Ramblings of Mr Gronk

Travels

2012-01-23T13:38:00.000-08:00

As I write this, I'm on the bus passing through snowy Connecticut. At least, I think I'm in Connecticut, and the Maps app on my iPhone assures me that this is so. While I type on my MacBook Pro. My claim to not be an Apple fanboy starts to ring a little hollow.

I left Gainesville for what may be the last time, this Saturday morning just past. I think I left well; my two chief regrets are that I couldn't finish off some bits and pieces of scientific work (paper writing, mostly — story of my life), and that I left something of a mess in the apartment, which J.M.S., my erstwhile flatmate, will now have to sort out. Whoops. I was encouraged by my friends who turned out in numbers to see me off, though. Special thanks to J.M. and his wife K., who offered the use of their house and helped me to organise my going-away party, and also to C.V., who offered his house when the M.'s house fell through.

It's relationships (considered broadly) that have been the best part of my time here, so, I thought, what better way to spend my last week in the US than travelling around and seeing people in different cities? My first stop was New York, where I stayed with K.J., whom I had first met back in Australia. She's amazing; I thoroughly enjoyed the time catching up with her =]

New York is a city like no other. I find it interesting because it's perhaps the most stereotypically American city, yet one of the least typically American. The things that blow me away the most about it are its scale, its density and its beat of life. It's a world away from the sleepy village outside Christchurch where I grew up. People are packed in almost cheek by jowl. The cost of living is prodigious. And the life there is frenetic. It is a city well adapted to the young professional, with a fast pace, high wages and expensive entertainment. It's a wonder to visit, but I don't think I would wish to live there long.

Be that as it may, I had fun not only spending time with K., but also going to places like the Top of the Rock and two of the city's museums. I wish I could have had more time to spend. I may have opportunities later, though; that's the great thing about being young.

Blog redivivus!

2012-01-23T13:18:00.000-08:00

Yes, I've decided to take up blogging again.

I've now quit my job in America, and am on my way back to New Zealand. There, I'll probably have another blog, more devoted to technical matters. This blog will, at least in theory, remain in existence for my personal reflections on, as Douglas Adams put it, life, the Universe and everything.

Read on!

I will also do a shameless (and completely uninvited) plug. My sister blogs at Triceratops Wins. Her views and interests are quite different to mine, but I consider her an entertaining writer nonetheless. So if you want to hear more from our humble corner of the gene pool, check it out. Enjoy!

Closing time

2011-02-06T17:08:00.001-08:00

Yep. I've decided to park this blog, possibly permanently.

The great bloggers manage to reach a wide audience by updating regularly, with timely, well-researched and well-written pieces. I don't seem to be able to do that, and if I were to try it could only come at the cost of more legitimate priorities.

Also, I keep having a vague sense that anything even remotely controversial I post could be used against me. I'm not sure how many of my readers know who I am in real life, but if I'm to risk myself in public (and blogging is surely public), it better be for an important reason.

Thus the deep-freeze. I may, instead, post the occasional Note on Facebook in lieu of maintaining this blog.

If I have had any readers, then farewell, and may your journeys around the Internet be rewarding ones!

Concerning marriage (and why discussions with friends can be dangerous)

2011-01-03T18:38:00.000-08:00

The other day, I found myself in a discussion with a friend about the nature of marriage and the proper role of the state in regulating it. A bit of light banter on New Year's Eve, ha! We came, of course, from quite different viewpoints, he holding something of a libertarian view. And if it had been a debate, I don't think I would have won it. But since we were capable of having the discussion without losing our tempers, he gave me some things to think about. Now, it seems right to put my thoughts in a blog post.

I'll start by setting forth what I think the ideal marriage is. I won't offer a word-for-word definition, but rather set forth what, based on Scripture, I consider to be its four defining features. These are: (1) A uniting of persons, expressed through sex and other ways; (2) taking place between a man and a woman; (3) exclusive; and (4) permanent.

The main point of contention was to what extent, if any, this view of marriage should be considered the most appropriate. And even if we decide it is the best – that is, the most suited to promoting healthy relationships between people, perhaps especially the spouses and any children – to what extent should it be enforced by Government action?

At one level, I have considerable sympathy for one of my friend's arguments. He said that people change, or reveal aspects of themselves after marriage that had previously been hidden; and that if the change or the new information could have been foreseen beforehand, the marriage would never have taken place. Should we require a wife to stay with an abusive monster of a husband because the magic words, “I do,” were uttered? And even at a less extreme level, it's hard to see it as anything but cruel to force spouses who dislike and distrust each other to stay together just to escape, say, a fine or jail term. It certainly doesn't promote human flourishing or healthy relationships.

And it is, presumably, because of these unfortunate but very real scenarios that the permanence of marriage has been its characteristic most open to redefinition. Even in the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testaments envisage the termination of marriage. The Old Testament permits a regulated form of divorce; in the New, Jesus permits divorce from an adulterous spouse, and Paul discusses the possibility of abandonment. Nevertheless, the implication is that these outcomes should be considered exceptional, and that the typical marriage should last until one or other spouse dies.

And it would be fair to say that, if the state is to promote any view of marriage, I would like it to promote such a view, since that's the view I agree with. I contend that, by allowing for no-fault divorce, the state is promoting as superior a form of “marriage” that has lost the defining feature of permanence.

So what do I think the solution is? I'm not really in favour of the state re-imposing Christian-style marriages as the expectation for everyone. Why? Because a lot of people reject the premises on which they should submit to such arrangements, really. And if I don't want to be forced to live according to another religion's values, I shouldn't try to force people in turn. Sauce for the goose, after all.

In which case, if I'm to be logically consistent, the only real option is for the Government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Let churches and other religious bodies regulate marriage among their members and among those who approach them for marriage, and let the Government restrict itself to enforcement of wills, contracts and laws against deception and abuse. A workable solution?

(A side topic arose, whether I think adultery should be punishable by law. The short answer is that I don't know. But I do believe there is a general moral obligation to avoid tempting others to break their word, and I have no objection to that obligation being legal as well as moral. The law would seem to agree with me, as there is the civil wrong of tortious interference. If that's true of mundane contracts, how much more so when something as significant as marriage is involved?)

