against them. By simply decriminalising weed, the government would be admitting that something was illegal that should not have been. Rather than positively making the drug legal, they are instead passively decriminalising it: making no ruling either for or against it.
Why should weed be illegal? "Because it's bad for society" comes the standard reply. Apply this principle consistently across all facets of society, and you have a totalitarian state where even an individual's thoughts which are deemed to negatively affect society are legislated against. There are so many things that are bad for society. Letting young children watch too much low-quality television will wreck their minds, however there is no legislation against this. Why not? Quite simply because it is a matter of what is often called "common sense". Legislating against the excessive watching of low-quality television by young children is not the correct way to address the problem. Likewise, legislating against the use of marajuana is not the correct way to address the problem of the abuse of this drug.
Coming soon at StarStuddedSuperStep.com: An exclusive interview with a marijuana user. If you have a question you would like me to ask, please leave it as a comment.
Labels: drugs, Green Party, legislation, marajuana
I lol'd
The Weekly Joke continues, this week's one is stolen shamelessly from Scrubone's blog...Sandy began a job as an elementary school counselor and she was eager to help. One day during recess she noticed a girl standing by herself on one side of a playing field while the rest of the kids enjoyed a game of soccer at the other.
Sandy approached and asked if she was all right.
The girl said she was.
A little while later, however, Sandy noticed the girl was in the same spot, still by herself. Approaching again, Sandy offered, “Would you like me to be your friend?”
The girl hesitated, then said, “Okay,” looking at the woman suspiciously.
Feeling she was making progress, Sandy then asked, “Why are you standing here all alone?”
“Because,” the little girl said with great exasperation, “I’m the goalie!”
Check this out... some blind guys in Baghdad playing soccer.
Labels: ;)
A Famous Person Has Died...
John Campbell (no, not that one) has done a comic on the media coverage of Michael Jackson's tragic and untimely death which is simply marvelous...
It's a Dog's Life
WARNING: This post describes scenes of torture in detail and includes a graphic photo.
Diesel (Jack Russell) who was tortured to death
Jeffrey Hurring (19) was yesterday sentenced in the Dunedin District Court to a year in prison. He killed the 18-month-old dog by strangling it, pouring petrol down its throat and then hitting it over the head with a shovel.
Hurring's actions were uttlerly deplorable and have been rightly condemned. But where's the outcry over unborn babies being tortured to death everyday in New Zealand? Below is a description of a Dilation and Extraction abortion which are used on babies between 13 and 18 weeks.
The cervix is dialated and the unborn child is dismembered with plier-like forceps. Force is needed to pull the baby apart. The instrument is used to seize a leg or other part of the body and then, with a twisting motion, tear it from the baby's body. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. The baby's spine is snapped and the skull crushed. After the baby parts are removed, they are reassembled outside the womb to be sure all are removed. - www.prolife.com
Victim of a Saline abortion (19 weeks)
A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.) - www.lifesitenews.com
Click here to read the story of Gianna Jessen who survived one of these abortions and now tours the World exposing the truth of what abortion really is, and what it does to helpless unborn babies. We must all speak up for innocent creatures who are being exploited and abused, whether they be feisty Jack Russells, or pre-born babies.
Labels: abortion, animal abuse, Gianna Jessen
Larry Baldock on the Question
Larry Baldock cuts through the confusion and misinformation with an explanation of how the petition question came into being. Below are a few excerpts from his must-read article on the NZCPR.The original question we submitted to the Clerk of the House of Representatives back in early 2007 was “should a smack in the context of positive parental correction be a criminal offence in NZ?”
As required by the CIR Act 1993, the Clerk published the question in the Gazette and advertised the question in all major papers with an invitation for anyone to submit their opinion on the wording of the question over a 28 day period.
