Friday, June 18, 2004
How did we get like this?
We are seeing the rapid collapse of Western culture in the world. Every which way we look we see the degeneration of family and the social order.
How did we get this way?
Melanie Phillips (also see the posting below) says we are seeing the logical result of the 1960s revolution. She charts the road we have travelled, and the people driving it, brilliantly in her article, The Peter Pan Establishment.
This is essential reading to understand the environment we now find ourselves in.
We are seeing the rapid collapse of Western culture in the world. Every which way we look we see the degeneration of family and the social order.
How did we get this way?
Melanie Phillips (also see the posting below) says we are seeing the logical result of the 1960s revolution. She charts the road we have travelled, and the people driving it, brilliantly in her article, The Peter Pan Establishment.
This is essential reading to understand the environment we now find ourselves in.
A veritable crucible of disorder
One of the most astute observers of the social and political scene in England, Melanie Phillips, says the government there appears to be going to extraordinary lengths to turn Britain into a veritable crucible of disorder.
Commenting on government proposals to relax gaming laws, Phillips notes that this comes on top of the introduction of 24-hour drinking, the liberalisation of the law on cannabis, and proposals for turning prostitution into a health-and-safety conscious legitimate business.
"By relaxing the prohibitions against all this behaviour, thus giving a powerful signal that society no longer disapproves of it, the government is all but guaranteeing that it will not decrease but increase. This is all the more staggering considering that the great social reform movements in the Victorian period were all directed at curbing such behaviour, and with remarkable success.
"...who would have imagined that a party ostensibly committed to social progress and rescuing the poor from squalor would go down the road of liberalising drug use or encouraging sexual promiscuity among the young, attitudes that have wreaked such havoc among the most disadvantaged in our society? It is almost as if ministers sat down and looked at the great programmes of moral and social reform in the Victorian period, which were based on encouraging self-control and the restraint of appetites, and decided to put them all into reverse.
"Those movements, teaching temperance and preaching against prostitution and sexual licence, remoralised an entire society which had become brutish and degenerate. For the Victorian reformers, the essence of being a progressive was to encourage people away from sexual promiscuity and the gin palaces.
Indeed, the only reason the British public house became a relatively civilised place was because the Victorians introduced licensing laws which stopped unlimited drinking, which was perceived to be a major cause of drunkennness and disorder.
"Now we are undoing that very reform. Instead of being progressive, we are going backwards. Rather than promoting self control and continent behaviour, we are encouraging unlimited licence. We are being returned to the 18th century, that dissolute era of libertinism and lotteries. The Victorians re-moralised a society. This government is de-moralising it.
"The tragi-comic aspect of all this is that ministers actually want to do good. They want to stop binge drinking, to reduce the disorderliness of prostitution. And they are correct to identify new forms of gambling which need to be controlled.
"The problem is that they don’t grasp the crucial importance of laws which restrain behaviour. They don’t understand that these laws send out vital signals about social disapproval which encourage self–restraint. Demolishing the legal barriers gives the opposite signal that a free-for-all is perfectly acceptable. So anti-social behaviour is encouraged.
"There is another huge pressure behind the encouragement of gambling, drinking and drugs. Those in charge of regenerating our towns and cities have spotted that the best way to make somewhere a ‘happening’ kind of place is to make it a centre of 24-hour entertainment.
"That means pressure to open all-night clubs, pubs and now casinos. And that means a blind eye turned to the culture of drugs, drink and addictive gambling that fuels them. In other words, the economic regeneration of our towns and cities is being achieved through the marketing of vice —suitably regulated by the government, of course, with surreal ‘gambling-free chill-out zones’ in the casinos and slot-machine free minicab offices. Big deal!
"... at the very heart of what has gone wrong is the collapse of the idea that anti-social behaviour is inherently wrong. The Victorian reformers all had one thing in common. They were absolutely certain that behaviour such as drinking, sexual licentiousness or prostitution were wrong in themselves. That iron belief prompted them to try to curb what they clearly understood as vice and depravity. But now, anyone who even used such terms would be considered beyond the pale.
"The only thing now absolutely unacceptable is to regard such behaviour as unacceptable. Instead we license it, regulate it and tax it — and then wonder why Britain is turning into a giant sleaze-pit. Nanny appears to need treatment herself for seriously dysfunctional behaviour."