Nihil utile quod non honestum

2010-12-05T10:08:00.000-08:00

This, the motto of the Christchurch Press, translates as, "Nothing is useful that is not honest."

And today at church, the sermon was based on this text:

James 5:12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

While the pastor mentioned swearing in passing, his main thrust was on the importance of honesty. Without trying to reproduce the whole sermon (which can, in course of time, be found at the church's website anyway), these are some thoughts that I pondered.

Don't ask any question to which you can't bear to hear an honest answer. Such questions are completely pointless.

Recognise that there are broader classes of dishonesty - that is, misleading speech - than actual lies. Exaggerations (unless done as known hyperbole) are lies. But other forms include the "technically true statement" and "economy with the truth".

Recognise when you're practising evasive manoeuvres. And know why. Is it really because you think the truth would be unhelpful or unedifying to your hearers - or is it because them knowing the truth would be harmful to what you see as your interests?

A close-out point is the answer to the question, "How are you?" We know how people often give an answer like, "Good", "Fine", "Not too bad", etc. But what are some alternatives? Say the day's going badly, but for some reason you don't want to tell the other person how or why, or you don't want them to feel bad about it?

* Life's an adventure
* I won't complain
* The day/week/etc.'s had its challenges, but that's OK
* Things could be (a lot) worse

What do readers think?

Observations

2010-11-28T09:29:00.000-08:00

I'm glad that when I moved from Australia to the US, I kept most of my worldly assets in Australia. Unlike Heaven, Australia has its thieves, its moths and its economic downturns; but on the whole money is relatively safe there for the time being, it seems.

Thanksgiving weekend is wonderful. The day itself I was privileged to spend with good friends, and I've been able to pretty much catch up on stuff over the rest of the weekend. Hence, I could write this blog post.

Blogging is really about discipline. I'll obviously need to keep at least some posts short and to the point, lest it becomes a trial. Then again, life in general is about discipline.

Don't tweak your intercostal muscles if you can possibly avoid it. The inability to breathe deeply, yawn, laugh or sneeze sucks, not to put too fine a point on it.

I think the way to avoid stress is to know your limits and to keep within them.

I think the way to be content is not to satisfy your desires, nor to deny they exist, but to acknowledge them and subordinate them to the needs of the Kingdom of God.

I will try to maintain this more frequently from now on.

Thoughts on origins: Part II - Intelligent Design

2010-10-02T21:07:00.001-07:00

Many readers will be aware of the Intelligent Design controversy, though in most important ways the matter is now historical. Intelligent Design remains an important aspect of some theistic apologetic arguments, but the main aspect of the controversy - whether Intelligent Design could be taught in science classes in public schools, as a competitor to the theory of evolution - was settled about four years ago, when, in the Kitzmiller decision, the teaching of intelligent design theory was held to be religious instruction and therefore impermissible.

Other people have spilled much ink and many characters on the merits of that decision, and it's not one I can delve into; however, I'll note in passing that teaching intelligent design does not become religious instruction simply because all or most design proponents are religious, or even because they are motivated primarily by religious concerns.

What I'd rather focus on in this post is the merits of intelligent design as a scientific theory.

It helps, I think, to set forth what intelligent design is. My understanding of it is thus: it is a theory that asserts that certain features of the Universe in general, and of biological life in particular, are best explained by assuming the involvement of an intelligent designer.

The first question to ask, then, is: Is this a scientific theory?

I think not.

Here's why: It offers no pattern, it makes no predictions, and therefore it's not amenable to scientific testing.

In fact, there is not a single experiment that can reliably determine whether a given thing is designed or not. Nor can I think of any way to establish such a metric. Our sole reference point for design is man-made artifacts, and we clearly can't just extrapolate from them to biological life without a large number of assumptions.

But the more important question is this: Is the theory of intelligent design correct, even though it's unscientific?

This is a much harder question to answer.

First, it can only be answered with reference to a particular phenomenon.

A lot of intelligent design theory is deployed against abiogenesis, rather than evolution per se. (As an aside, one consequence of that is that the two may not necessarily be as antagonistic as many suggest.) The cell is undoubtedly highly complex, and my own opinion is that the chances of a functional cell coming into existence on its own are small indeed, even by accretion of parts. More on this later, though.

The other question at issue is whether intelligent design best explains the progression of events from the first proto-cell to the emergence of human life. There, I think the evidence is flimsier. The design proponent must argue that the barriers between certain kinds of life (say, between fish and amphibians) are so great that it is very difficult to find a path between them in which all intermediate forms would be viable.

Finally, intelligent design as a theory has two big problems in the marketplace of ideas. The first is that it's not the established theory - it must fight an uphill battle, and arrayed against it are many of the most respected names in the academy and almost all practicing scientists. The second is that it has to show why a purposeful entity is needed to explain something, which is very hard to do given the mess this world is in.

Next up, I'll be an equal opportunity offender, and turn to the theory of evolution.

Busyness

2010-09-18T20:38:00.001-07:00

For the last little while, I've been feeling as though it's all I can do to break even with real responsibilities.

This is why I've been quiet (and why the sole series I've started has fallen silent too).

I hope things settle down in a week or two. But I've been hoping that for weeks.

Is the ratio of things completed to things undertaken a good measure of success, anyway?

Why I am not a statist

2010-09-06T18:00:00.001-07:00

Statism down the ages has arisen in many forms. Absolute monarchy, perhaps, was the earliest. The twentieth century was famous for the rise and decline of two great statist ideologies, Fascism and Communism. Even today, it is held by certain people, typically towards the extremes of the so-called political spectrum.

About three or four years ago, I went through a stage in which I almost came to believe that central planning - a chief feature of statism - could be used to solve the world's problems. Fortunately, I was not entrusted with any real power during that period, and I've now retreated significantly from that position.

While statism may be found among any group, I believe that in this day and age it's particularly associated with the academically inclined. Why do I say that? Because they have been trained to believe that they have special knowledge that makes them particularly valuable. From which it is only a short step to the conclusion that they, or others like them, are uniquely qualified to order the affairs of society.