Larry and the 390,000 signatures
Only two submissions were received. One from a couple who stated their opinion that a smack should never be a criminal offence, and the other from the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry’s submission raised four concerns that were considered by the Clerk in consultation with myself and anyone else the Clerk wished to take advice from as required by S9 of the Act. We eventually agreed to change the wording by replacing “in the context of positive parenting” with “as part of good parental correction.”
The CIR Act requires that the Clerk of the House ultimately determine that the wording;
(a) Shall be such as to convey clearly the purpose and effect of the indicative referendum; and
(b) Shall be such as to ensure that only one of two answers may be given to the question.
At the time the Clerk of the House was David McGee QC who was widely acclaimed as the most experienced and qualified Clerk in the Commonwealth. Upon his retirement as Clerk in 2007 to assume the post of Ombudsman he was given many accolades by MPs for the diligent way he performed his duties.
Surely it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister, Leader of the opposition and Sue Bradford to now be insinuating he did not do his job properly. Especially given that they did not bother to take the time to participate in the submissions on the question when they had every opportunity to.
The words “as part of good parental correction,” simply set the context of an appropriate smack, (reasonable force) rather than the kind of hitting or bashing that might be administered in an abusive (bad) parental situation...
The obvious intent of the question surely is that in the context of good parenting where a smack is not abusive, should a smack be a criminal offence?
Another reason for our use of the word ‘good parental correction is that politicians supporting the new law have constantly been saying that this law was not going to affect ‘good’ parents. They had nothing to worry about.
The real purpose of the law was being hidden as much as possible during the whole debate, and as a result confusion exists amongst the general population about what the new law actually does. The real purpose of the ‘Bradford law’ was to completely abolish any form of physical discipline, for the purpose of correction. This, in addition to smacking, also includes taking a child, against their will, to time out. That is clearly contained in the purpose clause of the new Act, “…by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.”
Click here to read the full article.
Hat-tip: Constant Joy
Related articles: Deception from Anti-Smacking Brigade, Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading
Labels: petition, referendum, The Kiwi Party
Herald Article Not Worth the Effort of Reading
The Herald joins the apparently nationwide attack on democracy by New Zealand mainstream media today, with their editorial entitled "Question not worth the effort of answering". Rather than excercising some journalistic credibility, these media are sucking up to the actions of the larger part of our Parliament. The Prime Minister John Key lambasted the question as "weird", and stated that he will not be partaking in the democratic process by voting in the referendum, while Opposition leader Phil Goff also states that he will refrain from voting."People who support the status quo might vote no, thinking that was what the question was reflecting, he indicated," seethed Mr. Key. But why does he think this the case? Who was it that initiated the compromise on Bradford's anti-smacking law which made it so darn hard to understand? The so-called "John Key" ammendment to the bill stated that the police would not prosecute parents for smacking if they believed it to be so inconsequential as to not be in the public interest to proceed.
Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
The question is quite clear. It directly addresses the law, rather than the way that the law is currently being applied. It would be impossible to come up with a question that would satisfy everyone, and while this question is not perfect, it's not nearly so bad as to warrant utter dismissal. For one moment, consider the intent of the 390,000 signatories on the petition. 99% of those signing did so in the belief that there was a difference between a smack and child abuse, and with the desire that families not be intruded upon by government agencies. But the mainstream media is conveniently ignoring this aspect of the petition question. Since the time the petition was launched over two years ago, we have heard only a few complaints about the question, and these mainly from Sue Bradford's direction. However now, just over a month out from the election there is a host of media decrying the petition question at every chance possible.
The Herald editorial concludes, "[It is] a question that is an insult to intelligence. It is not worth the expense or the effort of answering it. A low turnout would be most telling." Engaging in a simplistic form of social engineering, the Herald is sacrificing truth and democracy for the sake of their agenda which is leading to the realisation of one of Helen Clark's goals: family deconstruction in New Zealand.