One of the most astute observers of the social and political scene in England, Melanie Phillips, says the government there appears to be going to extraordinary lengths to turn Britain into a veritable crucible of disorder.
Commenting on government proposals to relax gaming laws, Phillips notes that this comes on top of the introduction of 24-hour drinking, the liberalisation of the law on cannabis, and proposals for turning prostitution into a health-and-safety conscious legitimate business.
"By relaxing the prohibitions against all this behaviour, thus giving a powerful signal that society no longer disapproves of it, the government is all but guaranteeing that it will not decrease but increase. This is all the more staggering considering that the great social reform movements in the Victorian period were all directed at curbing such behaviour, and with remarkable success.
"...who would have imagined that a party ostensibly committed to social progress and rescuing the poor from squalor would go down the road of liberalising drug use or encouraging sexual promiscuity among the young, attitudes that have wreaked such havoc among the most disadvantaged in our society? It is almost as if ministers sat down and looked at the great programmes of moral and social reform in the Victorian period, which were based on encouraging self-control and the restraint of appetites, and decided to put them all into reverse.
"Those movements, teaching temperance and preaching against prostitution and sexual licence, remoralised an entire society which had become brutish and degenerate. For the Victorian reformers, the essence of being a progressive was to encourage people away from sexual promiscuity and the gin palaces.
Indeed, the only reason the British public house became a relatively civilised place was because the Victorians introduced licensing laws which stopped unlimited drinking, which was perceived to be a major cause of drunkennness and disorder.
"Now we are undoing that very reform. Instead of being progressive, we are going backwards. Rather than promoting self control and continent behaviour, we are encouraging unlimited licence. We are being returned to the 18th century, that dissolute era of libertinism and lotteries. The Victorians re-moralised a society. This government is de-moralising it.
"The tragi-comic aspect of all this is that ministers actually want to do good. They want to stop binge drinking, to reduce the disorderliness of prostitution. And they are correct to identify new forms of gambling which need to be controlled.
"The problem is that they don’t grasp the crucial importance of laws which restrain behaviour. They don’t understand that these laws send out vital signals about social disapproval which encourage self–restraint. Demolishing the legal barriers gives the opposite signal that a free-for-all is perfectly acceptable. So anti-social behaviour is encouraged.
"There is another huge pressure behind the encouragement of gambling, drinking and drugs. Those in charge of regenerating our towns and cities have spotted that the best way to make somewhere a ‘happening’ kind of place is to make it a centre of 24-hour entertainment.
"That means pressure to open all-night clubs, pubs and now casinos. And that means a blind eye turned to the culture of drugs, drink and addictive gambling that fuels them. In other words, the economic regeneration of our towns and cities is being achieved through the marketing of vice —suitably regulated by the government, of course, with surreal ‘gambling-free chill-out zones’ in the casinos and slot-machine free minicab offices. Big deal!
"... at the very heart of what has gone wrong is the collapse of the idea that anti-social behaviour is inherently wrong. The Victorian reformers all had one thing in common. They were absolutely certain that behaviour such as drinking, sexual licentiousness or prostitution were wrong in themselves. That iron belief prompted them to try to curb what they clearly understood as vice and depravity. But now, anyone who even used such terms would be considered beyond the pale.
"The only thing now absolutely unacceptable is to regard such behaviour as unacceptable. Instead we license it, regulate it and tax it — and then wonder why Britain is turning into a giant sleaze-pit. Nanny appears to need treatment herself for seriously dysfunctional behaviour."
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Civil unions will make marriage meaningless
The first of the two Civil Union Bills has been released (unfortunately, the text is not available online anywhere at the moment). They will probably have their first reading in parliament next Thursday, and although one Bill will have a conscience vote, the government expects to have the numbers to pass this stage.
Most people have not yet realised there are two Bills, because the government has carefully downplayed the second (which has gone through several name changes; in fact it is given two different names in the Civil Union Bill preamble, which shows the last-minute reshuffling going on).
The Civil Union Bill will allow any two people in a sexual relationship to register that relationship (provided they meet certain criteria, similar to those contained in the Marriage Act). It is principally designed for the benefit of same-sex couples.
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill -- at least, that's it's latest name; it's also nicknamed the Omnibus Bill -- is the one that does the real damage. This Bill will rewrite around 160 Statutes, handing everything that belongs to marriage over to every other sexual relationship.
