Some computer humour.

A Veterinarian was feeling ill and went to see her doctor. The doctor asked her all the usual questions, about symptoms, how long had they been occurring, etc., when she interrupted him: “Hey look, I’m a vet. I don’t need to ask my patients these kind of questions: I can tell what’s wrong just by looking.” She smugly added, “Why can’t you?”

The doctor nodded, stood back, looked her up and down, quickly wrote out a prescription, handed it to her and said, “There you are. Of course, if that doesn’t work, we’ll have to have you put to sleep.”

Source.

Idiot once again lies through his teeth about the old smacking law.

Here’s the report on Stuff.

In September, a High Court jury found Mikaio guilty of wounding son Benjamin with intent to injure and neglecting to provide him with the necessaries of life by delaying getting medical treatment.

Mikaio admitted the third charge she was sentenced on – injuring with intent.

That count related to an assault on Benjamin three days earlier, when he was struck on the body with a shoe and left with broken bones.

Justice Forrest Miller said the head injuries the boy received in the later incident had left him with bleak prospects of leading a normal life.

He noted a paediatrician’s evidence at trial that it was doubtful Benjamin, who now had difficulty walking and talking and needed to wear a skull cap when he went outside, would have independence as an adult.

…The judge said Mikaio had also sought to excuse herself “by advancing the fanciful notion” that the head injuries were the result of an accident. [Note, she didn't claim it was smacking]

Mikaio was charged after Benjamin was taken to Starship Hospital unconscious.

This is not reasonable force – this is a serious, violent beating. It’s simply not credible to suggest that 12 people could be found in this country that would think otherwise.

I’ve several times challenged a member of the 6% to find cases where children were beaten and parents have been “let off”. Invariably, they point to cases where a single bruise or welt resulted.

Serious, extensive injuries like this have never been permitted under New Zealand law.

Secondly, I believe it possible that a person might still use the “reasonable force” argument. With almost 90% of the voting public supporting parents rights to smack, a parent who has simply lightly smacked their child is unlikely to be convicted by a jury. But as I noted above, she didnt’ claim her actions were reasonable – she actually agreed they were not.

But in this bizarre world where beatings are reasonable (in the eyes of the left), his closing statement is quite true.

This is what child-beating leads to: kids crippled for life by violent parents over trivia. Only by sending a clear message that violence against children is unacceptable can we reduce it.

Speed kills, but we distinguish lawful driving from unlawful – we don’t claim all driving is speeding then ban it to stop harm.

Which again brings me to one of the supreme ironies of the whole debate – the many hours spent fighting the entire population by those who are supposed to be stopping the abusers. Not surprisingly, diverting attention from the real problem has meant the abuse continues. Plus, anti-violence groups that should have 100% public support now finding their task a lot harder without it.

The great thing about the blogosphere is that if you haven’t had time to write about something, there’s always someone who has said what you would have.

Today, the top is is Mike Pero’s flight, and the writer is Kiwi Polemicist.

What has poor Pero done to deserve this? After hearing that only six relatives of victims were able to go to Antarctica for the thirtieth anniversary of the Mt Erebus plane crash he decided to charter a plane that would go the crash site and do a flyover. He’s not making any money out of this (many people would say that that was distasteful, but it is certainly not immoral) and I simply cannot see what the fuss is about. In his own words:

“When I saw that only six family members of the victims were getting to go down to commemorate this anniversary, I was moved to do something for them,” (source)

Now let’s have a look at four of the hysterical responses to Pero’s altruism…

He quotes an Air NZ response, then takes it apart.

Note the ‘therefore’. Air New Zealand is saying that just because Pero didn’t talk to Air New Zealand first he’s being disrespectful and engaging in commercial opportunism (trying to make money). That is a logical failure of the breathtaking type, not to mention grossly arrogant. Pero has said that he’s not in this for the money, and even if he hadn’t said that logic would indicate that a seriously wealthy man like him can find many better ways of making money. Also, as I said above, making money out of the flight would not be immoral. Where on earth Air New Zealand gets the notion of disrespect from I don’t know, and to the best of my knowledge there is no legal requirement to get a blessing from Air New Zealand before doing anything related to the Mt Erebus plane crash.

The last point is what really sticks in my craw. Air New Zealand seem to think that they “own” this event, and only they can be involved in organising events commemorating it.

The fact that after so many years only 6 people are only now able to visit the site demonstrates just how they have miserably failed to do anything themselves. The real question is why aren’t they doing this? When I heard that so many “important” people had visited the site, but no victims, I couldn’t believe it. It’s incredibly arrogant.