It may very well be true that a committee of knowledgeable experts would be slightly better at governing a nation than some other solutions. But giving anyone unlimited power over the citizenry - or anything close to unlimited - is very dangerous indeed. I am alarmed, for example, at any proposal to limit population growth. Not because I believe that this planet can support an unlimited number of people; but because I do not believe such a policy could be reasonably and justly applied, and because I think it would involve a good deal of coercion. The greatest risk would be in deciding who would be permitted to reproduce and who would not.

In short, because one group might be better than another when entrusted with great power, does not show that either would be anywhere close to good.

Thus, in the words of C. S. Lewis:

Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows...I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

BloGTK revisited

2010-09-06T16:59:00.001-07:00

I think I may have gotten this program to work now - by dint of commenting out a bunch of things that may be important. I suppose I should file a bug report.

Thoughts on origins: Part I - The Limitations of Science

2010-07-24T19:07:00.000-07:00

This post is dedicated to P.B.F., who finally prodded me into writing another blog post.

A few months ago, I was sitting in the tearoom at work, in a conversation with some colleagues. One of them, who hails from Arkansas, lamented the state of science education in that state, with particular reference to former Governor Mike Huckabee's professed young-Earth creationism. I asked him how Huckabee's belief affected public policy; his memorable answer was, "It makes me think he's retarded."

About the same time, I was engaged in a discussion with a friend who once upon a time attended the same church I did in Australia, before we both moved in different directions, about whether the Scriptures really require young-Earth creationism.

Both these came against a backdrop of much uncertain pondering over the last few years, as I have sought to come to terms with the claims of Scripture and of mainstream science. It appears I'm not the only one who is thrown into confusion in this area; I know other believers who have admitted that the opening chapters of Genesis in particular present thorny problems, and so far as I know very few Protestant denominations maintain and enforce dogmatic views in the area of origins.

And, of course, I thought the time has come for a blog post - or, more accurately, a series of blog posts - on the subject.

I should caution any readers that if they hope to find a definitive statement of my views on the age of the Earth and the precise origin of mankind, they should probably think again! I fear that it would be foolish to be drawn on that subject. Perhaps I don't want any scientific colleagues of mine to start questioning my judgment, or then again I may not wish to pass a test of orthodoxy.

I thought I'd start with a recap of science, and some of its limitations.

The first question is what science is. My own perception is that it's the knowledge and understanding of the physical universe, and the entities therein, and the relationships between those entities - these relationships traditionally being called "forces". Science thus thrives on the spotting of patterns, seeking always to explain a phenomenon in terms of something more general. This ties in with the scientific method, involving an initial observation, a hypothesis which is tested, and the development of the hypothesis into a more general theory, which is distinguished from a hypothesis chiefly through its predictive power in cases outside the "test set". Some theories have succinct mathematical expressions at their core; these expressions are often called "laws", and if shown to be successful for a long time can come to be regarded as expressions almost of universal truth, almost at the level of, say, Pythagoras' theorem.

This method works very well for understanding how things normally work. In fact, this is science's specialty, and science is very good at its job, though now and again it can be corrupted by personalities; the checks and balances of the peer review process, though far better than nothing, do not guard entirely against corrupt, dishonest, lazy or rushed people. But the scientific method as such can say nothing about historical events. Now, it is certainly not the case that our understanding of the universe, brought about through science, can shed no light on the past. For example, if I say I had bacon and eggs for breakfast, and you cut me open and find cereal in my stomach, you could rightly infer that I had been dishonest. This finding would rely on our scientific understanding of the digestive process, along with principles such as the conservation of matter; but it would not, in itself, be a scientific study.

Even more, science can say nothing about miracles. I have seen a claim made that science is incompatible with miracles, because the claim of a miracle makes the result arbitrary and unable to be rationally studied. Some take it a step further and say that because miracles are against science, therefore miracles can't happen. The first claim has some truth; the second is completely false. It is true that a miracle (in the strict sense) can't be studied scientifically, because it involves something that wouldn't normally happen - a break in the pattern of the world. But most events are not miracles. I do believe that true miracles are rare events - after all, a miracle can only be understood as such if the beholders know what should have happened as well as what actually took place - and I further believe that a miracle always has a theological or spiritual context; they don't take place in a vacuum. In any event, God isn't known for deliberately messing up scientists' experiments; it is my firm belief that he intends to aid us in our understanding of this world, not thwart us.

The falsity of the second claim - that miracles can't happen - is also evident. There is no possible way to get from, "We understand that this shouldn't happen under ordinary circumstances," to, "This did not happen." No possible way at all.

I'll leave you with that for the moment, so you can await Part 2.

A plea to web site administrators

2010-07-11T20:22:00.000-07:00

When designing sites with passwords, please don't mangle your user's passwords without notification.

Where does this plea come from? Well, I now set accounts up with lengthy passwords when I can. A lot of web sites have length restrictions on password fields. This is all very well - and is often a legitimate defence against buffer overflows. The problem arises when I don't know about it. Then, when I want to log back in later, I get told that my password is wrong! Well, no, it's not wrong - except that your website has mangled what I gave it. Or perhaps ignored what I gave it as illegal input.

If you must limit password length, tell the user! Messages like,

"This password is too long. Please select a password no longer than 16 characters."

Or even,

"This password is too long and has been truncated to 16 characters."

would go a long way towards avoiding user confusion.

Also, if you're going to bother presenting the user with a "reset your password" link, it must work! Please don't promise to send emails with the requisite links and then fail to send them.

That is all.

The travails of BloGTK

2010-07-04T20:53:00.000-07:00

So I had hoped to get a desktop blogging application working, because I find the idea of one easier to deal with than a whole bunch of web pages. Alas, the application I tried - BloGTK, which seems to be the best for Linux at the moment - has failed me.

It's just been upgraded to version 2.0. But due to some black magic I don't fully understand (specifically, its use of threading), it seems to hang up on my machine.

Maybe, if I were skilled in the art of Python, I could whip up a solution in no time. Alas, that language is one I haven't done much with yet.

I have, though, contacted the developers.

Once again, "Nothing is ever as simple as it at first appears."

Thought of the day

2010-07-03T05:35:00.000-07:00

The pot may be black, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about the kettle.