So, apart from the fact that the word "marriage" will still refer only to a man and a woman, there will be no other legal difference whatsoever between a marriage and a civil union. It is same-sex marriage by any other name.
A longer article pointing out what's going on can be found here.
The government is handing everything that belongs to marriage over to every other sexual relationship.
With the Budget, this socialist government gave away my money. Now, the government wants to give away my social identity.
The first of the two Civil Union Bills has been released (unfortunately, the text is not available online anywhere at the moment). They will probably have their first reading in parliament next Thursday, and although one Bill will have a conscience vote, the government expects to have the numbers to pass this stage.
Most people have not yet realised there are two Bills, because the government has carefully downplayed the second (which has gone through several name changes; in fact it is given two different names in the Civil Union Bill preamble, which shows the last-minute reshuffling going on).
The Civil Union Bill will allow any two people in a sexual relationship to register that relationship (provided they meet certain criteria, similar to those contained in the Marriage Act). It is principally designed for the benefit of same-sex couples.
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill -- at least, that's it's latest name; it's also nicknamed the Omnibus Bill -- is the one that does the real damage. This Bill will rewrite around 160 Statutes, handing everything that belongs to marriage over to every other sexual relationship.
So, apart from the fact that the word "marriage" will still refer only to a man and a woman, there will be no other legal difference whatsoever between a marriage and a civil union. It is same-sex marriage by any other name.
A longer article pointing out what's going on can be found here.
The government is handing everything that belongs to marriage over to every other sexual relationship.
With the Budget, this socialist government gave away my money. Now, the government wants to give away my social identity.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Why do we hate our children?
Abortion statistics released this week are a shocking indictment of how much New Zealand society now hates children. Last year, 18,511 children were aborted, an increase of 6.5% on the previous year’s record, and the third-highest rate in the Western World.
A third of those abortions were carried out on women aged 20-24 ... that is, the women who were once the leading child bearers. Now, they have one abortion for every 2½ births. Asian women were disproportionately represented in the figures, also. They accounted for 19% of all abortions, yet they make up only around 7% of the female population. Basically, they are simply using abortion as birth control, and doctors are happy to help them.
Most shocking of all, 89 young girls between the ages of 11 and 14 had abortions. As the law currently stands, they could all have had their babies killed without their parents being aware. (Incidentally, that law was sponsored by Helen Clark before she became Prime Minister.) The law is carried over in the Care of Children Bill currently before Parliament, and many groups believe it is imperative to bring in some form of parent notification or consent.
Abortion is symptomatic of serious sexual and social dysfunction. Since legalisation in the late 1970s, 296,885 New Zealand children (a staggering 9,900 classrooms of 30 children) have been ‘terminated’. This is the real reason schools are being closed, and that our fertility rate has plummeted below replacement level.
What an outcry there is when an abused child dies – and rightly so – but this quiet, systematic rejection of our children is going on every day all around the nation.
Abortion statistics released this week are a shocking indictment of how much New Zealand society now hates children. Last year, 18,511 children were aborted, an increase of 6.5% on the previous year’s record, and the third-highest rate in the Western World.
A third of those abortions were carried out on women aged 20-24 ... that is, the women who were once the leading child bearers. Now, they have one abortion for every 2½ births. Asian women were disproportionately represented in the figures, also. They accounted for 19% of all abortions, yet they make up only around 7% of the female population. Basically, they are simply using abortion as birth control, and doctors are happy to help them.
Most shocking of all, 89 young girls between the ages of 11 and 14 had abortions. As the law currently stands, they could all have had their babies killed without their parents being aware. (Incidentally, that law was sponsored by Helen Clark before she became Prime Minister.) The law is carried over in the Care of Children Bill currently before Parliament, and many groups believe it is imperative to bring in some form of parent notification or consent.
Abortion is symptomatic of serious sexual and social dysfunction. Since legalisation in the late 1970s, 296,885 New Zealand children (a staggering 9,900 classrooms of 30 children) have been ‘terminated’. This is the real reason schools are being closed, and that our fertility rate has plummeted below replacement level.
What an outcry there is when an abused child dies – and rightly so – but this quiet, systematic rejection of our children is going on every day all around the nation.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
EU elections produce crushing no-confidence votes
People across Europe have delivered crushing blows of no confidence in their governments, as the European Parliament elections produced a ragtag influx of anti-European and rebel MPs. Turn-out was low and those casting votes did so in droves in protest against their own governments or the idea of the European Parliament itself.
