"SMACK" vs "BEAT"

Following on from my rants concerning the tetchy subject of "child beating" and the upcoming "to child beat or not to child beat" people's referendum, some people have taken issue at my use of the word "beat" in preference to the word "smack".

To assist in any debate that I may have innocently provoked, please allow me to clarify the basis of my semantic choice:
"smack" is an anglo saxon word derived from the German 'smakken' or 'schmacken' and means to strike with something flat - like an open hand, or a ping pong paddle for instance - or even a plank of wood, a flat metal bar - or perhaps a cricket bat (but not a softball bat as this is round) as the word smack also means: "to drive with a sharp resounding blow or stroke".

When the "anti smacking law" hand wringers talk about 'smacking', I am presuming that they do not mean "to drive with a sharp resounding blow or stroke" - but, then again, the evidence is that perhaps some of them do... Well, there's always and exception to any rule, but I digress.

Semantically the word "smack" does not accommodate the many methods employed by parents whose children have got the better of them, who have run out of ideas and who thereby feel the overwhelming need to resort to ' physical discipline' - or in other words: "Teaching their children conflict resolution by means of violence.

After 25yrs in child safety advocacy, it is my experience that this "physical discipline" regularly includes the employment of jug cords and other electrical appliance leads, riding crops, bamboo canes, fists, backhanders, various sticks, rods and other similar implements and so on and so forth, sometimes grabbed in a moment of passion and sometimes deliberately selected and then used to beat the child. None of this is semantically or even technically 'smacking'.

Hence the proponents of the furore over the "anti smacking law" are not only seeking to pervert public perception of the law (in reality the The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 ) by the stealth and deception of applying a false title, they are also trying to undermine the integrity of the language by perverting the meaning of the very words we use to communicate.

While, clearly, the word "smack" is routinely misapplied in terms of physical discipline, the word "beat" has a far wider range of meanings that would appear, prima facie, to more truthfully describe actual physical punishment of children as it exists out here in the real world.

For instance - "beat" means:
to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly;
to break, forge, or make by blows;
to produce (an attitude, idea, habit, etc.) by repeated efforts: 'I'll beat some sense into him';
to strike (a person or animal) repeatedly;
to overcome in a contest; to defeat;
to be superior to;
to strike repeated blows; to pound;
a stroke or a blow;
the sound made by one or more such blows;
to achieve victory in a contest;
to escape or avoid (blame or punishment).

The final two are quite telling in the circumstances don't you think? Be all of this as it may, I don't think that any of these semantic distinctions really matter to a 3 or 4 - or 5 or 6 year old who is being flogged with a jug cord or a leather belt (and I use the word "flog" semantically, not emotively).

There is far too much being read into this situation by the people who perceive their parental rights to be evaporating. Contrary to the "anti smacking law' hand wringers, I suggest that the average parent has not been victimised by the above amendment to the Crimes Act and that the opposition to the law is being stirred up by fanatics who are cynically manipulating the argument to salve their own consciences or further their own perversions.

To their credit the police (and God knows the police don't need any more bad publicity) have not been arresting anyone under the auspices of this law except in cases of flagrant abuse! And where someone has fallen afoul of the law, in my opinion, should they be quietly slipped into the open population in Paremoremo where they can really learn the true meaning of "smack" in the vernacular rather than the pedantic, that would not be something that would keep me awake at night.

Let's stop playing with words and start caring for our children instead of for ourselves.

AS A CULTURE HOW DO WE CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN?

In 1984 I was the R & D supervisor on the Safe Playing Programme - a govt funded research programme based at the University of Waikato. Important resources for better parenting / child safety education etc etc were all there at the Programme ready to deploy nationally and evolve for the care and protection of our children - our future.

25years ago successful pilot programmes had already been run in Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua and Tokoroa - this at a time when our pitiful world ranking in child safety related issues were marginally better in some respects than they are today - a quarter of a century later!

What happened then? Nothing happened; because votes had already been won, because official consciences had been salved by the fact that 'something had been done', the programme funding was slowly withdrawn and the research was subsequently collected up put in boxes, shipped to Wellington and stored in a damp basement under Pearce House. A few years later, when it had all slipped from the public consciousness, it was dragged out again - to be taken to a dump in Lower Hutt and burnt.

This demonstrates our interest as a culture in child safety and good parenting. 25yrs later, with another two decades of a continuously deplorable record behind us, we strut about as if so little is wrong with the wellbeing of our children that we have the time to debate our right, or lack thereof, to beat our children as if this were, in the circumstances, a world shattering issue. It disgusts me as do the individuals behind this 'people's referendum' and, even more so, the corrupt 'public servant' who signed off on this $9million fiasco.

The so called "Anti Smacking Law", the issue at the centre of this ego driven trivia is a red herring. The fact that such a legally innocuous law, proven as such by the fact that it has worked pretty much as intended for the past two years, has provoked such a furore shows just how much trouble our children are really in.