Concerning the Problem of Evil

2010-05-30T12:01:00.000-07:00

So, my small group is currently going through the Truth Project, and the most recent episode concerns tangentially the Problem of Evil, and more specifically what good and evil mean in the context of what it means to be human, and the standing of humanity with God. As is common, I have my own thoughts - and they're now ending up here. Well, some of them, anyway.

The first thing I'll discuss is the Problem of Evil generally. This is an argument against the existence of our God, and can perhaps be formulated this way:

P1) If an all-powerful, completely good deity existed, no creature would suffer.
P2) Creatures suffer.
C) Therefore, no all-powerful, completely good deity exists.

This argument is certainly valid, as philosophers use the term - if the premises are true, there is no possible way for the conclusion to be false. That doesn't automatically mean that the premises (more particularly P1) are true. A little more on that later.

One "defence" I have seen is a reminder to other believers that the atheist has no business invoking the Problem of Evil, since good and evil are, on the atheist world view, ultimately meaningless collections of sounds. That is, if all I mean by "good" or "evil" are "this gives me warm fuzzies" or "this gives me a sense of revulsion" - replace "me" by "my country" or "my culture" if you wish - then it has no real meaning. Indeed, it goes further than that, because even if I contend against a murderer with force, on the atheist world view, as best I can tell, that contention is also meaningless - because of the history of the particles making me up, I have no more choice even to "fight for what I believe is right" than a stone does about whether to fall if dropped from the top of a cliff.

However true that is - and I believe it is true - it misses the point that the Problem of Evil is primarily an internal critique. It is an attempt to explore whether Christian theism is self-consistent, and consistent with observed reality. The last thing we want to do to someone who is generally seeking the truth is to say, "You have no right to ask that question until you accept Christ!" While a proper understanding of the character of God as revealed in Christ and the Scriptures answers many questions, and even hints at the answers to thorny ones such as the Problem of Evil, we can not afford to hide behind anything. To hide is to suggest that our beliefs can not withstand scrutiny.

By the way, one possible response to the Problem of Evil can be found here. Some of its main points - that free will and meaningful moral choice cannot exist without the possibility of pain and suffering, that sometimes suffering results from the natural workings of the world, and that in any case God's ultimate priority is not our happiness in this world - are what I might say if pressed. But I think that most of the time the Problem of Evil is emotional rather than philosophical. A a philosophical answer to someone who's suffering (or who is close to someone else who is) is not always helpful or particularly loving. There are, it is true, those who seek to use it primarily as an argument against God, even if the worst suffering they have ever known is a week's illness with the flu; but trying to win such people over by argument is, I think, a fool's errand, since they often have several other "arguments" ready to deploy at a moment's notice, such as the Argument from Apparent Neo-Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, the fact that I use the word "Apparent" here does not mean that I endorse young-Earth creationism, or that I think natural selection never happens - but I don't wish to discuss the truth of evolutionary theory or its relationship to the Scriptures just yet.)

The other question which came up on the night - and which occupied most of the time - is what it means to be human, and what moral duties a man has. The speaker suggested that the world says the highest good is "self-actualisation". Whatever that means. Apparently it means the complete satisfaction of one's desires.

It surprises me that even a secular humanist could suggest that. Have we learned nothing, or are we just in the process of throwing out all the intellectual capital of bygone years, as well as the moral capital? If we followed our whims of the moment, we would eat the tastiest foods ad nauseam (quite literally), sleep and wake whenever we felt the desire, likely sleep around (those of us that could), and indulge in all manner of things that would very quickly leave us impoverished, unhealthy and unhappy. And as soon as we start subordinating our immediate physical desires to longer-term plans, we are making value statements: it is, we say, good to be able to provide for oneself and one's family by gainful employment, rather than sleeping in, being fired from one's job and going on the unemployment benefit. But why is it better? Personal preference? Social convention? Or is there a moral value underpinning things?

Another point that was made was that "evil", as a secular humanist understands it, is said to be a cultural by-product. In some cases, yes, I can see how that would be so. Many relatively good and kind people throughout history have been swept away by religious and political currents and gone on to commit all kinds of horrors. But how can it be that people are basically good? Again, this comes back to my earlier comments - it is unclear what the secular humanist means by "good". Perhaps he means "capable of functioning passably well in civil society"? If so, then I grant him the point, but it robs the word "good" of any meaning. Why, after all, should we want to function at all in society? One can then point to the benefits (to the individual and his descendants) of being part of a larger group, for mutual support and protection. But will that count for anything in the end? Unlikely; if your eschatology is the extinction of man, the destruction of Earth and the fizzling-out of the Universe, it is unclear why even becoming the ancestor of an illustrious line of wise, powerful and virtuous figures lasting to the end of the human race has any meaning whatsoever.

But an even bigger flaw is that the solution offered, as alluded to above, is to do whatever you want. That seems to me to be a destructive influence. Most people do not naturally do what's good for society as a whole; they have to be raised a certain way to even imperfectly consider others before themselves. And, we are told, that necessarily gets in the way of satisfying one's own desires. But our world contains other people, who deserve satisfaction as much as you. Put simply, unless you can go hide away on a desert island where you can truthfully say of yourself, "L' état c'est moi", you must always compromise with others; if the only way to be truly content is to be your own little God in your own little Universe - empty of all others except your devoted slaves - then I don't think any Gospel, religious teaching, psychological assessment, counselling, education or anything else can offer you any help.

And that, readers, is where I will leave you. I can never be either good or content until I accept that the Universe doesn't revolve around me; as Jesus said long ago, I must deny myself and take up my cross. The road is hard, but in the end, if I do that, I will find true life, while if not I will, after a short and likely bitter existence, lose it forever.

Reducing the Burden on the People

2010-05-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

Or, to put it more succinctly, Tax Cuts.

In New Zealand, the Budget was introduced a few days ago. There were, of course, many measures of importance in it, but it was notable chiefly for two things. The first is a rise in GST from 12.5% to 15%. The second is a reduction in some of the higher personal income tax rates.

Several of those on the left of the political spectrum denounced the Budget as "tax cuts for the rich". Let's look at that statement.