Up to 15 percent of the European seats will now be held by representatives who do not have faith in the institution itself, and the tendency of voters to cast their votes based on domestic issues has landed rebels in the Parliament.
The incomplete counting so far indicates that centre-right parties will hold about a third of the 732-seat assembly, and socialist parties about a quarter, with the remainder held by Liberal Democrats, Eurosceptics and small country-based parties.
With results available for 68 of Britain's 78 seats, the United Kingdom Independence Party quadrupled its representation to 12 seats. Tony Blair's Labour Party won just 17 seats and the Conservatives 25. Not all the newly elected UKIP members are certain they will attend the European Parliament and the party's general thrust is for EU withdrawal.
The newly elected governments of Greece and Spain prevailed in their countries, and Belgium's ruling Liberal-Socialist Government held its own. But everywhere else, ruling parties received hostile receptions.
People across Europe have delivered crushing blows of no confidence in their governments, as the European Parliament elections produced a ragtag influx of anti-European and rebel MPs. Turn-out was low and those casting votes did so in droves in protest against their own governments or the idea of the European Parliament itself.
Up to 15 percent of the European seats will now be held by representatives who do not have faith in the institution itself, and the tendency of voters to cast their votes based on domestic issues has landed rebels in the Parliament.
The incomplete counting so far indicates that centre-right parties will hold about a third of the 732-seat assembly, and socialist parties about a quarter, with the remainder held by Liberal Democrats, Eurosceptics and small country-based parties.
With results available for 68 of Britain's 78 seats, the United Kingdom Independence Party quadrupled its representation to 12 seats. Tony Blair's Labour Party won just 17 seats and the Conservatives 25. Not all the newly elected UKIP members are certain they will attend the European Parliament and the party's general thrust is for EU withdrawal.
The newly elected governments of Greece and Spain prevailed in their countries, and Belgium's ruling Liberal-Socialist Government held its own. But everywhere else, ruling parties received hostile receptions.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Mugabe nationalises the lot in shock land grab
The Zimbabwe Government has banned all private land ownership and will nationalise all farmland and privately-owned game parks. The move has been described as the "single biggest shock" of President Robert Mugabe's rule since independence from Britain in 1980.
"This has effectively turned back the clock and put Zimbabwe back into the centuries-old feudal economic systems which benefited the kings and their aristocrats and impoverished the poor," said prominent Zimbabwean economist John Robertson.
In an announcement in the state-owned Herald newspaper, John Nkomo, the Special Affairs Minister in the President's office in charge of Land Reform and Resettlement, ordered all private landowners to give up their land to the Government immediately.
Note: Last Christmas holidays, I met a number of Zimbabwean families who have immigrated to New Zealand to escape the Mugabe regime. Without exception, they were all dismayed at what is happening in New Zealand under the current government. Actually, angry would be a better word. They could not believe that New Zealanders can't see where the government is taking us.
The Zimbabwe Government has banned all private land ownership and will nationalise all farmland and privately-owned game parks. The move has been described as the "single biggest shock" of President Robert Mugabe's rule since independence from Britain in 1980.
"This has effectively turned back the clock and put Zimbabwe back into the centuries-old feudal economic systems which benefited the kings and their aristocrats and impoverished the poor," said prominent Zimbabwean economist John Robertson.
In an announcement in the state-owned Herald newspaper, John Nkomo, the Special Affairs Minister in the President's office in charge of Land Reform and Resettlement, ordered all private landowners to give up their land to the Government immediately.
Note: Last Christmas holidays, I met a number of Zimbabwean families who have immigrated to New Zealand to escape the Mugabe regime. Without exception, they were all dismayed at what is happening in New Zealand under the current government. Actually, angry would be a better word. They could not believe that New Zealanders can't see where the government is taking us.
Lies, damned lies and science
Roger Pielke Jr., Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado warned two years ago in the prestigious science journal Nature, "Many scientists [now] willingly adopt tactics of demagoguery and character assassination as well as, or even instead of, reasoned argument," in promoting their views. This politicization of science, he worried, has led some scientists to "manipulate 'facts' to support" their advocacy, "undermining the scientific community's ability to advise policy makers." Consequently, he warned, science "is becoming yet another playing field for power politics, complete with the trappings of political spin and a win-at-all-costs attitude."
