Thursday, February 19, 2004
The Passion of Christ - is it accurate?
There has been huge debate over Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of Christ, due to open in cinemas on February 25. Many of the positive aspects of the film have been over-shadowed by claims that the film is anti-Jewish. Gibson himself claims that it is not, and he is not trying to put the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews.
A wider issue is the question, is the film accurate to either the Gospels or the times?
An excellent article by John Meacham in Newsweek looks at the film in depth, and explores where the film departs from the Gospel record, and to what degree the departures matter.
There has been huge debate over Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of Christ, due to open in cinemas on February 25. Many of the positive aspects of the film have been over-shadowed by claims that the film is anti-Jewish. Gibson himself claims that it is not, and he is not trying to put the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews.
A wider issue is the question, is the film accurate to either the Gospels or the times?
An excellent article by John Meacham in Newsweek looks at the film in depth, and explores where the film departs from the Gospel record, and to what degree the departures matter.
And now - presenting "Bafflegab"
First there was Orwell's 1984 and "newspeak", now there is 21st century "edu-speak". Just when kids are losing the skill of putting two sentences together, education boffins have renamed the paragraph a "brief constructed response", and the essay, an "extended constructed response". Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading has replaced, well, reading. In an article in the Vancouver Sun, Feb 4, Canadian education professor Thomas Fleming calls it "bafflegab", a jargon that makes it even more difficult for "students to understand what is pure, what is clear, what is right".
Try here for some more examples of bafflegab.
First there was Orwell's 1984 and "newspeak", now there is 21st century "edu-speak". Just when kids are losing the skill of putting two sentences together, education boffins have renamed the paragraph a "brief constructed response", and the essay, an "extended constructed response". Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading has replaced, well, reading. In an article in the Vancouver Sun, Feb 4, Canadian education professor Thomas Fleming calls it "bafflegab", a jargon that makes it even more difficult for "students to understand what is pure, what is clear, what is right".
Try here for some more examples of bafflegab.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
How should we swear to do our duty?
Justice Minister Phil Goff wants to change the oaths and affirmations made by public office holders, some state sector employees and immigrants when they become new citizens.
He says it’s nearly 50 years since there last was a comprehensive review, and we need to check whether the oaths express the values and beliefs of our national values today, or reflect a sense of independent nationhood.
You see, Mr Goff’s unhappy that some of the oaths are more than one sentence long, and no-one’s attention span is longer than that anymore. And people can’t cope with old-fashioned language (ie, anything written more than 30 years ago) because of our dumbed-down education curriculum.
He’s also deeply worried that the oaths swear allegiance to the Queen rather than to New Zealand. He points out that most other Commonwealth countries – even England – are making similar changes.
Pity the poor Queen. Her estate is crumbling around her as New Zealand joins the headlong rush towards republicanism – or in some cases supra-nationalism. Only last October she asked her advisers to compile reports on her status, out of growing fears that a new European constitution will undermine her role as sovereign.
There are some interesting conundrums posed by Mr Goff’s review. Who will decide what our “national values� are? You can bet that the submissions will fail to throw up a concensus.
And what does it actually mean if we pledge loyalty “to New Zealand and the people of New Zealand� (the kind of wording that Mr Goff seems to favour)? Does it mean that we pledge loyalty to the government, or the government plus our other constitutional elements, such as the courts and the Executive? What if the government and the people are in serious disagreement over an issue? – the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council would be a case in point.
Once upon a time making an oath meant that we acknowledged a higher power was witnessing our statement, and stood ready to call us to account. It would appear that the highest power we believe in now is the government, or at a stretch an ill-defined national identity.
Perhaps it boils down to a simple point : we might make these oaths, but nobody thinks they mean anything any more, and they are quickly ignored in the reality of the politics that govern most workplaces.
Justice Minister Phil Goff wants to change the oaths and affirmations made by public office holders, some state sector employees and immigrants when they become new citizens.
He says it’s nearly 50 years since there last was a comprehensive review, and we need to check whether the oaths express the values and beliefs of our national values today, or reflect a sense of independent nationhood.
You see, Mr Goff’s unhappy that some of the oaths are more than one sentence long, and no-one’s attention span is longer than that anymore. And people can’t cope with old-fashioned language (ie, anything written more than 30 years ago) because of our dumbed-down education curriculum.
He’s also deeply worried that the oaths swear allegiance to the Queen rather than to New Zealand. He points out that most other Commonwealth countries – even England – are making similar changes.
Pity the poor Queen. Her estate is crumbling around her as New Zealand joins the headlong rush towards republicanism – or in some cases supra-nationalism. Only last October she asked her advisers to compile reports on her status, out of growing fears that a new European constitution will undermine her role as sovereign.
