Thursday, April 12, 2007

Sack the lot of them!

Between 50 - 60 jobs to be axed at TVNZ's news & current affairs section as the broadcaster faces a 15.5% drop in net profit. But if cuts are due to a loss in (advertising?) revenue which is directly linked to declining ratings, then the news-makers have only themselves to blame. TVNZ news is rubbish.

Their political bias gives me indigestion, in particular the revolting adulation of Helen Clark. Previously the press nick-named her "Teflon Helen," because scandals and bad news never sticks to her. Why? Coz the very same journos who coined the term are too cowardly to challenge 9th floor spin, or too clueless to investigate any incriminating leads. John Tamihere, who's seen & worked with her up close, describes her as 'highly emotional' and 'someone who falls to pieces easily'. Yet our hacks ignored him, instead repeating the "strong leader" mantra.

Elsewhere the political news is fluff. E.g. The prime minister goes to Washington & the big scoop is prez Bush complimenting a kiwi journo on his suit. Or a minister makes an unsavoury or unwelcome comment about a journalist. Or an MP is angry at a journalist's slant. Our fat-headed hacks have come to believe that they themselves are the story, not the messenger.

In domestic news the lies du jour are reiterated ad nauseum: the obesity epidemic; global warming; policemen are rapists. These are interspersed with cute & cuddly lifestyle stories better suited to women's mags. Do we care about grandmothers riding Harleys? Or opera singers aspiring to become rock stars? Or some floozy's drink/drug/sex scandal?

Our imported international news clips are equally as vacuous. We know that "Bush is Bad" because CNN, ABC, NBC and other lefty American outfits keep telling us. We know that "America is Bad" because the BBC keeps telling us. And we need to keep flushing our taxpayers dollars down 3rd-world toilets because the U.N. keeps telling us.

If the news content is bad, the presentation is abysmal. In an hour's broadcast, you'd think every second is vital. But so much time is wasted on:

* Promos for upcoming news segments, reports or TV programmes.
* An anchor summarising the bulletin then cutting to a reporter who repeats the same info.
* Interviewing non-entities on the street. Asking random strangers such pearls as: "How would you defrost a giant squid?"
* Overuse of contrived puns and word plays to introduce or wrap-up stories.
* Reporters telling us their names and TV network. We already know this; we can read your name and the everpresent TV logo.
* Chummy, contrived chit-chat between anchors.

Face it, the news is near plain unwatchable. So TVNZ can fire their entire news crews for all I care. For info & gossip I'd rather read bloggers who are at least honest about their quirks & biases.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Who's surpised?

The Christchurch Health & Development Study says young women (15-21) who have abortions attain higher educational achievements, and show improved outcomes in employment, welfare dependence and relationships. I haven't read the research (and the msm are notorious for spinning an entire article from selectively extracted tidbits) but the reported results don't surprise me. One sentence stands out.
"Women who had abortions had similar outcomes to women who did not become pregnant before the age of 21."
It doesn't mean abortion makes you smart, but simply that childless women make better students/employees than mothers. Anyone astonished, given the enormous costs of parenting? Non-mothers can focus on study/career goals without the distraction of newborns who require enormous amounts of time, effort, attention and MONEY. Broken sleeps, exhaustion, unrelenting drudgery, and 'enslavement' to baby's whims ensure that motherhood's demands are never conducive to study, work (& economic dependence), or romance. Thus it's unsurprising that employment, welfare & relationship conditions are worse for mums than non-mums.

The research merely affirms common sense and observation: if young women wish to achieve well academically or careerwise, they shouldn't get pregnant. That's what folks (both pro- and anti- abortion) have been saying for years.

It's an ongoing longitudinal study. I wonder if the same cohort will be interviewed again in 20 or 30 years? Wonder how the mums & careerists will feel then, reflecting on their earlier life choices. One thing is certain, and the researchers make clear, that many more studies are needed to address these issues.
Hmm. Don't researchers always say that about their pet topics? :-)

Sunday, April 8, 2007

Cop this!

