Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The point surely is that, whilst the science is not quite 100% certain (and what is?), this must be weighed against the fact that, if the theory is correct, then we are 100% fucked if we don't start doing something about it, quick smart.
And more importantly most of the changes in behaiviour suggested in response are good things to do anyway.
Why wouldn't you want to generate energy using renewable resources and not expensive (in foreign currency) coal and oil?
Why wouldn't you want to make cars more efficient?
Why wouldn't you want to develop better public transport?
Why wouldn't you want to make bike paths around the city that encourage people to get some exercise?
Why wouldn't you want to stop clear felling of tropical rainforests?yes I know I'm repeating myself sorry.
cheeers
BartPS Is it a sign of old age that I'm less comfortable with the F word now?
-
re kittens (specifically for WoW geeks)
casting polymorph on xxxxx ...... "everytime you break a sheep God kills a kitten"
cheers
Bart -
Oh the quote I liked was "why aren't the countries producing all the carbon alreday under water?". I couldn't help but imagine a huge blob of water sitting on top of the US wobbling like a big jelly ....
On a more serious note the thing I don't understand is why do the anti-climate change groups get so uptight. What the scientists are saying is we should emit less carbon.
Even if there is no such thing as climate change (which I don't believe for a second) producing less carbon is good.
Use less oil - good for NZs balance of payments, good for the air in our cities
Drive more fuel efficient cars - good for my own balance of payments
Develop good public transport systems - um easier to get home from the pub when drunk (probably some other good bits too)
Produce electricity from wind etc - Just plain good
Don't chop down and burn forests (unless you plant new ones) - um good
etc
etcJust about everything that has been suggested as a response to global warming is a good thing to do even if you don't believe in global warming. So why are some folks getting their knickers in a knot.
Well I guess if you sell coal and oil the suggestions aren't so good are they, but honestly I can't believe everyone of those folks mailing The Herald are in the pay of global oil? I just don't see what the protest is about.
cheers
Bart -
After numerous lizards and birds and finally one night waking up to because the cat was playing with something furry (and dead) on the bed, we finally figured out how to stop the cats showing their love with animals.
We taught our cat to hunt, kill, and bring in -- grass.
It turns out he loves chasing long bits of grass (round and round in circles till he gets dizzy and can't run straight).
After a session of play he'd often bring the grass in and we'd pat him and make a fuss of him and generally reward him for the "kill". Dead animals were greeted with silence.
It's still annoying to be woken up as he announces a kill at 2 am but it's a lot easier to cleean up now.
cheers
Bart -
In an effort to get away from the topic
Thanks Leo, I just loved the space invaders clip. I can't help but think of how hard it must have been to make, I mean getting students to sit in the right place in the lecture theatre????
cheers
Bart -
Ron you asked
Bart wrote: "currently the police say (using very careful language because they don't want to lose their jobs) they simply don't bother trying to prosecute anything but the most disgusting cases of abuse".
I'm not sure what you base that comment on unless of course you regard smacking as child abuse. I imagine that police try to prosecute all cases of child abuse, as long as there is sufficient evidence.No the police don't try to prosecute all cases of child abuse - that is the whole point of this law change. To allow them to do precisely that.
I am talking about the situations where parents have hit their children in situations where the parent could claim the blow was for discipline. These occassionally get reported in the newspapers especially when the child ends up in hospital. Note I'm not using the word smack quite deliberately. For example a blow with a fist, a kick with a boot etc. These cases are not typically prosecuted because they are likely to fail because of the section 59 defence.
The police can and do refer the cases do CYFs and that sometimes works. What this law change would allow is prosecution when for whatever reason CYFs cannot intervene.
Fletcher asked
If it really was designed to only stop abuse (or, make it prosecutable), why the increadibly strong reluctance to define anything as reasonaable or non-criminal?
Because that essentially demands that the court defines the legal definition. That isn't the courts job. And the result of such a law would be very expensive test cases that would almost certainly go to the highest courts before being sorted out - at huge expense. The reason the amendment will fail is because it is bad law - as bad as the original section 59 (which BTW was never intended to provide the protection it does now).
Laws have to be crytsal clear otherwise you just make more money for lawyers.
Cheers
Bart -
Ron wrote
All of these references may be interesting but they're irrelevant. Even Walter Mitty wouldn't expect that our rate of child abuse is going to improve if this bill is passed. Let's be intellectually honest about the debate.
In all honesty I believe it will have an effect. At the same time I accept I could be wrong. But I'd rather try.
For me repealing section 59 is nothing to do with smacking. Instead it is everything to do with removing a legal but abhorent defence for child abusers.
It has been said before but I'll repeat it - it is currently Illegel in New Zealand to touch another person without their consent - it is assault. And if the police wished to they could spend a day on Queen street arresting people who bump into other people on the footpath. Oddly enough they don't waste their time and the court's time doing this. But the law is clear and it allows the police to act if they need to - eg inapropriate touching.
Repealing section 59 will create the same situation. Yes it will be illegal to smack a child with an open hand (setting aside any discussion of proper forms of child discipline). And the police will not bother you if that is all you do. But if you get angry and smack your child so hard they actually can't sit down or use some implement like a 4X2 as was used some years ago in Hawkes Bay. The police will be able to charge you and in all likelyhood convict you.
In my mind that is a good thing.
The problem that is hidden from view now and that you are ignoring in your comment is that currently the police say (using very careful language because they don't want to lose their jobs) they simply don't bother trying to prosecute anything but the most disgusting cases of abuse. And even then they sometimes lose the case and if they win they usually have to spend huge amounts of time and money defending the inevitable appeals. This is real and it happens now and that is what repealing section 59 will change.
So yes I firmly believe the law change will allow police to start affecting our child abuse rates in NZ. BTW the reported rate will almost certainly go up because cases will actually be filed.
you also said
But that's a parental decision. I wouldn't want to see a law imposed on what activities kids can and cannot do.
Too late. There are many laws that already prevent parents allowing their children to do certain things, even if the parents believe tham to be good things to do. The best example is a commune that used to exist where the parents thought it was OK for children to be sexually active with adults. Guess what, it was against the law and the police did act, and you know I think most folks are glad that the government (in the form of the police and the law) interferred with that form of parenting.
Not every parent gets it right - most really really try - a few fail. Sometimes you need a law to deal with the failures.
Sorry bit too passionate about this :). Didn't mean to pick on you Ron.
cheers
Bart -
if he was, I don't imagine he'd be seen dead in a t-shirt like that.
Andrew I'm shocked at such stereotyping!
Are you suggesting only straight men have bad taste in clothes?????
-
It's stories like this that make me want a licence to be human - without a licence you don't get to participate in civilised society.
Yeah I know, completely impractical and in the end probably wrong (in that grand sense of right and wrong)
but oh so tempting
Of course implicit is the idea that I would be the ultimate moderator able to revoke someones licence at will - which of course is the reason the idea is so wrong :)
Meanwhile Stephen's ideas sound great
and I really trying hard to not breach the rules myself:).
cheers
Bart -
A wonderful night for me too, and a very interesting crowd - like the Great Blend but shinier:).
A wonderful night. I hope Russell understands there really are a large number of folks who want only the best for him and his family. My personal gratitude stems from the time I spent in Texas where Russell's Hard News was just about the only real touch of NZ I could get, for that time and so many thought provoking posts since last night was not even the smallest thanks.
My moment of the night...
Russells speech! That needs to be transcribed and posted, it was simply beautiful - a testament to his writing skills and it so clearly came from the heart.
cheers
BartNoticed when I got home I had ticket number 1, now that will be kept for posterity:).