Labels: John Key, petition, Phil Goff, referendum, smack
Timeless Cinematic Moments 17
Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) assists Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) as he pushes his sword into himself in his last service to his emporer. The two lie on the battlefield, the last survivors of a bloody slaughter of the last Samurai in Japan by the new, Westernised Japanese army. The Last Samurai (2003), directed by Edward Zwick (who has also directed Blood Diamond and Defiance, both great films) is masterfully shot but hard to understand. What's up with the Emporer? However the fight scenes and battles are epic, calling for the rewind button to be pushed more frequently than usual. Looking over Nathan's shoulder, Katsumoto sees a vision of a rare tree in pink blossom, and as the word perfect painfully escapes his lips, he breathes his last. It's a great film, highly recommended. Nothing too dodgy but it does have some swearing and blasphemy. And perhaps best of all, it was shot largely in New Zealand.
Labels: timeless cinematic moments
ALRANZ & Pro-Life Groups In Agreement
Following the release of the 2008 abortion statistics by Stats NZ, Dr. Margaret Sparrow, President of the Abortion Law Reform Association [ALRANZ] made the following statement,“We would like to see the abortion law reflecting what happens. We totally agree with the anti-abortion groups who say that it is ridiculous that 98 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are done on mental health grounds, because that is patently a farce.”
I pretty much agree. However it is patently unjust to base legislation on a moral issue like this simply on "what happens". Using this logic, we could pass a law to legalise rape - simply because an extremely large number of rapes were taking place. David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards made the following comment,
Dr Sparrow was for many years the Director of the Parkview Abortion facility in Wellington and during this time terminated the lives of thousands of unborn children, her statement must be taken very seriously. Dr Sparrow is stating clearly that certifying consultants are using mental health grounds to authorise abortions to provide abortion on demand, abortion on demand is unlawful. The Crimes Act requires that doctors must have good faith in their belief that the continued life of the unborn child represents a serious threat to the mental health of the woman. The failure of doctors to have good faith renders the abortion unlawful. Dr Sparrow’s statement indicates that many unborn children are being deprived of their lives unlawfully. This is a serious injustice and a violation of the right to life of unborn children. It also undermines the rule of law.
Dr. Sparrow is an anti-life extremist who is calling for abortion on demand in New Zealand. While her solution to the high number of unlawful abortions is deplorable, she is correct that the application of NZ's abortion law is farcical.
Labels: abortion, abortionist, legislation
Deception From Anti-Smacking Brigade
Deborah Coddington is all over the place in her opinion piece in the Herald on Sunday,"...this dastardly referendum on smacking, organised by grown men who should know better. In the middle of a deep recession it is costing taxpayers $9 million to ask the loaded question: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
Here we go round the mulberry bush. Again. First, a smack is not good parental correction. There is no such thing as a loving smack, just as there is no such thing as a hateful hug."
Deborah claims that the referendum was organised by grown men. Rubbish. Mother of two, Sheryl Savill was the author of the petition question. Further, it was men, women and children throughout New Zealand who facilitated the collection of signatures, just as it was people of all demographics who signed the petitions calling for the referendum. In August 2008, The Press reported that The Ministry of Justice had said a postal referendum could cost taxpayers between $4.8 million and $6.4m. Whether it's the $9m figure that's being tossed around, or something closer to $5m, who have we to thank for this huge expense but Helen Clark? The referendum could have easily and cost-effectively ($1.5m) been conducted at the 2008 election.
Deborah then states her opinion that there is no such thing as a loving smack. I invite Deborah to get out of her office into reality, and speak to some of the many thousands of mums and dads who I have spoken to, who assure me that there is indeed a difference between a smack and child abuse. Sure, some people are angered at the thought of a "loving smack" - but these people are in a definite minority.
Then in today's Press (22 June), Colin Espiner writes that he thinks the referendum question is "misleading, biased, and arguably factually incorrect". He proceeds to take the question to pieces - as many other reporters have attempted to do - examining each piece as if it is completely unrelated to any other part of the question. Despite the ranting and raving from a host of bloggers and reporters that the question is loaded and biased towards a no vote, this is categorically incorrect. "It's a tricky question" whines the Yes Vote group, parroting the recent comments by the leaders of the two major parties. However Espiner got it right when he said that the referendum question is not ambiguous.
Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?
Contrary to the claims of the left reporters, the question does not imply that a smack is necessarily a part of good parental correction. Rather, it asks if a smack should be a criminal offence when it has been done as a part of good parental correction. To phrase it more simply: was the smack reasonable? If the smack was unreasonable, then it is clear that it was not done as a part of good parental correction. However if a mother gives her young child a smack because they were disobedient, then this is an example of good parental correction.
The vast majority of Kiwi parents love their children, and it brings them no joy to give their children a smack - despite Bradford's claim that "The men that are anti this bill are sexual perverts and get a kick out of hitting children". I have spoken to thousands of Kiwi men who are anti Bradford's bill, and they would be outraged that a public servant would have the audacity to make such a statement.
Rather than attempting to attack the people or the question, it would be good if people were able to debate the two issues that are at stake here: democracy and parental authority.
Labels: petition, referendum, smack
From One Ex-Abortionist to Another...
Dr. Bernard Nathanson
"I knew George Tiller years ago when I was on the pro-abortion side," he told the Washington Times. "He came to a course I was giving in the technique of abortion in New York in 1970 under the auspices of NARAL. And I did late-term abortions until I changed my opinion as of 1980."
"My switch to pro-life had nothing to do with religion," he told the newspaper.
"Tiller was a church-going man, which doesn't say a whole lot in this country, but one wonders why he never changed his mind based on the scientific evidence. That is where I changed my mind, based on fetoscopies and ultrasound studies," Nathanson added.
"Once we had ultrasound in place, we could study the fetus and see it was a member of our community. If you don't do that, you're just a creature of political ideology. In 1970, there were approximately 1,100 articles on the functioning of the fetus. By 1990, there were 22,000. The data piled up swiftly and opened a window into the womb," Nathanson continued.
hat tip: Semper Vita
Labels: abortion, abortionist, death, prolife
Ban the IntelliGender Test Kit
Sitting in an office here in my great-uncle's daughter's husband's psychiatry clinic in Remuera, scoring some free time on the world wide web...My latest post on JillStanek.com is regarding the IntelliGender test kit which is apparently coming on sale here in New Zealand as soon as 22 June. Below is an excerpt from the article...
The real concern with the introduction of this product is that it will increase the overall number of abortions performed in New Zealand. With her pregnancy at 8 weeks, a woman may not have yet bonded with her unborn child. The level of commitment that she feels to her child is likely to be considerably less than it will be when the child is at 18 weeks. The majority of women appear to accept that the later a pregnancy is, the more undesirable it is to have an abortion. The IntelliGender offers to remove this cause for hesitation by allowing women to learn the sex of their child much earlier on in the pregnancy.
Voice for Life spokesperson Bernard Moran got to the heart of the matter when he said commented that certain ethnic minorities might be more prone to use the test to determine whether or not the pregnancy should be allowed to go ahead. On a pragmatic level, you just need to look at the situation in China if you are unsure about the impact of sex-selection abortions on a country. God has put a system in place that keeps gender number disparity to a minimum, however when we try and do it our way, we're bound to screw it up.
IntelliGender are intentionally refraining from even touching on the darker ramifications of the use of their product. Instead they market the kit as "a fun, affordable and safe way to determine pink or blue!" While there is nothing wrong with the product in and of itself, the potential for misuse outweighs the benefit. New Zealand will be the worse off for allowing the IntelliGender kit to go on sale.
The purpose of this post is to reconcile my call for this product to be banned, with my libertarian convictions, which I believe will make for an interesting discussion. There is a principle that holds that it is not weapons that kill people. Rather, it is the people wielding the weapons are the perpetrators. Again, it is not the bomb-making instructions that are guilty in a terrorist attack, but the terrorist himself. Ultimately, it is not the means of a crime that are guilty or the thing that enables a crime to take place, but the person who uses these means or makes use of the enabler, to carry out their crime.