Pielke's concern is well illustrated by events surrounding the death of Ronald Reagan, which has been used to promote stem cell research on the basis that it will help sufferers of Alzheimers (Reagan was one).
Scientists who have been telling Nancy Reagan that embryonic stem cell research could cure Alzheimer's now admit that it isn't true. But "people need a fairy tale", Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told Washington Post reporter Rick Weiss, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a "whole brain disease," rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news.
Weiss has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, "stem cell experts confess...that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit."
But people like Nancy Reagan have been allowed to believe otherwise, "a distortion" Weiss writes that "is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." The false story line helps generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, "It [Nancy Reagan's statement in support of ESCR] is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum."
Political science has become so bad that a few biotech advocates have
resorted to outright misrepresentation. One of the most notorious of
these cases occurred in Australia, where Alan Trounson, a leading stem cell researcher (as reported by The Australian on August 27, 2002) admitted that he released a misleading video to "win over politicians" during that country's Parliamentary debate over embryonic stem cell research. The video depicted a disabled rat regaining the ability to walk after being injected with embryonic stem cells--or so Trounson claimed. In actuality, the experiment used cadaveric fetal tissue from five-to-nine-week old aborted human fetuses, an altogether different approach that was irrelevant to the embryonic stem cell debate. Parliamentarians were furious, forcing a highly embarrassed Trounson to apologize abjectly.
Roger Pielke Jr., Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado warned two years ago in the prestigious science journal Nature, "Many scientists [now] willingly adopt tactics of demagoguery and character assassination as well as, or even instead of, reasoned argument," in promoting their views. This politicization of science, he worried, has led some scientists to "manipulate 'facts' to support" their advocacy, "undermining the scientific community's ability to advise policy makers." Consequently, he warned, science "is becoming yet another playing field for power politics, complete with the trappings of political spin and a win-at-all-costs attitude."
Pielke's concern is well illustrated by events surrounding the death of Ronald Reagan, which has been used to promote stem cell research on the basis that it will help sufferers of Alzheimers (Reagan was one).
Scientists who have been telling Nancy Reagan that embryonic stem cell research could cure Alzheimer's now admit that it isn't true. But "people need a fairy tale", Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told Washington Post reporter Rick Weiss, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a "whole brain disease," rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news.
Weiss has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, "stem cell experts confess...that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit."
But people like Nancy Reagan have been allowed to believe otherwise, "a distortion" Weiss writes that "is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." The false story line helps generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, "It [Nancy Reagan's statement in support of ESCR] is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum."
Political science has become so bad that a few biotech advocates have
resorted to outright misrepresentation. One of the most notorious of
these cases occurred in Australia, where Alan Trounson, a leading stem cell researcher (as reported by The Australian on August 27, 2002) admitted that he released a misleading video to "win over politicians" during that country's Parliamentary debate over embryonic stem cell research. The video depicted a disabled rat regaining the ability to walk after being injected with embryonic stem cells--or so Trounson claimed. In actuality, the experiment used cadaveric fetal tissue from five-to-nine-week old aborted human fetuses, an altogether different approach that was irrelevant to the embryonic stem cell debate. Parliamentarians were furious, forcing a highly embarrassed Trounson to apologize abjectly.
Yet another disguised tax increase
The government has just handed us another tax increase, buried in proposals to change immigration and citizenship laws.
At the moment, when you fork out $70 for a passport renewal ($140 for urgent treatment), the passport lasts for 10 years.
Internal Affairs Minister George Hawkins says 10 years is too long in today's world of hightech forgers. So now you'll have to fork out every five years instead. Bet they put the price up as well.
The government has just handed us another tax increase, buried in proposals to change immigration and citizenship laws.
At the moment, when you fork out $70 for a passport renewal ($140 for urgent treatment), the passport lasts for 10 years.
Internal Affairs Minister George Hawkins says 10 years is too long in today's world of hightech forgers. So now you'll have to fork out every five years instead. Bet they put the price up as well.
No excuses - I was just wrong.
Boy, was I wrong about the rugby! No excuses. And weren't the All Blacks amazing. The most complete performance seen in many years. Should have the Aussies worried, especially if they can recreate it this coming weekend.
Boy, was I wrong about the rugby! No excuses. And weren't the All Blacks amazing. The most complete performance seen in many years. Should have the Aussies worried, especially if they can recreate it this coming weekend.