My esteemed colleague, ScrubOne, has done an analysis of the tax cuts, using the illustration of ten men who eat dinner at a restaurant and split the cost roughly based on their wealth. When the restaurant owner reduces their bill of fare one night, how do they apportion the savings?

My gut reaction is that the savings should be apportioned according to how much each was paying originally. Now, of course, if the tax system is progressive - as New Zealand's most definitely is - that means the richest man is not only paying the lion's share of all taxation, but is also parting with the highest proportion of his gross income in income tax (we'll ignore GST, rates and excise for present purposes). It follows that he will benefit the most from any tax reduction.

This is where the political left complain about unfairness. If taxes are being cut, they argue, why should "the rich" benefit?

To my mind, that question assumes several things that are at least open to question. The first is that "the rich" have too much money already. Now, in some cases, that may be the case: I have very little time for dishonest gain, and not much more for gain made solely through speculative investments. And then people are paid for some kind of honest work or commitment, but are paid more than I might choose. But in this world I'm not the arbiter of value, and nor, thankfully, is the not yet almighty State.

The second assumption, it seems to me, is that a tax cut is really a form of "welfare" - and not even welfare of the OK sort, that attempts to take care of honest and hardworking people and families that have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, but - basically - vote-buying: a corrupt bargain of the sort that sees successive Governments bribe constituencies with taxpayer money.

But hold on. How are "tax cuts" welfare? They aren't Government spending - if the tax take is reduced, the money doesn't go through the Consolidated Fund and the Ministry of Social Welfare (however renamed) before being returned to the taxpayers.

Indeed, it is only Government spending if one assumes that any income that has ever been taxed "really" belongs to the Government. Let's explore that position: it asserts that if tax rates are as high as 66% (and I've heard they were that high in New Zealand, once), then any reduction after that point is some kind of welfare - the Government is generously handing back some of its income to those who originally provided it, instead of spending it on its pet projects. But then, if you're going to push that line, why stop at those proportions of income that were taxed? Why is not all income the property of the Government? Indeed, this quickly approximates classical Socialist thinking, as I understand it: the idea that all property belongs, and ought to belong, to the whole community, and to be used in order to benefit the whole community.

The right has, I understand, quite a different view of taxation: the Government is allowed to tax for legitimate purposes, but such taxation should be kept to a minimum, and based on the principle that income belongs, in the first instance, to him who earned it.

That's the view which I currently hold - and why I won't object to tax cuts benefiting "the rich". Indeed, on the whole, I would argue for less, and better focused, Government spending. And, it seems, the older I get, the more I favour one of the income distribution models encountered in high school economics: the distribution that comes from the market, with a safety net.

Belated reflection on The Lovely Bones

2010-02-06T20:29:00.001-08:00

I went and saw this movie, with some friends, while on my most recent visit to New Zealand.

As always, I'll refrain from commenting on technical aspects of the movie. I tend to get absorbed in the story, and don't notice those so well. Which, however, probably means it was at least passable. If I'm bored enough that I start noticing technical things, that means that the story is not well presented, or is simply not a good story.

But I digress. Moving back to the point...

The story is sad, and there's not really what one would call a "happy" ending. The main character narrates the story from her point of view as a ghost, and the story itself surrounds her murder.

The main take-home message for me was the danger of revenge. For the bulk of the story, she tarries in an in-between place, unwilling to go into the land of the dead. Her passion, it seems, is to see her murder avenged; and she seems able to influence her family, especially her father and younger sister, in some way. But her father's efforts to track down her murderer become obsessive, and he is nearly destroyed. Her sister does better, and is even able to cause the murderer, a neighbour, to flee as a fugitive; but in the end she realises she has to let go. Finally, her murderer meets his death in an "accident".

For myself, like most people I don't know what it's like to lose someone close that way. But I hope that if that should ever happen, I too will remember that revenge is not my responsibility.

Brute force and ignorance

2010-02-06T20:25:00.000-08:00

My car radio, an after-market addition which came with the car when I bought it, had been troubling me for some time. Specifically, the auxiliary jack was broken, so that it would constantly drop the right-hand channel from the MP3 player.

So today I tried to take the radio out and fix it.

Alas, in my haste to take the front off the radio so I could access the port fully, I pulled even though something seemed to be resisting. Suddenly, the front broke free of whatever was holding it...accompanied by a little snapping sound.

On inspection, I had managed to break the auxiliary jack (i.e., the part I was trying to fix) away from the circuit board completely.

Way to go, Gronk.

In other news, a sound system installer has just sold a new car radio and set of speakers.

Irish bull

2010-01-03T15:37:00.000-08:00

So yeah, I recall some of these from Bridie O'Reilly's from my Melbourne days. They may amuse readers.

* Dead man found in graveyard.

* Dead Garda(1) in the force for fifteen years.

* You're going to call him Sean? What kind of a name is that? Every Tom, Dick and Harry's called Sean.

* Traffic lights stolen from Swords(2). Gardai(3) said, "Some thieves will stop at nothing."

What's irritating now is that I can't think of any more. Still, I hope you'll at least get a chuckle out of these.

(1) In Ireland, a police officer.
(2) A town in Ireland.
(3) In Ireland, the police.

Travel home

2010-01-03T15:17:00.000-08:00

After several days out of action, we now return to our, er, irregularly scheduled programme.

New Year's Eve was one of the highlights of my trip. I went to E's new place, and there I spent time with many people whom I hadn't seen in months, or indeed years in some cases. There were fireworks, as is traditional with us, even if there were hints from my mother that we weren't quite operating within the law. (In one memorable incident, I ended up holding a whole pile of ignited sparklers. I think maybe we should have a bucket of water nearby in future cases.)

After a relatively short night's sleep, I adjourned to the parents' house. There, I packed relatively swiftly, although not quite swiftly enough, as evidenced by Mum and Dad pitching in during the final moments; we got to the airport marginally after the scheduled check-in time, but still had enough time to be processed, though there were some visa-related questions from the ground staff member.

The flight to Auckland was smooth and uneventful, despite the forecasts of gale-force northwesterly winds affecting Canterbury; perhaps they didn't really take effect until later. The whole land seemed to be lit with golden sunlight. The most memorable sight was Mount Ruapehu, greatest in the North Island, crowned with snow.

