Friday, December 03, 2004
Christmas gets a reprieve
There are some encouraging signs that the PC brigade are not getting it all their own way this Christmas. There has been a trend worldwide in recent years to try and eliminate any references to the Christian faith during Christmas celebrations. Some schools only allow the greeting "Happy holiday", for example. This is madness, of course, as without Christianity there is no Christmas. It's all supposed to be in the name of not offending people of other beliefs, even though people of other religions don't appear to be complaining. Anyway, there has been an outbreak of commonsense in Sydney, where the owner of a hamburger bar has been allowed to reinstate a nativity scene after initially having it banned, and the Daily Telegraph has taken the Sydney Lord Mayor's office to task for its mean-spirited Christmas decorations.
As The Telegraph points out in its editorial: "why should there be any concern that by celebrating Christmas we run the risk of offending members of non-Christian communities? In this country, bound by secular customs and practices as much as by religious observances, none is excluded from the Christmas compact of giving and receiving, of sharing of the human spirit."
There are some encouraging signs that the PC brigade are not getting it all their own way this Christmas. There has been a trend worldwide in recent years to try and eliminate any references to the Christian faith during Christmas celebrations. Some schools only allow the greeting "Happy holiday", for example. This is madness, of course, as without Christianity there is no Christmas. It's all supposed to be in the name of not offending people of other beliefs, even though people of other religions don't appear to be complaining. Anyway, there has been an outbreak of commonsense in Sydney, where the owner of a hamburger bar has been allowed to reinstate a nativity scene after initially having it banned, and the Daily Telegraph has taken the Sydney Lord Mayor's office to task for its mean-spirited Christmas decorations.
As The Telegraph points out in its editorial: "why should there be any concern that by celebrating Christmas we run the risk of offending members of non-Christian communities? In this country, bound by secular customs and practices as much as by religious observances, none is excluded from the Christmas compact of giving and receiving, of sharing of the human spirit."
Thursday, December 02, 2004
"It's over!" -- but does it have to be?
In an age when divorce is easy, and people separate rather than work through difficulties, it's encouraging when you read of a couple who go to the brink, and then decide to fight rather than accept the inevitable. There seemed no hope for Rose's marriage: neither loved the other, neither met the other's needs, and too many bitter words had been said. What happened next is an inspiration.
In an age when divorce is easy, and people separate rather than work through difficulties, it's encouraging when you read of a couple who go to the brink, and then decide to fight rather than accept the inevitable. There seemed no hope for Rose's marriage: neither loved the other, neither met the other's needs, and too many bitter words had been said. What happened next is an inspiration.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
How PC might have been 200 years ago!
It is October 1805, the eve of the Battle of Trafalgar...
"Order the signal, Hardy."
"Aye, aye sir."
"Hold on, that's not what I dictated to the signal officer. What's the meaning of this?"
"Sorry sir?"
"England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability. What gobbledygook is this?"
"Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
"Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
"Sorry sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments."
"In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the mainbrace to steel the men before battle."
"The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."
"Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it. Full speed ahead."
"I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."
"Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest, please."
"That won't be possible, sir."
"What?"
"Health and safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness. And they said that rope ladder doesn't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
"Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
"He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo'c'sle Admiral."
"Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."
"Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
"Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card."
"Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
"Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
"A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let the crew put up the rigging without crash helmets. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"
" I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
"The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
"What? This is mutiny."
"It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
"Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"
"Actually, sir, we're not."
"We're not?"
"No, sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."
"But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
"I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-coordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary."
"You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your King."
"Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules."
"Don't tell me - health and safety..... Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"
As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu. And there's a ban on corporal punishment."
"What about sodomy?"
"I believe it's to be encouraged, sir"
"In that case, kiss me, Hardy."
It is October 1805, the eve of the Battle of Trafalgar...
"Order the signal, Hardy."
"Aye, aye sir."
"Hold on, that's not what I dictated to the signal officer. What's the meaning of this?"
"Sorry sir?"
"England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability. What gobbledygook is this?"
"Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."
"Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."
"Sorry sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments."
"In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the mainbrace to steel the men before battle."
