Blog Bits
- Bryce Edwards summarises a study of the television coverage of the 2008 election. It’s disappointing how little focus on policy there was.
- Claire Trevett’s unofficial John Key’s Pacific Diary is a great read.
- The Dim-Post suggests Phil Goff needs to give a speech repudiating their nanny state legacy. I hope Goff doesn’t take his advice.
- Trevor Loudon reveals the new President of the NDU used to be a Young National!
- Toad thinks private income protection insurance is the same as being on the dole. He gets savaged in his comments section, and Whale responds here.
- Tony Milne ponders opposition politics.
- MacDoctor blogs on obesity and how an obese parent makes a child six to ten times more likely to be obese. So regulating school tuck shops is not the answer. An excellent post.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Blog Bits
July 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Without reading the post, isn’t that a bit like saying junkie parents are more likely to have junkie kids, therefore regulating heroin is not the answer?
July 14th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
DPF said: Toad thinks private income protection insurance is the same as being on the dole.
I didn’t actually say that DPF. What I was pointing out is that Whale is being hypocritical in calling those who are unemployed or unemployable and forced to rely on state assistance “bludgers” while he, also unemployed and apparently unemployable, somehow sees himself as being a higher species because he was fortunate enough to have been able to get income protection insurance.
I’ll admit I was a bit naughty with the post title, but just couldn’t resist the pun.
[DPF: It was a silly personal post. Income protection insurance is a choice. Many people can afford it but do not take it out. You also suggested he should be independently audited, not realising he has been on numerous occassions - in fact far more often that someone on a benefit is.
If you also read what Cameron has written in the past, he has said that he wants a gold plated welfare system for those genuinely unable to work. That is very different to those who choose not to look for a job, but can work]
July 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Do obese children of obese parents absorb obesity cutaneously, from the obesity-laden air in their obese parents’ houses?
Or do they learn from their parents’ example to eat FATTY SHIT food, available from shops everywhere?
So, they go to the school tuck-shop in search of such food, and find either:
(1) plenty of FATTY SHIT food that will contribute to their obesity
(2) no FATTY SHIT food, only healthier options. Which they must choose from, as they are not allowed off campus at lunchtime.
Nah, this is about the true evil of the nanny state, and their hideous plan to get state school pupils eating good food instead of FATTY SHIT. A truly ghastly plot to take away our freedom. Freedom Fighters, To Arms!!
(edit: capitalisation of FATTY SHIT)
July 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Toad, that post was beneath you and you know it. To quote the phrase of the month, when you wrestle with a pig in shit you both get dirty etc.
I think your post was a revelation to me, that Cameron Slater gets to you.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Ryan Sproull (2170) Vote: 0 1 Says:
July 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
MacDoctor blogs on obesity and how an obese parent makes a child six to ten times more likely to be obese. So regulating school tuck shops is not the answer. An excellent post.
Without reading the post, isn’t that a bit like saying junkie parents are more likely to have junkie kids, therefore regulating heroin is not the answer?
…………
Yes, Yes it is. And both statements would be correct.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Fair enough, ovation. I’m inclined to agree. But what do you think is the answer?
July 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
ratbiter the only fatty shit round here is in your skull.
right where normal kids would engage a bit of planning and responsiblity in a sensible world, and remember to take their own homemade lunch, you illustrate that socialist kids are just too fucking dumb to think.
ooh no poor little johnny! he can’t get off campus for lunch! oh no! the lazy fool will die of starvation!
if kids were taught to think, instead of gobble socialist idealism, they wouldn’t need your dumbass list of bans.
but if they could think, they’d never vote left.
hmmm. a conumdrum for leftwing governments. what to do, what to do. on the one hand they have fat ignorant voters supporting them, on the other, healthy thinking voters not voting for them. which do you reckon they’ll pick?
July 14th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Perhaps there isn’t an ‘answer’ as such. Stupid decisions have bad consequences, people who are prone to making stupid decisions are always going to be a burden on the public, either through tax funded healthcare, or tax funded food banning initiatives and their associated policing and admin costs.
I’m sure someone has some figures to prove “an ounce of prevention, is worth a pound of cure” in this sense I don’t know. I was merely rebutting your comment
July 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Perhaps there isn’t a problem as such. Though it’s easier to dismiss the bad consequences of adult bad decisions than those bad decisions by children and facilitated by schools.
There’s also the question of correlation and causation in obese parents having obese children. The factors that contribute to obesity are probably inheritable – generational poverty, poor education, lack of positive role models perhaps. Who knows?
July 14th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
We could just stop trying to pervert the course of natural selection.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Bryce’s post – the first in a series, he says, so I’ll be following with interest – is well worth a read.
I don’t have time today to analyse and think about the issues as much as I’d like, so I hope DPF links to subsequent posts in order to give me an excuse to pontificate further
But two quick thoughts spring to mind.
Neither TV network did well covering policy. But how much of that is due to their reporters’ inability to grasp the issues and thus keeping away from them; how much is due to their assumption we don’t want to hear detail; and how much is due to the tactics of the political parties in deliberately making political campaigning a policy-free zone?
Much as I find the antics of most media increasingly intolerable, I suspect the fault lies as much with the political strategists as with the editors and reporters. So who’ll break the circle – will the media demand detail? Will the politicians start giving it and pointing out (via the blogosphere, perhaps) that the media aren’t doing their job? Or will the audience finally revolt?
Second, there’s an interesting analysis of the reporting of “scandals and gaffes”. Again my first instinct is to roll my eyes and blame the media for superficiality.
But looked at another way, scandals and gaffes go to fitness to govern. And when everything else is tightly controlled and spun – when we’re not allowed to know details of the President’s background and when the would-be Vice President resigns and won’t say why – then “was he staring at that woman’s arse?” and “has she ever read a newspaper?” become code for “is this someone who’s fit to govern?”.
Discuss. Each question is worth 20 points
July 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“content analysis shows that the sources of political news – i.e. the politicians – ‘took up less than one quarter of the time in stories’ in terms of us hearing them speak (p.45). The rest of the time – about 77% of it – was made with the journalist or presenter speaking.”
July 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Good point petal. I should have added another option: “To what extent is the superficiality of electronic media dictated by the fact that most of their highly paid presenters are wankers who love the sound of their own voices and think every story is about them?”
July 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
But Rex, the MMS are entrapped in their ‘cat stuck up tree’ 5 second sound bite paradigm. They simply don’t see “analysis” as relevant to what they do. They talk about it, they ’sell’ the blather as ‘analysis’, but in reality they don’t do it – and they know it. So why do we expect it of them? In many ways, the internet means that the MMS are no longer relevant. They don’t place value on a quality-based brand. Its just a sales/ratings kind of a thing. In fact, they aren’t that far removed from reality TV. It won’t be long before the dreadful little copy cat troll is producing a “news” program.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I am interested in the true identity of Toad. Is anybody able to indulge me?
Answers on my blog or to my email address