Another response is critiqued.

She ‘feels’ that Pero is capitalising (making a gain from) the anniversary of the crash. This is a nebulous emotion without basis in fact. Which bit of chartering-a-plane-at-no-profit-to-help-relatives is in ‘poor taste’? As for “Why after 30 years? Why not after 25 years? Why now?”, my response is ‘Why are you asking nonsensical questions’ and ‘Why are you complaining when Pero is trying to help you?’.

Nonsensical questions indeed. It’s a gift horse, you’re not supposed to look in the mouth and complain there’s grass in there.

As for the cost of the flight, I’m sorry if you and others can’t afford it, but life isn’t fair. Pero isn’t making any money out of this, so the ticket price is calculated thus:

Cost of charter ÷ number of passengers = ticket cost

Plane charters are expensive, so the tickets are expensive. It’s simple mathematics.

What is it in the New Zealand mentality? It’s like the woman who lived in a $2m state house who told the news reporter that “everyone should have a right to this”.

Pero stepped in to help people, and he’s received a torrent of criticism – mainly from those that caused the accident in the fist place. That’s just not right.

As KP says, next time there simply won’t be an offer of help. Which means everyone loses because Air NZ’s pride has been pricked.

Got this one in my email today.

I may need your assistance in transferring the sum of $ 5.8million into your account, we have to share it, 60% for me and 40% for you.. I hope you can be honest with me especially on the sharing process. I’ll give you the details as soon as I heard from you.

What? No tall story, no intrigue? What happened to spinning a tale of being some poor sap who needs help because his dead uncle hid money he stole from the South African bank he was president of before the AIDS riddled king of Algiers decided he needed a purge of his harem?

What’s the point of these emails if they’re just going to offer money. Where’s the entertainment in that?

Ok, good marks for the hint that I might be able to steal the lot from you – very subtle.

But what’s with the almost-passable grammar? I could have written this for pete’s sake. I WANT ALL CAPS in my scam letters – everyone knows that’s the way to get gullible westerners to cough up the greenbacks.

Sigh, I guess I just can’t cope with change. Bring back the good old days.

Heh, Michelle Malkin points out that sometimes liberals are so worried about the racial makeup of conservatives, they completely forget to look in their own backyard.

In Michigan, O’Donnell smugly noted that Palin’s fans were “largely white — almost no minorities in this crowd.” Matthews parroted the line, assailing the “white crowd.” Walsh likened the gathering to a “paranoid tea party.” Matthews hammered away at the “monochromatic” scene.

Ahem. Check out the masthead of MSNBC TV, “The Place for Politics.” Wear sunglasses and SPF 30 lotion. You’ll need protection from the blinding white glare…

She also pulls out readership stats that show that MSNBC’s Countdown has a 100% white audience to their competition at Fox for the same timeslot having about 80%.

(According to Wikipedia, 74% of the USA is white.)

NRT really puts the boot in.

For the past year, political commentator Chris Trotter has been urging Labour to advance its political fortunes by cynically playing the race card. Unfortunately, they seem to have listened to him. Today in Palmerston North (of course), Labour leader Phil Goff gave a speech to Grey Power (of course) attacking the government for dealing with the Maori Party, “reopening” Treaty settlements, and revisiting the Foreshore and Seabed Act. While carefully caveated (of course), the underlying message was loud and clear: “National is in bed with the bloody Maaris”.

 

Who’d have thought the Labour party might be playing Maori for its own political convenience?

Before the election Clark was clear about the status of the Maori Party, saying they would be the last cab off the rank in coalition talks. But the knife-edge result has levelled the playing field.

Gee, with National’s stirling work on treaty settlements in the 90’s, and now with a close relationship with the Maori party, not to mention Labour’s capituation of it’s “closing the gaps” policiy after Brash’s poll surge, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Labour’s relationship with Maori was for its own good, not that of Maori.

Actually, that sounds a bit dumb. Of course Labour was only in it for itself, it’s all politics, innit?

Goff’s speech was very, very well crafted to make an anti-maori statement sound pro. Brash was never quite so subtle. That subtlety might mitigate some damage. Well, it might have had Winston been out of the picture and National not been in cahoots with Turia. Plus, with Winston and Brash still in the public memory, the strategy is clear.

One thing is crystal clear, the Labour party is ceding the Maori electorate to the Maori party – at least for now. That’s a massive seismic shift from the Labour position a few  years ago.