On this basis, libertarians state that guns, knives, bomb-making instructions or kits should not be legislated against. Neither should writings expressing hatred or inciting violence against a minority or ethnic group be outlawed. There is potential for crimes to be committed through use of these things, however the crimes have already been specified in the law and legislated against. There is a penalty which has been specified for crimes such as homocide and rape, and as such the perpetrators can be legally disciplined.
In the case of abortion however, New Zealand's law is being interpreted in a way that treats the abortion of an unborn child not as a crime, but as a woman's right. This means that there is no legal retribution for a perpetrator of the immoral act of abortion. Since New Zealand's judiciary does not provide protection for the unborn child, an exception must be made to the principle outlined above. The IntelliGender test kit enables women to make an abortion decision based on the sex of her unborn child, and is therefore an abortion enabler. While abortion is still legal in New Zealand, this kit must not be allowed to go on sale since there is no system in place to prevent the abuse of the product.
Labels: abortion, eugenics, Jill Stanek
The post formerly known as "Weekly Joke"
We've got a joke and a handful of videos for this week's I lol'd post...A man rushed to the jewelry counter in the store where I work soon after the doors opened one morning and said he needed a pair of diamond earrings. I showed him a wide selection, and quickly he picked out a pair.
When I asked him if he wanted the earrings gift-wrapped, he said, "That'd be great. But can you make it quick? I forgot today was my anniversary, and my wife thinks I'm taking out the trash."
And here's two excellent dance remixes...
Why is the rum gone? ...Finally, some humour from the irrepressible Rowan Atkinson that Jono and I were watching on a youtube humour marathon a few nights ago...
This is one of the funniest things I've seen in my life. Check out Mr. Bean's beekeeping skit here.
Labels: lol
Harvey Milk and Homosexuality
Sean Penn as Harvey Milk in Milk (2008)
However Gus Van Sant did not dissapoint. Touching only lightly and briefly on the more physical aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, the film focused on the dialogue and characters, centering around the numerous campaigns to get Harvey elected to a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Every film is subject to the bias of its creators, and Milk is no exception. However I was impressed at how restrained the film was, in places where it could have lashed out more at the group who were in opposition to Harvey Milk's campaigns. As with any doco-film, you can't take everything at face value, however Van Sant's skillful use of archived footage helps to cement the story in fact.
The vitriol directed at Milk and his supporters portrayed in the film was abhorent, being fueled by a mixture of fear and hatred. While I hold that homosexuality is immoral, I would not advocate legislating against people who wish to engage in a homosexual lifestyle, or who wish to create or consume media which promote such a lifestyle. Neither is it right for homosexuals to be treated differently from straight people.* Those pursuing a homosexual lifestyle are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, however it is clear that this principle was widely considered to be incorrect in the 1970's.
Why should Milk's private and consensual relationship with another man have been considered to disqualify him for a position as an elected official in his city? The anti-homosexual camp hated Milk. They hated him for what he did, what he said, and who he represented. The fear of the unknown can often be fundamental in discrimination against minorities in society, and this was obviously one factor present in the anti-homosexual camp. I have no problem with people being opposed to homosexuality, and openly exposing it for the dangerous lifestyle that it is to individual practicing homosexuals. The plight of children living in homes with homosexual "parents" is also an issue that must be addressed. However simply attacking homosexuals for who they are and what they do - and attempting to demote them to a lower status in society is absolutely not on.
The Government has no jurisdiction to legislate for or against the actions of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. This principle also applies to consenting adults in a business setting, where money changes hands. Of course things start to get a whole lot more convoluted when the age of the participants is in question - but this is another issue.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
*Naturally, this should go both ways, but I will elaborate on this in a later post.