The flights to San Francisco and Orlando were less memorable, and as I became increasingly tired less pleasant. By the accounts of Google, R. L. Stevenson coined the phrase, "to travel hopefully is better than to arrive"; I beg to differ, and must conclude that the character who says these words (or the author, if it was written from his point of view) either travelled to horrible places, or I don't share his view at all.

The worst part of the travel was the drive home from Orlando. I nearly zoned out on more than one occasion, which may have proven fatal. Were it not for the fact that by the time I had reached this conclusion I was almost home, I would certainly have pulled over and taken a nap. Nevertheless, by God's mercy, I made it home in one piece.

And now that I'm back, I suppose normal life, or what passes for normal, should resume. I'm already aware of the many things that await my attention, and am, however, procrastinating.

At least I'm starting to deal now with the jet-lag.

Concerning Global Warming, Climate Change and other Things of that Nature

2009-12-29T03:18:00.000-08:00

The topic of Climate Change is certainly a hot one at the moment (pun not intended). It has been gaining media and popular attention for some time now, culminating in two events that happened, by chance or design, almost simultaneously: the release of the hacked emails from the CRU in the United Kingdom in what some called "Climategate", and the gathering of eminent personages at Copenhagen, which culminated in what, as far as I've heard, is an all but toothless agreement.

Myself, I think the whole thing is going to turn into either a farce or a tragedy; if you believe the extreme pronouncements of some who believe the climate is changing and it's our fault, it will probably end up being both.

First of all, though I am a scientist, I'm not a climate scientist. (Consider this the equivalent of an IANAL warning.) It follows that none of the content of this post is provided in a professional capacity; I'm just a man with an opinion.

It seems obvious to most that the climate isn't what it was. But such variations have happened before, when human-generated emissions had little to do with them. So it's not at all clear that the latest round of change is, as it were, our fault. But even if it is, it's not clear that climate change is inherently a bad thing. (Yes, I know: try telling that to the natives of Tuvalu, or Bangladesh, or post-Katrina New Orleans.) But I have a good deal of confidence in our ability to, as the saying goes, deal with it.

I also think there are a good many more pressing problems facing us.

One of those is our dependence on oil. I'm not sure when we're going to run out; but I'm pretty sure we're using oil (and coal, and gas) more quickly than they can be regenerated. Guess what: that means that, though we can't say when, we will run out eventually. When that happens, we're in for a very rude shock. Not just unable to fly or drive ships or cars. How do you think food makes its way from the farming areas to the towns and cities where most people live? What will we do when we lose the ability to move large quantities of stuff from point A to point B in a hurry? I don't know, but I suspect things would get ugly PDQ.

The issue of climate change is tied in closely with the idea of overpopulation. Put simply, if there are N people alive, and the average person requires a certain amount of energy and other resources, we need to be able to collect that energy and those resources somehow. Some say that even the current world population can't be maintained at a decent standard of living. I won't necessarily assert that, since I don't know one way or the other; but it's clear to me that there must be a limit somewhere. I haven't yet seen or heard of anyone capable of pulling food out of thin air, except Jesus Christ, and what he did seems to be a bit of a trade secret.

There is a growing body of opinion that we should, therefore, seek to reduce the number of mouths to feed. Some countries take this quite far; China, for example, has its "one child" policy. However, I must shrink from forced sterilisations, and even more from forced abortions. The former is bad enough, since it interferes in a rather drastic way with the freedom and bodily integrity of the individual; the latter represents, in my opinion, little, if anything, short of a state-sponsored murder programme, and would, if adopted, dehumanise everything it touches. And that carries grave risks: a culture that sees a human being as nothing more than a ledger item is one that deserves to be wiped from the face of the Earth. It will also probably not survive for long, as people begin to see it as not worth protecting against its foes.

Ironically, in the west, people are already having less children. Now, how much of that is to do with concern for the environment and the equal sharing of resources, I'm not sure. I rather suspect a good deal of it is because kids are, quite simply, inconvenient, especially for women.

Now I come to a summary. I don't think global warming is especially worth losing sleep over, but I think there are other good reasons to reduce consumption. Reducing the number of people seems to happen naturally, without coercive measures, and appears to be correlated with rising wealth and female equality, as it were, in the bedroom.

I'm glad of that; it seems to mean that, mostly, we needn't concern ourselves with forcing the issue.

Travel

2009-12-28T02:53:00.000-08:00

As the last couple of months have been eventful, it seems right for another general update.

The month before I left the United States (not, as yet, for good) was busy with work. Computational Chemistry involves one technical problem after another. On the positive side, I'm closer than ever to producing some real results.

On 5 December, I set off for distant Australia. I was again shown mercy; I couldn't sleep, which would normally be a bad thing except that I had misconfigured my alarm clock. Thus, my "travel insomnia" turned out to be a blessing in disguise; I was able to make my flight on time. Again, I exited off the tollway prematurely, and as a result was able to find a petrol station on the main drag through Orlando. Once inside the airport itself, I couldn't see one, which suggests that a search if I had come the most direct route would have been fruitless.

A day in San Francisco followed. That city feels like nowhere else I've been in the USA; much more "European", after a fashion, and even reminding me a little of old stomping grounds, though still with a generally American feel.

Melbourne was great. I spent two and a half weeks there, catching up with friends. Hardly a dull moment. I also spent my time in Blackburn, a distant, quiet suburb, and with houses, causing it to feel much more pleasant and homely than the apartment complex in which I now live.

I also graduated, making me an official doctor now (of philosophy, that is).

From Melbourne, I flew to Christchurch. Christmas was spent there with the family. It has taken on quite a new complexion, with my brother and sister now both definitely adults (even if my sister isn't yet 21). Also, I've been able so far to spend lots of time with one friend in particular, which has been great.

Time away from work has also been useful. I have been able to take stock of a few things; to settle where I might want to go next. Committing to research seems like the best plan at the moment; I am, I think, a born problem solver, and would not easily like a "routine" job. However, what broad horizons are opened to me, I don't know yet. I have no doubt things will be revealed to me as I need to know them.