"The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."
"Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it. Full speed ahead."
"I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."
"Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest, please."
"That won't be possible, sir."
"What?"
"Health and safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness. And they said that rope ladder doesn't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."
"Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."
"He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo'c'sle Admiral."
"Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."
"Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."
"Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of admiral by playing the disability card."
"Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."
"Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."
"A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let the crew put up the rigging without crash helmets. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"
" I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."
"The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."
"What? This is mutiny."
"It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."
"Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"
"Actually, sir, we're not."
"We're not?"
"No, sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."
"But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."
"I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-coordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary."
"You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your King."
"Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules."
"Don't tell me - health and safety..... Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"
As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu. And there's a ban on corporal punishment."
"What about sodomy?"
"I believe it's to be encouraged, sir"
"In that case, kiss me, Hardy."
More concerns over health of IVF babies
Children born as a result of in-vitro fertilisation are four times more likely to suffer from an illness that pre-disposes them to birth defects and cancer, an article in The Scotsman claims.
The research into children born with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome has prompted scientists to issue further warnings about the dangers of human cloning.
It's yet another warning about the dangers of IVF, following close on a surprisingly negative report from the UK's Medical Research Council (MRC), which has concluded that contrary to popular belief, the evidence for the long-term health of IVF babies is "relatively weak" compared to other well-established clinical techniques. Some patients, it says, are "prepared to undergo any treatment that might help them conceive" and had not considered the long-term implications. "With couples willing to go to great lengths to have a child," the MRC says, "it is of paramount importance to safeguard the health of these children from the moment they are conceived until they grow up and want to start families of their own."
The UK's fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, asked the MRC to review the potential health effects of artificial reproduction technology. Like most other studies, the MRC's survey highlighted the risk of implanting several embryos to increase the chance of having a single baby. It also pointed out that even single IVF pregnancies are "more likely than naturally conceived ones to have complications and poorer outcomes for mother and child."
The report, "Assisted reproduction: a safe, sound future", was the result of a two-year review of IVF, but it was barely covered by the media. In it the MRC called for more information on the on-going health of IVF children and a new system for evaluating new IVF techniques or refinements of old ones. Gathering the information, however, may be difficult, because of privacy considerations and the need for informed consent.
Children born as a result of in-vitro fertilisation are four times more likely to suffer from an illness that pre-disposes them to birth defects and cancer, an article in The Scotsman claims.
The research into children born with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome has prompted scientists to issue further warnings about the dangers of human cloning.
It's yet another warning about the dangers of IVF, following close on a surprisingly negative report from the UK's Medical Research Council (MRC), which has concluded that contrary to popular belief, the evidence for the long-term health of IVF babies is "relatively weak" compared to other well-established clinical techniques. Some patients, it says, are "prepared to undergo any treatment that might help them conceive" and had not considered the long-term implications. "With couples willing to go to great lengths to have a child," the MRC says, "it is of paramount importance to safeguard the health of these children from the moment they are conceived until they grow up and want to start families of their own."
The UK's fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, asked the MRC to review the potential health effects of artificial reproduction technology. Like most other studies, the MRC's survey highlighted the risk of implanting several embryos to increase the chance of having a single baby. It also pointed out that even single IVF pregnancies are "more likely than naturally conceived ones to have complications and poorer outcomes for mother and child."
The report, "Assisted reproduction: a safe, sound future", was the result of a two-year review of IVF, but it was barely covered by the media. In it the MRC called for more information on the on-going health of IVF children and a new system for evaluating new IVF techniques or refinements of old ones. Gathering the information, however, may be difficult, because of privacy considerations and the need for informed consent.
Grappling with chimeras
The US National Academy of Sciences is studying the ethical
limits of research with chimeras, or mixed-species animals, an issue
which is becoming more urgent with the development of stem cell
biology, the newsletter BioEdge reports. Scientists are already developing animals which have human organs and cells: pigs with human blood, sheep with largely human livers and hearts; mice with some human neurons. They are useful for research on the development of cells and could become medical resources as well. Some scientists are growing partially human organs in animals, for instance.