Any puns perceived to be present in this post are entirely coincidental ;)
Labels: bravery, homosexuality
Timeless Cinematic Moments 16
Toms Hanks stars in Ron Howard's Apollo 13 (1995). Packed with nail-biting suspense and significant character development, the movie pulled in two Academy Awards. Alongside a stellar cast is the adept Ed Harris who I must say again, looks very much like an older version of Viggo Mortenson. In this scene, hope is all but lost at the Apollo 13 mission base and it appears as if the capsule must have burnt up in entering the earth's atmosphere. "Oddessy, Houston, do you read me?" The radio crackles and Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) replies, "hello Houston this is oddyssey, it's good to see ya again". The screen at the base displays the capsule floating down towards the waiting aircraft carrier... and you can breathe again.
Click here for an excellent music video of scenes from the movie set to the amazing song Daylight by Brave Saint Saturn.
Labels: timeless cinematic moments
Andy Moore's blog
since 16/3/06
You are most like Elrond. Although you are very serious, you're not above having a good time. It's just that your definition of a good time is pretty different from other people's. You're very smart, so use your knowledge to help others! At least your not so pessimistic. People may think you're hard nosed, but all your friends know better.
Recent Comments
Hi Andy
A fair call on the first point, I knew where you stood on civil unions, but should definitely have checked where you are on gay marriage itself. For the record, where are you?
The second point I also probably overstated, but I would still think that keeping a coherent ideological focus was probably not the most pressing issue on her mind at the time.
Finally, the meat of the post. I've yet to see any convincing evidence for the assertion that single sex couples are uniformly unable to raise healthy children. You've posted a couple of single examples where same sex couples have clearly failed as parents, but nothing even approaching a comprehensive investigations of the issue. Such an investigation, such as the one carried out by the American Psychiatrist Association (not exactly a progressive group themselves)found that
"The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents."
Read that middle part again "NO scientific support." If you read some of the studies done in the reference list of the article I linked too, you can find that repeated, independent studies keep coming to the same conclusion: same sex couples make no better, or worse, parents than the rest of us. I have to wonder then, if your opposition to allowing same sex couples to adopt has less to do with the research done into the outcomes of such adoptions, and more to do with your views on homosexuality?
Also, please excuse any spelling mistakes, I'm writing this on the bus home.
sorry, a link to the APA study is here, don't know why the copy and past didn't work the first time.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
Canta has been a big disappointment this year, I enjoy the political columns and a couple of the feature articles (one about the Canta 1996 controversy especially), but there is a lot of filler in there - meaningless cartoons, abusing people for the hell of it and pointless articles about 'apathy'.
How did exams go anyway?
Hey Michael. Yeah CANTA's not up to much. Letters to the Editor can be ok sometimes though.
Exams seemed to go really well - looking forward to getting results back.
Yourself?
Thanks for the link to the APA study Hayden. Quite interesting, but I'm not convinced as to how conclusive it is. I share none of the first three concerns that are listed in the first paragraph. Ultimately it's not about the two adults in their consensual relationship - it's about the children who at the end of the day don't have much of a say in it.
Look at the 2003 UNICEF report on Child Maltreatment Deaths in Rich Nations. It lists "children not living with biological parents" as one of the causes for maltreatment.
You do have a point there. Is it my views on homosexuality which drive my opposition to homosexual couples being allowed to adopt children. Because you could bring up "what about a heterosexual couple in a defacto relationship adopting children" - I wouldn't be happy with that either, however it is unlikely to have the same effect on the children.
Hmmmmm...
Andy,
What exactly is the damage done to a child being adopted by a same-sex couple? What about a same-sex couple makes them intrinsicly unable to raise children? You havn't offered any reasoning for what exactly the damage done by same-sex parenting is? Especially in the face of the APA's evidence that in the thousnads of test casesnono evidence emerges to suggest that same-sex couples are in any way more likely to mistreat children than different sex couples.