On an administrative note, I hope posts will become more frequent now. I aim, in the end, for once a day. I don't think I can do much more than that, since real life must always take precedence.

A belated merry Christmas, and happy New Year, to whoever comes across this.

Gah

2009-11-02T19:32:00.000-08:00

The US State Department online visa application page is confusing (it doesn't clarify where it considers my "home" to be) and glitchy (it quit on me twice, both times causing me to lose all the data I had entered).

Once again, the federal bureaucracy tries my patience.

Ah well, at least I can go to sleep, and don't have to stay up all night doing paperwork.

That is all.

General update

2009-11-02T18:45:00.000-08:00

Too much to do, too little time. Hence why this blog has, again, taken a back seat.

I see I now have one follower (thanks, S.G.). Starting a movement? Unlikely, perhaps, since this blog probably won't lead anywhere much. But hopefully some pleasant meanderings.

Technology is, again, the bane of my existence. I upgraded from Jaunty to Karmic on the weekend (the penultimate and latest versions of Ubuntu Linux, for those who aren't in the loop). Needless to say, my system spent most of Saturday down, as I tweaked various things.

I got my tax return off to Australia. Perhaps it wasn't perfect, but they don't provide good advice on how to do things in a straightforward manner. I swear, if I were dictator of the country for a day, the tax code would be one early item in my sights. But it would take more than a day to get right anyway (even though my guiding principles would be fairness and simplicity).

GnuCash, which I use to do my accounts, is retarded in one aspect. I must be amused that, in order for it to correctly timestamp updates to my managed fund unit prices, I have to convince it that it's running on a computer based on South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands.

I am amazed at the pedantry of the photo requirements for visa applicants. Seriously, do these rules serve any purpose except to create jobs for civil servants and busywork for members of the public?

In general, though, the trip is coming together. I've changed my booking to include a visit to New Zealand, and if my visa is sorted out on time in Melbourne, all should be well. It should be a good time, anyway.

Job application

2009-10-26T20:29:00.000-07:00

I tried applying for a job tonight.

I was exceedingly glad that I didn't save it until the last minute (applications close in four days). The server wasn't processing my application, and it looks like it's not responding to traceroute.

If that had happened at the deadline, I'd be sunk.

I'll try again tomorrow, when I might have better success. There's a number I can call if the wheels fall off.

On healthcare reform and ACC

2009-10-18T19:10:00.000-07:00

So, it's time for another political post. Here in the USA, the healthcare reform is turning into a dog's breakfast, with the President's preferred plan meeting with all sorts of obstacles in Congress, from what I gather. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the accident insurance scheme, known locally as "ACC" after the State-owned company administering the scheme, is, by all accounts, haemorrhaging money so quickly that the public is facing both levy increases and service decreases - that is, your premiums go up and your cover drops. In the USA, a left-leaning Government is trying to increase State involvement in health, while in New Zealand a right-leaning Government, while treading carefully, is no doubt privately sympathetic to scaling back the State's involvement (at least to a modest degree).

I'll speak more about ACC, because I'm more familiar with the situation in New Zealand. Both my parents at various times worked for the Corporation, and so I picked up plenty of tidbits as a teenager, when I was finally astute enough to begin to care. My understanding of the scheme is that it covers someone for up to 80% of pre-accident earnings, and it's (supposedly) funded out of ACC levies - deducted from employees as extra tax, and also from employers some way - and from return on investments. Changes over the last decade included the reintroduction of lump-sum compensation, an expansion of treatments covered under the scheme, and a move toward a "fully funded" model. I'm not entirely sure what the latter means, but I would guess it means ACC is supposed to meet claims and operating expenses from what it receives in levies and additional Government spending.

So far, so good. But apparently the problem is that ACC levies just aren't enough to cover claims and operating expenses, and the scheme is, to put it bluntly, going broke.

One obvious solution is to significantly increase levies. Another is to fund the scheme out of the consolidated fund more than is currently done (note: I'm not sure how much money ACC receives from the consolidated fund at present). This would require either increased taxation, Government borrowing, or decreasing Government spending in other areas. A third is to cut so-called "entitlements".

It will come as no surprise to those who know my political leanings that I favour the third option. And why? The answer is simple:

I don't think it's the Government's job to protect the citizenry from the vicissitudes of life.

Or, more bluntly:

Life sucks sometimes. Deal with it.

Now, lest that seem a bit harsh, let me explain what I mean by that. From what I understand, the welfare state, as originally conceived, was intended to be a stop-gap by which orphans, widows, the destitute, the elderly who couldn't work, and so forth were not reduced to the indignity of begging their bread, foraging in rubbish dumps, or starving; to secure to the citizens a basic standard of health care (which also would have cut down the transmission of infectious diseases, etc.), and so forth. The term "safety net" is often bandied about, and that captures the essence of it: the Government taxes us a bit more than it would otherwise, so that, if the worst happens, the Government will be able to keep you alive. That is not the same as the Government being able to keep you in a lifestyle as though nothing has happened.

There are other problems with ACC, which relate rather to human dishonesty. There is the temptation to say that a medical condition arose from an accident (80% of pre-accident earnings and/or a lump sum) instead of from a disease (sickness or invalid's benefit). This distinction has always struck me as an artificial one, and one which acts in a way to encourage dishonesty. Furthermore, the lines can be blurred. What, for example, of the scientist who works with bacterial cultures? While that is not an "accident" according to the statutory definition, if he contracts a disease from that, it's certainly a workplace-related condition. Also, some leisure activities are more "risky" than others. I do a bit of running, and there I run the risk of running injuries and being hit by cars: things which would be less of a problem if I were to instead spend the time behind a computer. But the latter runs the risk of damaging my eyes, and a lack of fitness leaves me open to heart conditions later in life. Would I cost less as a cardiac patient than as someone who gets the occasional sore leg?

So, what's my solution?

Knowing what I do now (which is, no doubt, not enough), if I were made dictator of New Zealand tomorrow, here's what I would do with ACC.

