Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
the problems I'm guessing at
Can you please plainly spell out what you think they are? I still do not understand exactly what you think the perverse incentives are. I really should be using my day more productively and I'm simply not up for Socratic inquiry.
if you'd like to give a quick run-through of current policy and explain why it does not in fact have any of the problems I'm guessing at
No, you go first. You're the one who brought this up as a potential cause of child abuse, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that.
-
But Daniel, what exactly is the connection you see between step-parenthood and the DPB? Your reluctance to spell out these incentives you keep talking about is what makes me (and perhaps kowhai and Emma as well) suspect your motives.
By definition the DBP is only available where there is no step parent. So we don't have a problem while a parent is on the DPB.
If you are thinking about what happens after, then clearly increasing the DPB reduces the incentive to enter a relationship with a step parent.
What I am afraid of is that you are thinking about what happens before, ie the impact of the DPB on relationship breakups. And if you're going to investigate that, then we really need to abandon this "thought experiment" as it is, because we need to start thinking about what happens when women are forced to stay in abusive relationships through economic necessity. Preventing the abuse of children by step parents is one policy consideration, and we need to balance it with the other ones that led to the introduction of the DPB in the first place.
I know very little about the DPB and how it operates
the basic policy mechanism is one thing that gets almost zero airing in the media for public critique.
Have you been living under a rock for the last 30 years? This issue comes up at least once per election cycle - it was a Listener cover story a year or two back. And the same arguments come up and get thrashed over again and again.
-
A little followup here.
This article irritates the hell out of me because while it's full of statistics, the crucial information - the number of teenagers in population, and hence the per capita rate of offending - are omitted. A 39% increase sounds terrible, but since it's an increase in an absolute figure, it doesn't really tell us anything.
Paul Easton, if you're reading this: C-.
-
We just got back, and while it would be presumptuous to say a good time was had by all, I can confirm a good time was had by me. Who knew that Bill English could speak soulfully and well of the curse of the middle class drive for perfection? Who knew that David Cohen is an accomplished public speaker (as long as he stays near the mike)? And who knew that the Bonnie Scarlets were a tight wee act with eerily taut little late 60s skinny white boys play the blues stylings? Not me.
I'm not one to gossip but you can guess at:
- the National Party stalwart who wanted the wine signed by Helen Clarke. My question: did she make it herself?
- the parade of women eyeing up Andrew's nuts. Only one walked off with them - in their sack.I also met a bunch of people with autistic kids (who they'd found babysitters for, bless them). I think it's worth pointing out while duh, of course you would meet such people at an autism fundraiser, I got reacquainted with parents I already knew socially in four different families with autistic children. I would never have known of that if I hadn't seen them this evening. It's out there folks, and more common than you know.
If you weren't there, why not drop by the fabulous new site and then give them some money. (Russell, Pamela: lovely to meet you, now get a Paypal account.)
-
But Daniel, you'd also see more women leaving abusive relationships, and a reduction in financial stress.
Now, which of those effects are going to be strongest? Yours or mine? I don't think that this thought experiment is helping at all.
-
I think free, universal childcare from when a baby is born would be a start.
It certainly might have worked in this case, and I would support it for other reasons anyway. I can't see the Michael Lawsssss of this world going for it though.
-
a way of protecting the most vulnerable from unacceptable risk of harm. I guess the question is how?
It's a very hard question as far as looking out for individuals goes.
There's the statistical approach: you fit the profile of a victim/offender, and the state will single you out. This can lead to serious injustice in a variety of ways: the profile criteria can be wrong, the data used to profile you can be wrong, you can fit the profile and yet be a righteous person.
Then there's relying on the judgment of professionals (which itself can be supplemented by profiling). Then we blame those professsionals when they miss a case, and we blame them when they over-react. The public does not forgive human error in medicine, mental health, or social work.
-
child abuse being called our problem, since it is clearly a Maori problem
1. Every citizen of this country has benefited from the systematic alienation of Maori assets into the hands of private citizens and the state. To the extent that there is a specifically Maori problem with violence against children (as if Pakeha never beat the shit out of their kids) I think colonisation is a better explanation than anything else, and the people who benefit from colonisation have an obligation to deal with its consequences.
2. Enlightened self-interest. We all live on the same islands, it's in nobody's interest to have brutalised kids growing up to be brutalised and violent adults who threaten everyone.
-
Well, we'll be there. And I'm sure someone will be delighted to get their hands on Andrew's nuts.
-
You simply have a licence to use him and you may not make a backup.
Hey babe. Wanna make a derivative work?