Via Patterico, it seems that Obama is really, really doing something special – just like everyone else.

On bipartisanship, Obama raised a few eyebrows when during his first press conference he cited “putting three Republicans in my Cabinet” as “something that is unprecedented.”

“He is right — assuming he’s talking specifically about selecting three Republicans (and not Democrats in a Republican administration) simultaneously and during the first term (not over the course of a presidency),” the National Journal pointed out. The magazine noted that Johnson, Harry S. Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt had three Republicans serving in their Democratic administrations. Republicans Gerald Ford and Dwight Eisenhower had three Democrats serving in theirs.

…

Obama has relied on “unprecedented” in more than 90 instances, using the word at least 129 times in everything from major addresses to small speeches, statements, memorandums and proclamations. (Bush, by contrast, used the word 262 times over eight years.)

Obama has used “unprecedented” to describe his efforts on science research, his plan for the auto industry and his administration’s ethics, transparency and accountability guidelines.

He has promised an “unprecedented commitment” to education, to developing clean energy and “to preserving America’s treasured landscapes,” which, Obama has noted, have seen “unprecedented droughts” and “unprecedented wildfires” in the face of climate change.

There has been “unprecedented consensus” on health care reform under Obama’s watch, as well as “the unprecedented intervention of the federal government to stabilize the financial markets” and an “unprecedented” bank review.

His administration has also taken “unprecedented action to stem the spread of foreclosures,” Obama said, including the creation of “an unprecedented fund, in partnership with the Federal Reserve,” to get credit flowing.

“I wonder if they believe that everything is really unprecedented, or is it just their talking point,” said former Bush spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who is among those smarting over Obama’s use of unprecedented. “This rhetoric is more understandable during a campaign, but I’m not sure it’s going to get them far while governing when the facts don’t always agree.”

One thing that is most certainly not unprecedented is politicians stretching the truth to make political gain.

After reading a very moving story from Palin’s book, then the vitrolic comments on the same, I came across Jeremy Clarkson’s column.

When it comes to sweeping generalisations, I am the daddy. All Germans have no sense of humour, all instruction manuals are pointless, all cruise ships are ghastly, every single American is fat, all golfers are boring and all Peugeots are driven by people you wouldn’t have round for dinner.

Of course, I’m well aware that most generalisations are nonsense. I know several very funny Germans, and Obama Barrack is actually quite skinny. But without generalisations, anecdotes would take two years, points would never get made, comedy would suffer and everyone would sound like James May: “Actually, 42.7% of instruction manuals are quite useful; but first let me quantify ‘useful’ . . .”

Life would be a terribly dreary assault course if every fact had to be precise, but, that said, generalisations have no place in serious scientific research, which is why I was a bit startled to read last week that a government adviser from the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners said lesbians made better parents than what we can no longer call “normal couples”.

…I have done some checking on this, and the only evidence I can find comes from research endorsed by the national academy itself. The study examined children raised by just 27 single mothers, 20 lesbian couples and 36, er, differently genital-ed parents and concluded that those raised by women grew up with a better psychological wellbeing.

You can’t possibly draw any conclusions after testing 20 lesbians. Test 20 Italians and you could well end up concluding the whole nation was full of calm, incorruptible dullards with no interest in sex. Test temperatures over just 20 years and you’d end up concluding the world’s climate was changing.

Not too many people would write stuff like that these days, but Clarkson just might get away with it.

Let’s suppose there was a new blog, called “Young Right” started during the Clark years.

They started their blog with a post, topped by a picture of the Prime Minister with the caption “Does it make you want to vomit as well?”

Now, don’t get me wrong. There are a few right wing bloggers out there who would do that. Without question.

But would well known National party politicians go onto that blog and place comments? Comments like…

“Welcome to what could be a great blog”

Or how about offering “cross fertilisation” with the National Party blog?

“Great to see a new blog. Am sure there will be good discussion happening here. Pleased I can write a comment and see it published. Finding the “other new blog” a bit troublesome (the Nat one). But willing to give it a go.

Hope to have some cross fertilisation with Red Alert.”

Nope, I can’t see it either. My pick would be that National MPs would avoid such a blog like the plauge.

Actually, a much more likely scenario is that Labour would do a massive hissy fit and demand that the National Party stop whoever it was who was engaging in such behaviour. Much like they did with the “I am your lesbian father” photo on the Young Nats site.

Just saying.

One more thing, I almost missed this piece of delicious irony.