VOTE YES!

VOTE YES

As a culture we devalue our children. Case in point: when a farmer sticks his 4yr old daughter (let me repeat that: four-year-old) in the driver's seat of an ATV that was a death trap even for an adult and lets her ride off while he turns his back to talk on a cellphone, and she is killed as a result - the police decide not to prosecute this idiot for manslaughter on the grounds that the poor man has already suffered enough. While the four year old is the one who has her life crushed from her by a decrepit farm bike that she should have been protected from, we turn the farmer into the victim. Had the child instead been a farm worker, there is no doubt that the farmer would have been prosecuted under OSH regulations.

I have more examples - but my claim is self evident isn't it? As a culture we devalue our children. We have appalling child abuse statistics. We have appalling child sexual abuse statistics. We have worse than appalling child accident statistics - most of the "accidents" are caused by inadequate or incompetent parental supervision in an environment where inadequate parents, supported by the specious research of some academics, keep thrashing about trying to find anything to blame other than their own inadequacy. As a culture we are also often not very adept at taking responsibility for our own behaviour. The statistics to which I refer have not improved since my becoming involved in child safety issues in 1984 and are worse than some so called "3rd world" countries. As a so called "first world" country, as far as the care and protection of our children are concerned, we often struggle to reach the level of being a total embarrassment!

In 2007, by an overwhelming majority of 113 to 8 votes, our parliament went some way towards redeeming our reputation by enacting a law that protected our children from physical assault. And although that law might not have been the most perfect law ever enacted, it was certainly in the top ten given some of the knee jerk single policy utter bollocks that storms through our parliament and into the statues unimpeded by either prudence or intelligent debate.

After this law, imperfect as it may or may not be, has been working pretty much perfectly as intended for the past TWO YEARS, an incompetent and arguably corrupt government official, wearing his partisan position pinned to his chest, at a cost of $9 million to the NZ taxpayer, has signed off on an ambiguous and misleading fiasco that threatens to remove this protection from our children by means of stealth and deception.

The upcoming referendum is a deplorable act the intent of which is to confuse people into supporting the rabid ideology of defective thinkers who are prepared to march, threaten and scream abuse for the right to beat their children. While our $9 million is being squandered on this referendum, are the individuals behind this asking themselves what that money could achieve were it to be spent on child protection instead of an adult ego trip? My question to these individuals is: if YOU support our right as a culture to beat our children, tell me, what EFFECTIVE steps have YOU taken recently to protect our children? Or is this all about adult rights and the children be damned?

When you are exercising your right to vote on this referendum ask yourself this. Do the rights of our children - our future - really matter to us? And if they do - where, in the circumstances, is the evidence of this?

Twitter Twatter

I had a twitter account once - but I found out that had too much to say and 140 characters didn't cut the mustard. My head threatened to explode; it was like an assassination plot and every other twitter member was culpable. I worked away tirelessly carving up my innermost thoughts and inspirations and posting the bits one after the other. And the thread was all upside fucking down! I was being driven slowly mad.

Then the Twitter Brain Police suspended my account for suspected "phishing" - well I never! (Snorts with hands on hips). I have never "'Phished" in my life (sounds like something that went on in the gloomy back bar of gay club I used play at when I was drumming for Tom Sharplin - not that I have anything against this sort of thing - whatever it is). After "words" with the fat conductor of Twitter I was informed that they had un-suspended me - which was good because all the blood had been rushing to my head; but when I checked my Twitter interface I was still suspended - locked out of the global GUI!

My face was turning blue, the pressure in my temples pushing the mercury to unbelievable extremes. I could not mind merge with the gestalt! It was a bad dream; the worst nightmare come true: arising from the ephemeral somnolent mind fields where the conscious mind treads at its peril, the dreamtime Phishing Entity, dripping with slime, was engulfing me claustrophobically, isolating me from the all nurturing trans-personal cyber organism - and they didn't care! They didn't care! I wanted to wake up but there was no respite. I couldn't even log in to close my account. It hung there in the ether of cyberspace taunting me with its obtuse arrogance! Waving its insolence in my face like a used tissue.

Finally, after counseling, I have learned to ignore it. Its still there, but I don't care. All thought of it has left my awareness. (left eyelid twitches)...

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal; well meaning but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis (1928). Oh... Oops, too late!

Martial ARTS

Karate and Kung Fu are definitive examples of meditative and character forming martial arts in which devotees who have dedicated their lives to years of intense training of both body and mind can, using only their hands and feet, make some of the worst movies in the history of cinema...

Pettifoggery

Did you hear that major research laboratories are starting to use lawyers instead of rats for their experiments? They find that the scientists don't get as attached to the lawyers (and there are some things that even rats wont do). Auctually, I just found out that if you cross a lawyer with the godfather you are likely to get an offer you can't understand.