The Unicef report gives concrete examples of the causes of child mistreatment, such as stress and poverty. It dosn't actually suggest that children not being with their biological parents CAUSES mistreatment, but simply that the instances of mistreatment correlate more with instances where children are not with their biological parents. But surley we can't use that as a legal basis for baring people from adopting children, because if correlation with maltreatment alone is enough to bar people from adopting, then we must also bar poor people from adopting children, as poverty has a much higher correlation to child mistreatment than homosexuality.
So what exactly about same-sex couples makes them UNABLE (the word you used) to raise healthy children? Surley your not just seeking to bar same-sex couples from adopting because they are homosexual?
Some pretty solid points there Hayden. Currently I can't offer a principled position backing up my statement - following the points you've raised. However just one look at nature will tell you that Humans are designed to procreate & grow up in family units with heterosexual parents. That's the norm. The alternative opens up a whole host of complications such as adoption, IVF treatment, lack of role-modelling from a male or a female...
I need to give this more thought, however take a look at your last sentence. Your emphasis is on the rights of the same-sex couple. As far as I'm concerned, the emphasis must be on the child as she is not yet old enough to speak up for her own rights...
Andy,
The focus isn't JUST on the rights of the couple, it is on finding the best solution possible for the children AND the couple. Since all evidence shows that there is nothing about homosexuality that makes one an unsuitable parent (you still havn't given an explanation as to what about homosexuality apparantly makes same-sex couples unfit parents) all that rules against same-sex adoption to is limit the number of good parents who can adopt children. Finding good foster parents is hard enough without further limiting the numbers out of blind commitment to ideology. That only deprives children of good foster parents.
Also, ONE look at nature might make you think that humans were "designed" to live in family units with only heterosexual parents. However extensive research has found over and over (and over)that homosexuality is part of humanities genetic code, and is in no way a violation of any "norm", but rather a genetic trait that is still present in us to this day because it enhances the survival rates of our children. For more on this, I urge you to read E.O Wilson's seminal book "Sociobiology." It will hopefully expand your thinking on the subject of homosexuality and how society should react to it. Plus its REALLY interesting reading.
"all evidence shows that there is nothing about homosexuality that makes one an unsuitable parent"
really? don't you mean "all the evidence I've seen..." there's a lot of debate on this - it's not that cut and dried.
"what about homosexuality apparantly makes same-sex couples unfit parents?"
I'm not sure. Need to read more on this. However at the very least it does not offer young children the balance which is usually considered necessary for a child growing up.
Sorry Andy, should have been more specific. That should have read all evidence held to strict scientific standards and proper modern research techniques. There are plenty of people who have found that homosexuality makes one unfit to be a parent. But such findings have been disproved again and again by peer reviewed research. If you want to try and deprive people of their right to adopt, and deprive children of potentially excellent parents, you better have same damn good research. So far, you haven't cited any, where I've shown that the largest pyschiatric association in the world, after thousands of cases of research, believe that same sex couples absolutley can provide safe environments.
Denying same-sex couples the right to adopt based on a "lack of balance" is illogical. Many single parents are unable to provide balance, but still work hard to provide good environments for their children. Clearly balance is not so fundamentally important that good children can't be raised with out it. I'd ask you to consider in what circles such thinking is "considered necessary." Could it be perhaps that such thinking, prevalent in the evangelic religious circles you seem to move in, might not speak to the experiances of the wider community?
oh and also just on the subject of homosexuality as being against the norm, its hard to track down, but i think it might be on jstor or one of the uni journals, but if you can find the following article.
Zietsch, B., Morley, K., Shekar, S., Verweij, K., Keller, M., Macgregor, S., et al. (2008, November). Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 424-433. Retrieved April 1, 2009,
it has a great description of some of the stuff Wilson talks about, and shows how rather than being a breaking of the norm, homosexuality is an enduring subsection of sexual behavior, not just in people but in animals. Of course, it bases a lot of its argument on evolution.......where are you on that whole deal?
not to open up another can of worms there......
Question for marijuana user and yourself.
"Haven't you got anything better to do?"
serious questions Simeon...