However, there are concerns about how far mixing species should go. As Stanford University ethicist Henry Greely told the Academy last month, "there is a non-trivial risk of conferring some significant
aspects of humanity" on animals. At one end of the ethical scale is
adding human genes to animals so that they produce human proteins,
such as insulin. At the other end is injecting human stem cells into
an animal embryo and transferring the chimeric embryo into an animal's womb. But what if the human stem cells developed into sperm and eggs? It could happen that a human embryo would form in the uterus of a mouse.
Perhaps the most daring experiment is being proposed by Irving Weissman, of Stanford, an expert in chimeras who has created mice
with a nearly complete human immune system, a development which has
been invaluable in AIDS research. Now he is toying with the idea of
making chimeric mice whose brains are 100% human. If they appeared
to have a "human architecture", they could be killed.
According to the Washington Post, some prominent scientists and
bioethicists have no ethical objections even to radical proposals
such as placing human embryos in the uterus of animals or making
mice with human brains. A bioethicist at the University of
Wisconsin, Robert Streiffer, for instance, told the Post that
creating a human-chimpanzee hybrid might not be a bad idea. "There's
a knee-jerk reaction that enhancing the moral status of an animal is
bad," he said. "but if you did it, and you gave it the protections
it deserves, how could the animal complain?"
The US National Academy of Sciences is studying the ethical
limits of research with chimeras, or mixed-species animals, an issue
which is becoming more urgent with the development of stem cell
biology, the newsletter BioEdge reports. Scientists are already developing animals which have human organs and cells: pigs with human blood, sheep with largely human livers and hearts; mice with some human neurons. They are useful for research on the development of cells and could become medical resources as well. Some scientists are growing partially human organs in animals, for instance.
However, there are concerns about how far mixing species should go. As Stanford University ethicist Henry Greely told the Academy last month, "there is a non-trivial risk of conferring some significant
aspects of humanity" on animals. At one end of the ethical scale is
adding human genes to animals so that they produce human proteins,
such as insulin. At the other end is injecting human stem cells into
an animal embryo and transferring the chimeric embryo into an animal's womb. But what if the human stem cells developed into sperm and eggs? It could happen that a human embryo would form in the uterus of a mouse.
Perhaps the most daring experiment is being proposed by Irving Weissman, of Stanford, an expert in chimeras who has created mice
with a nearly complete human immune system, a development which has
been invaluable in AIDS research. Now he is toying with the idea of
making chimeric mice whose brains are 100% human. If they appeared
to have a "human architecture", they could be killed.
According to the Washington Post, some prominent scientists and
bioethicists have no ethical objections even to radical proposals
such as placing human embryos in the uterus of animals or making
mice with human brains. A bioethicist at the University of
Wisconsin, Robert Streiffer, for instance, told the Post that
creating a human-chimpanzee hybrid might not be a bad idea. "There's
a knee-jerk reaction that enhancing the moral status of an animal is
bad," he said. "but if you did it, and you gave it the protections
it deserves, how could the animal complain?"
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
In a somewhat surprising turn-around, leader Don Brash says the National Party will no longer oppose the NZ Superannuation Fund set up by Michael Cullen, even though before the last election Brash labelled the fund "a serious mistake".
A real worry, though, is not which party thought up the idea, but whether the Fund will produce what is expected. In a revealing article about managed investment funds, economist Gareth Morgan points out that the Consumers Institute discovered that investors typically receive around a third of the returns their invested funds earn.
Now admittedly, this is largely because of the fees being creamed off by the investment managers. But the government fund also has to be managed by someone, and it would be revealing to know what the true administration costs are, and how much that reduces the worth of the fund.
A real worry, though, is not which party thought up the idea, but whether the Fund will produce what is expected. In a revealing article about managed investment funds, economist Gareth Morgan points out that the Consumers Institute discovered that investors typically receive around a third of the returns their invested funds earn.
Now admittedly, this is largely because of the fees being creamed off by the investment managers. But the government fund also has to be managed by someone, and it would be revealing to know what the true administration costs are, and how much that reduces the worth of the fund.
