Education (National Standards / School Closures): Feeling Our Way to the Police State Without Thinking.

Without entering the debate on whether National Standards in our state school system are up to much of anything, here goes the feel versus think problem again. From a Twitter discussion with Citizen Bomber this morning (and I still don’t understand Martyn Bradbury’s handle):

Thinking: Why shouldn't parents have such information? And if National Standards are incomplete - why?

Feeling: Because there is no academic value measuring educational rates on children this young, it’s about injecting false competition.

Thinking: But aren't we talking the most important, informative, age in education? This is precisely the age we need to pinpoint causes.

Feeling: (1/2) You miss my point - there is no value knowing this at that age because Children learn at very different speeds … (2/2) this isn't about educational achievement measurement, its about creating false competition models via league tables.

Thinking: So are you saying there is no rich/poor divide in education then?

Feeling: I'm saying no such thing, I'm saying measuring educational achievement at this age is pointless.

Thinking: How can you say there is rich/poor divide in education, so we must throw money at it, AND say achievement can't be measured?

If you believe that you can't meaningfully measure academic achievement at this age, then you shouldn't be advocating government must 'do something about a supposed disadvantage showing in low decile schools', because under your own definitions, no such conclusions as to 'disadvantage' can be made.

And in other education news I note my below letter to the editor made the first slot and title for letters to the editor in this morning’s Press. (Sorry mum, I hope the hate mail's not too bad).

Some small, but vocal, section of Christchurch seems to be reverting to cry-babyhood. On the issue of school closures, teachers and parents instead of teaching their (primary school) children in an adult fashion about the inevitable nature of change - that can be embraced for its positives - are feeding them inappropriate emotions on how to make a childish tantrum pay off politically via protest. On Campbell Live I saw one poor kid in my old primary school, Greenpark, worked up into tears: that was irresponsible. Regarding the school issue, the Cathedral issue, et al: some people in the city have to grow up, and teachers need to set a proper example to the children, of adult behaviour, rather than operating on the level of their students, John Minto, or Sue Bradford. Plus if you want to keep your schools open, there is a solution: charter schools.

Christchurch Needs to Grow Up - School Closures

This morning NBR posted a piece on how the Advertising Standards Authority have found earthquake advertisements – showing what to do in the event of one - by Civil Defence were not insensitive to the children of Christchurch, after a complaint was made to that effect. I simply paste below my reply to that thread:

This is silly. As someone still with a house in Christchurch, but not living there any longer, my opinion is that some probably small, but vocal, section of the city is reverting to cry-babyhood. On the issue of school closures, for example, teachers and parents instead of teaching their (primary school) children in an adult fashion about the inevitable nature of change - that can be embraced for its positives - are feeding them inappropriate emotions on how to make a childish tantrum pay off politically via protest. On Campbell Live I saw one poor kid in my old primary school, Greenpark, worked up into tears: that was irresponsible.

Yes, there are lots of problems, and mainly in the way Government is squashing property rights within the CBD, and in how Government EQC interacts with insurers - we've given up having our house fixed for years - but regarding the school issue, the Cathedral issue, et al: some people in the city have to grow up, and teachers need to set a proper example to the children, of adult behaviour, rather than operating on the level of their students, John Minto or Sue Bradford. Plus if you want to keep your schools open, there is a solution: charter schools.

(Note it's the 'old issue' again: feeling on issues, rather than thinking them through. I will be posting the full piece on 'Feeling Our Way to the Police State, by not Thinking About It' soon.)

Update:

A nicely written op-ed on the Campbell Live reporting of this by John Roughan at Granny Herald.

.

Will You Take My Exchange Rate Contract, Mr Parker?

So if Labour wins in 2014, David Parker, Labour Finance Spokesman, will be looking to ‘target a lower exchange rate’. I simply offer to Mr Parker the same contract I have offered to Bernard Hickey in the past, (never taken up by him):

‘You seem to believe that a weak currency is an economic advantage, so I offer you the following contract. I shall exchange all the money in your house at the rate of 50 cents for each $1. Further, I will exchange all the income coming into your house, giving you 50 cents for each $1. You now have a weak currency and so will become an economic powerhouse (according to your theory), whereas poor old me am going to be hamstrung with a strong currency. I am, however, quite willing to offer you this contract/service. Do we have a deal? If so, we'll swap bank account numbers, you put all your money in my bank and I'll simply put half of that back in return. If no contact, why not?’

It doesn’t work economically, and philosophically it’s worse: it’s the bigger Big State. It’s your life controlled.

Hattip to Cafe Hayek.