To make marijuana legal would give the defenders of its legality a foot in to make other more dangerous drugs legal.
Even though that's true, I don't think it's a good reason for keeping it illegal. Don't you think the purpose of marijuana should be taken into account? It's main purpose is not medicinal.
I don't care about what they say is 'good for society' - that's pretty subjective, especially if it's the government saying it! What you would have to decide is, whether drugs of any form should be legal.
Would you say that drugs that produce violent tendencies should be legal, while drugs that only give you a high should be illegal?
Here we are Andy.
"When smoking marijuana does it mean that you are incapable of doing other things, and if so do you smoke it to pass time?"
Hows that sound mate?
Totally agree Lyd, If you make Marijuana legal then you ultimately mean that their is now a market which the government can regulate and tax.
The Criminals who make the drugs are criminals. They want to break the law. They will move onto something harder in order to make money as there will no longer be big money in the marijuana market.
I actually think if you were to follow libertarian thinking, the government is best not to legalise Marijuana. If they did they would then be interfering in the market that is already there. They would most probably heavily tax the market and put huge regulation on the market.
A libertarian such as Andy to be consistent should therefore argue that it should still be illegal to produce/smoke/sell marijuana but that there should be no penalty or the cops should turn a blind eye to it. This would mean there would be no legal market and the government would not be interfering in it.
Good question Simeon, will go with that.
You raise a number of points which I'll respond to now.
Do all criminals necessarily want to break the law? Or is it more that the things they want to do are illegal. The market for drugs is consumer driven, so it doesn't necessarily follow that decriminalising weed will necessitate criminals selling a harder drug.
Libertarian thinking would say: decriminalise weed and tax it at a low, fair rate.
Libertarians don't want laws which are intended to be ignored - far from it: we want just laws which are strictly obeyed by all.
What do you reckon.
The things they want to do are illegal, so they willingly break the law.
You know all about supply and demand. Make weed legal and supply will increase pushing the price down. The government won't like that so they will heavily tax it.
Just remember that the government is very rarely made up of pure libertarians. Therefore libertarian thinking would not be followed out once the drug is made legal.
So whatever the intention of the libertarians in the first place, there wishes will not be followed out with a low fair tax rate.
Therefore it is better for libertarians to seek lower penalties for weed making/selling/consuming as the market will then not be disturbed and the government can keep its noses out.
(You know that I am only proposing an argument which I disagree with!)
* shuddering *
Clearly, this question is biased. A smack has been presented to the voter as a "part of good parental correction."
Hi Walt, here's what I said in a recent post,
"The question does not imply that a smack is necessarily a part of good parental correction. Rather, it asks if a smack should be a criminal offence when it has been done as a part of good parental correction. To phrase it more simply: was the smack reasonable? If the smack was unreasonable, then it is clear that it was not done as a part of good parental correction. However if a mother gives her young child a smack because they were disobedient, then this is an example of good parental correction."
Cheers.
Great facebook group about the smacking question:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=92876168772#/group.php?gid=92876168772
Bless the Lord!
Bernard Nathanson is a pro-terror, pro-murder propagandist. Read his entry in the FIRST THINGS article "Killing Abortionists: a symposium". He says we should not murder abortion docs, except when they are at work, and then we should.
Check out a new abortion blog, unlike any other you've ever read:
AICH TEE TEE PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com
Interesting post. Any sex-selection has dangerous implications for a country. The normal sex ratio is 105 males are born for every 100 females, which eventually balances around the age of 30. Any variant of this will have severe consequences in either direction.
I'm sorry, I don't happen to share your libertarian views (at least, I haven't since about 1998). I believe we make far too much of 'freedom' viewed as permissiveness, when it is some of our freedoms that we are using to destroy ourselves, each other and the planet.
I think there's a clear and unambiguous case for banning these, as there always has been for RU-486 and other abortion enablers. Just like there is for oversized SUVs, violence on TV, 'adult' websites, spam, or nuclear weapons.