The politicisation of the police force continues. A new process makes it easier to fire 'unsuitable' cops. The current Police Tribunal, which demands a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt before sacking errant cops, will be replaced by a system "based on the balance of probability, and fairness." Margaret Bazley, a wildly overpraised bureaucrat who is neither an employment lawyer nor judge, and has no policing experience, much less as an investigating officer in Internal Investigations or Internal Affairs, says:
"the standard of proof was too high for dealing with employment matters such as poor job performance or misconduct."
It was one of the recommendations in Bazley's report, but the move was signaled long before the report's release. This (imo) was Helen Clark's intention all along. To be able to sack 'non-compliant' officers without fuss. Eventually we won't get a good police force, we'll get the cops that Labour wants. We can expect more instances of Clark's malfeasance going unchallenged because it's "not in the public's interest" to investigate despite there being any prima facie case to support prosecution. Who'd risk Helen wrath? The descent into corruption continues unabated.

This won't help police recruitment shortages. Standards will drop further. Who'd risk becoming a cop (getting regularly abused, spat at, assaulted, bitten, stabbed) when all your career efforts can easily come to nought when you're deemed unsuitable by an MP with a grudge?

And don't expect the biggest police bashers, our media, to champion the employment or legal rights of cops. Released quietly in the Easter Break, without fanfare, this disturbing development might overshadow the msm's lionization of their new hero - the lying exhibitionist slut, Louise Nicholas.

In many countries deprived of free-speech, journalists risk imprisonment, torture, and death to expose govt wrongdoing. Here in NZ, our ignorant hacks through omission and collusion, are actually abetting the slow death of law, integrity and govt transparency.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Oi oi oi!

If American, Michael Phelps, is swimming's "Boy Wonder," then surely Australia's Libby Lenton deserves the title "Wonder Woman." In the 2007 world champs in Melbourne, the Aussie swimming sensation collected the 50m & 100m free, 100 butterfly titles plus 2 relay gold medals. Incredibly, as lead off swimmer in a 4x100m mixed relay between US vs. Oz, she showed grit, graft, and God-given gift to clock a record time of 52.99 seconds (cracking the 53-sec mark) and became the fastest woman swimmer in history. Woo-hoo!

Sadly, her time (legitimate, in my book) may not be be duly recorded because of fuzzy rule interpretations by the officious officials of international swimming. But if the FINA pedants won't honour her feat, let's hope the Guiness Book of World Records will give Ms Lenton her due. There's no doubt in my mind - and anyone who witnessed her stunning achievement - she's truly the Fastest Woman Swimmer Ever and should be recognised as such. Go, Libby!

Monday, April 2, 2007

Where have all the young men gone?

Jan Peeters, a visiting 'expert' tells the Early Childhood Council's annual conference that NZ is one of the 'worst' developed countries regarding men working in early childcare.
"NZ has 13,609 women & only 132 men working in its free Kindgartens, childcare centres & in homebased care. (2005 figures) Since the early 1990s the percentage of men.. has halved from 2% to less than 1%"
The clouds of the Peter Ellis scandal still hang heavily over the sector. His legacy shows men risk complete ruination when accused of molesting children in their charge. They face media hysteria, an unrelenting prosecution, a hostile justice system, plus a host of virulent psychologists & 'specialists' with a dim agenda. It's a gamble.

Imo, early childcare must be a vocational calling; men must first be passionately driven, committed and temperamentally suited. Very few fit the bill. Then there's the accelerating political correctness such as shunning war games & boisterous physical play, and the overwrought concern about giving cultural offense. E.g., some centres won't use play dough containing flour (food) as it allegedly aggrieves Maoris (rather odd; during my time helping at Kohanga Reo, no one ever objected to using flour for play dough or paste.) How many men are prepared to work in such a gingerly environment?

By contrast, Mr Peeters says 30% of Kohanga workers are men, but I doubt the comparison is valid. The kaupapa (underlying philosophy) of Kohanga is very different & unfashionably un-PC: men & women ARE intrinsically different; relationships are hierarchic not egalitarian; spirituality, often a curious blend of Christianity & Maori paganism, infuses the curriculum; plus the strict divisions of gender, age & seniority at rituals such as powhiri (welcome ceremonies) are inapplicable to mainstream institutions. Also, many (male) workers are themselves, students of the language. There's a saying: if you want to learn to speak Maori, go to Kohanga where everyone, regardless of age, is a student.

Ultimately however, new questions arise. With no legal impediments barring men or women in their job choice, do gender disparities across various career sectors really matter? Who else, apart from utopians & social engineers, cares about the skewed distribution of men & women in any given field? One can insist on equal opportunities, but can one always expect equal outcomes?