Rankin Appointed to Families Commission

Your family and your children are NOT safe in the hands of Christine Rankin. Self aggrandizing egomania has as much place in the work of the Families Commission as a PR Consultancy's perfidy does in advising Aucklanders whats best for Auckland.

The Great West Auckland Motorway Tunnel Renegging

Its really hard not to see this tunnel / motorway backtrack, turnaround reneging farce as just a cynical way of diverting the attention of the great unwashed while Rodney and his overlords quietly steal away local democracy with their crony packed transition committee....

A Quote for Our Times

 'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.' Thomas Jefferson

AN OPEN RESPONSE TO MAYOR BOB HARVEY'S LETTER ON THE SUPER CITY

AN OPEN RESPONSE TO MAYOR BOB HARVEY'S LETTER ON THE SUPER CITY

Dear Bob
RE: Your recent letter on the proposed Auckland "Super City". It seems that Tacitus foresaw this proposal a couple of millennium ago when he commented : "A shocking crime committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive acquiescence of all."

Smaller local democratic run communities are what human beings function best and most healthy in - they are a good thing and should not be tampered with except to refine and strengthen them. The trouble is Bob, that Good Things often turn to shit because its human nature that every dickhead involved is compelled to tinker regardless of whether or not they have anything valid to add. So far the Super City concept appears little more than some dickhead trying to reinvent the wheel by making it square.

The ideology behind the Super City is predicated on the notion that the restructuring is for the benefit of not only 'Greater Auckland' but also the whole country. However the outcome for the individual people in the "local communities" will be the desperation and sickness consequent upon all huge social groups that have bloated outside the abilities of basic human nature to deal with them. 

You cannot successfully legislate against human nature except by attempting to contain the sickness that results with even more laws (Tacitus also commented that the degree of corruption in government is reflected in the number of laws it enacts). If you want to see a perfect example of a huge city running with perfect efficiency, you need look no further than an ant or termite nest. Then ask yourself, how important is the individual ant or termite to that system? 

We are at risk of losing our local identities and becoming strangers in a crowd! This is NOT "community". It is a nest of termites slaving for an administration that has lost sight of the individuals it was created to serve (not regulate). When its at their expense not only financially but socially, average Kiwis don't not want their communities restructured for the alleged benefit of the country (read "corporations"). Any restructuring should, first and foremost, be for the direct benefit of the local communities. 

I do not see this in any "Super City" plan made available so far. Indeed everything I have seen so far, added to by the nature those who are vigorously supporting this concept, confirms that "Super Cities" are little more than a cynical way for corrupt central administrations to suck desperately needed resources out of local communities to fund empire building. Anyone taking issue with this comment clearly has little knowledge of history and is committed to repeating mistakes from which we should have learned.

Then there is the question of the subjugation of democracy in the way this ideology is being railroaded! The sacrifice of democracy (no matter how small a part) on the alter of bureaucratic expediency and political ideology is simply fascism. While the illusion is that the Super City is in the interests of increased efficiency, the more efficient the system, the less relevant and less vigilant the individual - whereas the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. As a representative of the people, how vigilant are you when it comes to democracy? The system does not serve the individual by making them less vigilant; it is simply serving itself!

We once had an umbrella body that looked after the infrastructure of greater Auckland. Of course, like any human political creation it was not perfect but instead of working on it, repairing and refining it, it we pulled it apart and emasculated it. Then we stood back and said look how scewed up this is! Lets get rid of it altogether! Now the Government is trying to help us poor desperate Aucklanders with their shiny new (square) wheel.

To paraphrase Ronald Regan, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government and I'm here to help! 

Regards,
Jon Smyth
Woodlands Park 0604
Waitakere City

THE 20 PERKS OF BEING OVER 50

THE 20 PERKS OF BEING OVER 50

Bring this to the attention of everyone you know who is over 50 - if you are over 50, DO IT NOW (before your forget...) Oh, and if you are emailing it, put it in BIG PRINT.

01. Kidnappers are not very interested in you.
02. In a hostage situation you are likely to be released first. 
03. No one expects you to run anywhere..
04. If someone calls you at 9pm normally ask: "did I wake you?"
05. People no longer view you as a hypochondriac.
06. There is nothing left to learn the hard way.
07. Things you buy now won't wear out.
08. You can eat supper at 4pm. 
09. You can live without sex (but not your reading glasses).
10. You get into heated arguments over pension plans.
11. You no longer think of speed limits as a challenge.
12. You never hold your stomach in (no matter who enters the room). 
13. You sing along with elevator music.
14. Your eyes won't get much worse.
15. Your investment in health insurance is finally beginning to pay off. 
16. Your joints are more accurate meteorologists than the Met service.
17. Your secrets are safe with your old mates (they can't remember them either).
18. Your supply of brain cells is finally down to manageable size. 
19. You can't remember who sent you this list. 
20. Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.

Carl Sagan (The Demon Haunted World 1996)

Carl Sagan (The Demon Haunted World 1996)

"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's and grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching to our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical facilities in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.