There are some interesting conundrums posed by Mr Goff’s review. Who will decide what our “national values� are? You can bet that the submissions will fail to throw up a concensus.
And what does it actually mean if we pledge loyalty “to New Zealand and the people of New Zealand� (the kind of wording that Mr Goff seems to favour)? Does it mean that we pledge loyalty to the government, or the government plus our other constitutional elements, such as the courts and the Executive? What if the government and the people are in serious disagreement over an issue? – the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council would be a case in point.
Once upon a time making an oath meant that we acknowledged a higher power was witnessing our statement, and stood ready to call us to account. It would appear that the highest power we believe in now is the government, or at a stretch an ill-defined national identity.
Perhaps it boils down to a simple point : we might make these oaths, but nobody thinks they mean anything any more, and they are quickly ignored in the reality of the politics that govern most workplaces.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Housing market teetering on a debt mountain
The residential property market in New Zealand is close to sinking under the weight of its own mortgage debt, according to an article in today's Dominion Post.
Reserve Bank figures show that mortgage debt has ballooned in the past two years, from $67.9 billion in December 2001 to $86b at the end of 2003. If New Zealanders keep borrowing at the same rate, total mortgage debt will exceed $100b in 12 months.
That is leading to concerns that many households are so loaded with debt that even a small rise in interest rates or reduction in their disposable income could mean they struggle to meet repayments.
At the time of the 2001 Census, the average mortgage would have been $145,500. Now it's around $179,800, and if total mortgage debt hits $100b, the size of the average mortgage is likely to have increased to about $203,000.
Some economists are picking interest rates to exceed 8.5 per cent by year's end. New Zealand's total annual mortgage repayment bill could therefore pass $10b this time next year. That is almost as much as the country earned from the export of meat, fish and dairy products ($10.4b) in the year to June 2003. And because the banks source most of their mortgage funding from offshore, most of the repayments are sent back to the overseas lenders who provided the funds.
According to Deutsche Bank chief economist Ulf Schoefisch, the housing market is now in a more precarious position than it was prior to the last property slump in the late 1990s, because debt levels are much higher now. Rates may have to go only to 8% for people to feel the pain.
What could be the result?
The most obvious is a rush to downgrade housing to an affordable mortgage level. That might be easier said than done, though, if the purchasers are not there for the expensive properties (so far, the top end has been very buoyant, particularly with overseas buyers looking for what to them are bargains. But the immigration bubble has burst somewhat -- if a bubble can partially burst!! -- and that looks a bit fragile, too.) It will put a lot more pressure on mid-range housing stock, and therefore push the prices of these properties up.
A less obvious result will be huge strain on marriages, as couples have to change their lifestyle significantly.
The residential property market in New Zealand is close to sinking under the weight of its own mortgage debt, according to an article in today's Dominion Post.
Reserve Bank figures show that mortgage debt has ballooned in the past two years, from $67.9 billion in December 2001 to $86b at the end of 2003. If New Zealanders keep borrowing at the same rate, total mortgage debt will exceed $100b in 12 months.
That is leading to concerns that many households are so loaded with debt that even a small rise in interest rates or reduction in their disposable income could mean they struggle to meet repayments.
At the time of the 2001 Census, the average mortgage would have been $145,500. Now it's around $179,800, and if total mortgage debt hits $100b, the size of the average mortgage is likely to have increased to about $203,000.
Some economists are picking interest rates to exceed 8.5 per cent by year's end. New Zealand's total annual mortgage repayment bill could therefore pass $10b this time next year. That is almost as much as the country earned from the export of meat, fish and dairy products ($10.4b) in the year to June 2003. And because the banks source most of their mortgage funding from offshore, most of the repayments are sent back to the overseas lenders who provided the funds.
According to Deutsche Bank chief economist Ulf Schoefisch, the housing market is now in a more precarious position than it was prior to the last property slump in the late 1990s, because debt levels are much higher now. Rates may have to go only to 8% for people to feel the pain.
What could be the result?
The most obvious is a rush to downgrade housing to an affordable mortgage level. That might be easier said than done, though, if the purchasers are not there for the expensive properties (so far, the top end has been very buoyant, particularly with overseas buyers looking for what to them are bargains. But the immigration bubble has burst somewhat -- if a bubble can partially burst!! -- and that looks a bit fragile, too.) It will put a lot more pressure on mid-range housing stock, and therefore push the prices of these properties up.
A less obvious result will be huge strain on marriages, as couples have to change their lifestyle significantly.