Euthanasia Redux - For Mott's Sake, Support Maryan Street's Bill

Mercifully, Auckland man Evans Mott, who helped his multiple sclerosis suffering wife to die, happened across a compassionate judge today:

An Auckland man who helped his wife die was her "hero" and ending her suffering from multiple sclerosis was a "courageous" act, his lawyer has told a court. 

Evans James Mott, 61, was discharged without conviction in the High Court at Auckland this morning after he pleaded guilty to a charge of aiding and abetting the suicide of Rosemary Mott, who died at her home in Paritai Dr, Orakei, on December 28 last year. 

A packed public gallery of right-to-die advocates applauded when Justice Patricia Courtney announced Mott would not face a penalty. 

However, I take little succour from this, for a few paragraphs down is the cold text that should chill the heart of every warm blooded man or woman who has ever loved:

Rosie was suffering from an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis that gave her tremors, making it hard for her to feed herself, incontinence, and made it hard to walk. 

She resolved to take her life in 2010. 

Mansfield said Rosie needed someone who would listen to her, help her, and not betray her by reporting her to authorities. 

He asked the court to consider what it must have been like for Mott to have to say goodbye to his wife and leave the house while she took her life, so he could not be charged in relation to the death. 

My advocacy in this blog that a civilised society must go about its rule-making by thinking on man’s condition from within a morality of man qua man, heightens the rage I rightly feel when reading such a state-coerced tragic, because separated, ending for Mr and Mrs Mott. Mr Mott most certainly was his wife’s hero.

For me, the issues surrounding euthanasia have always been about two things:

Mrs Mott’s right to die with dignity, but also, equally:

Mr Mott’s right, which was denied him, to be in the same room, embraced with his loved one, Rosie, so she would not have to pass away, completely alone in the world.  

It takes no effort of imagination to be able to put myself in either of their minds and lives to understand how stricken they must have each been at that moment he had to leave their house, closing the door behind his still living, breathing, loving and brave but obviously desperate wife. Put yourself there: Mrs Mott watching her husband’s back from her bed, leaving; Mr Mott closing that final door behind them, and the sum of their lives together (as they were not allowed to be in death).

All those who made, and would continue to make, Mr Mott leave his wife to her last moments, alone, staring at the damned wallpaper, not into her husband’s eyes, the warmth of him next to her, are cruel, unfeeling, cold-hearted monsters. And this issue is no more complicated than that.

Repeat: and this issue is no more complicated than that.

Compassionate, loving and thinking human beings will support Labour MP Maryan Street’s upcoming euthanasia legislation. I think you can read between the lines on what I think about those who don’t, and how ironic a great many of them will be found pontificating from the pulpits of what they would try and convince me is a merciful God. Excuse me for my derision, and my contempt. No, no I don’t understand your merciless position: not one bit.

Finally, to the head of the doctor’s union - or whatever the name of that organisation is - whom I saw interviewed on the TV recently arrogantly saying that ‘doctors’ were against euthanasia: you are, on top of brutish, wrong: I know you’re wrong by deduction – doctors are humans also, of course there will be some who would have been willing to help Mr and Mrs Mott (and Maryan’s bill doesn’t  make it compulsory for doctors to provide this humane service, they have choice to: you do understand that?) And don’t think you’re speaking for your patients either: a no doubt deeply distressed Mr Mott could have told you that if you’d been standing with him on his lawn outside his home, on 28 December last year – you see, his wife was inside dying, alone.


Update 1:

Mr Mott's own words state the case for euthanasia law: 'Rosie should not have died alone':

"For Rosie to be that sick and to die alone by her own hand, that's not right. Our family should have been around her to say goodbye."

As a result of the court case, Evans has become the reluctant public face of the campaign to legalise euthanasia.

He advocates that New Zealand should allow euthanasia by a medical professional, as in some Scandinavian countries, and subject to tight controls.

"Imagine if you had a dog which was old, can hardly walk and in constant pain. The SPCA would charge you with animal cruelty. If you can be merciful to an animal and put them down, why does society say no when it's a family member? The system is flawed.
"
Evans rejects the assertion of those who oppose moves to legalise euthanasia.

"I have the right to choose for me and equally those people have the right to choose for themselves. Just as I have no right to choose for them".

Update 2:

I really can be a bit thick at times, or rather, I pay scant attention to the workings of Parliament because what goes on there makes me so angry, but anyway, after a Twitter discussion with MP Maryan Street - who on this issue is excellent - I now find out that her Euthanasia Bill is only one of 60 Bills in the ballot, and may never come up. So on top of all the other problems with our social democracies, now I have to add morality by raffle.

Anyway, the final ignominy on this issue is that to get this legislation up for vote, even, and have control of my death, I would have to vote Labour, who want complete control of my life, via my wallet, while I'm living.

In the face of contradictory nonsense like this, we need a Western Spring.

.