First, I would move to a model where payouts from the State are based on effects, rather than causes. With certain exceptions. For example, deliberately self-inflicted injuries, or diseases caught by deliberate exposure to the responsible pathogen, should not be covered, except possibly if the patient was mad (in which case he should probably be supervised, and perhaps even institutionalised, depending on the nature of the risk he poses to himself and others). Another exclusion category might be where the injury or sickness was caused by recklessness or gross negligence. Reasonable people could disagree here; but I don't believe the Government has a moral responsibility to shield the citizens from the consequences of their own stupidity. The cover offered should, in my book, be sufficient to maintain the person in a sufficient (if modest) standard of living, along with the reasonable costs of treatment and/or assistance necessary given their injury or sickness. It should not aim to restore them to more-or-less pre-accident levels of income.

Second, I would encourage "income protection" insurance, for those people who are not content with the base level of coverage for whatever reason (for example, a mortgage on the house, or a large family). One complaint I have seen made from the left of the political spectrum is that private accident insurance (really a form of health insurance, though covering only some conditions) is injurious to the poor, because they can't afford the premiums. I should expect with income protection insurance that the premium is directly proportional to the level of income sought; thus, those who earn more pay more, and that's fair and reasonable to me. I also think a bit of market discipline would be a good thing. Let people shop around for the insurance company who offers them the best deal. I would, of course, subject the scheme to certain restrictions: it would be, in a sense, a form of health insurance, and so I would prohibit any such company from denying cover to or charging massive premiums against anyone solely on the basis of an inherited disorder. I would, however, permit them to charge extra premiums or deny cover on the basis of risky activities, such as smoking or recreational mountain biking. I'm not sure what I would do about people whose jobs are riskier, but they might have to grin and bear that too, as a cost of working in a risky profession.

Third, I think (though I say this with caution and am certainly open to being persuaded otherwise) that I would reinstate the right to legal action. An inherent part of ACC is that it is a "no-fault" system; if I injure you, you have no right to sue me, except for exemplary damages. Now, obviously we don't want to go down the American path, the caricature of which is that sneezing on someone can get you damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. For workplace accidents, perhaps a more acceptable compromise is for the injured party (or his insurance company) to lodge a complaint with the Department of Labour, which could then audit the employer and, if practices are found to be defective, proceed against the employer in the name of the Crown (though I would want to see at least some of the proceeds going to the injured employee or his insurance company). For private injuries, a civil action would be the only way out, and I don't know how many would be attempted. (Relatively few, if it had to be started by the injured party himself; but if by the insurance company, probably a lot more.) The risk here is that getting on with life starts to be replaced by backside-covering, and I'm not sure the courts have enough time to deal with all the cases that might arise.

However, all that would serve to increase personal responsibility and decrease dependency on the Government, and that, I'm sure, can only be a good thing.

Back again?

2009-10-18T18:59:00.000-07:00

Yes, another two-week intermission. I begin to think I'm just not cut out for blogging. Then again, if I'm more disciplined, it might be possible.

I can't, of course, make a full-time career of it. Thus, my blog will never be among the most famous, and rightly so, since my stories will inevitably be ill-researched, and so short on facts and long on opinion.

Today, I'll probably do a couple of posts.

In this one, I'll celebrate the completion of a long project: merging address books.

In a case of "yuppy meets computer geek", perhaps, I found myself with contact information stored in more places than I knew what to do with. I had a flat-file, from the days when I stored my address book as a text file then ran it through a Perl script to make it into an xml (which could then be read in a browser). I had my Evolution address book at home, my Thunderbird address book at work, and my cellphone address book, all of which have (since April or May of this year) been synced via Memotoo (a service I pay for, but if it allows me to have a consistent contact list, it's worth it; I think it's about 10 or 15 Euros a year). I have Facebook. And then I have the programs or services which are narrowly focused: Twinkle (VoIP), Skype, MSN, AIM, Yahoo! and Google Talk.

This weekend, I finally finished putting my flat file records into the synced system, and the flat file has now gone. I have also updated Twinkle against an export from Evolution.

That leaves the other services. MSN seems to be dying a slow death among my contacts; I'm not sure whether that's because of deterioration in its perceived quality of service, or because they just have far less time to hang out on the 'net than they once did. I could use Skype, but it seems it hasn't really reached critical mass, with only one friend using it to regularly converse with me. I largely use AOL and Yahoo for people I meet online, rather than in RL. In any case, it seems less important to go to the trouble of syncing those services; the worst consequence of failing to do so is that the person will drop offline and never be seen again (as it were), as opposed to (say) dialling the wrong number or turning up at the wrong house.

Now the project is done, though, I can turn my attention to other things. Of which, of course, there are a great many. Blogging being one.

It truly is a small world!

2009-09-30T20:26:00.001-07:00

Today, on Facebook, I saw a friend's status update. One of the responses to it was from a relatively well-known New Zealand political and Christian blogger, whose blog I follow: none other, indeed, than Madeleine of MandM fame.

Christian circles in New Zealand: two or three degrees of separation, it seems, will get you anywhere.

Tidbits

2009-09-10T21:11:00.000-07:00

Busyness reigns.

That's why I haven't been posting again. Par for the course, I suppose.

That and blogging is hard work. Partly because I have a tendency to write way too much in a single post. It seems my description of this blog as "ramblings" was appropriate.

But I'm not about to pull the plug just yet.

***

I've been wrestling with more code at work. Trying to make a program go faster only ends up bogging me down in algorithms. The fact that I'm still learning Java, and flying by the seat of my pants to an extent, is probably not helping.

I say again, "Nothing is ever as simple as it at first appears."

***

So I took the Dominion Post's Political Junkie quiz yesterday. Hat tip Homepaddock.

I got 8/10, though some of the correct answers were educated or lucky guesses. One question I got wrong was a toss-up between Mickey Savage and Geoffrey Palmer. I went for Palmer. The other one was getting CYFS mixed up with the Ministry of Social Development.

I don't have too much time on my hands, but if I know that kind of information, maybe I'm not always spending it the right way. After all, it's not as if I'm on track to become an MP where I might have a reason to know about some of these things. I'm not averse to the idea in principle (shock, horror), but I'm not sure my skills are right, and would in any case want a few more years of life experience before I felt even remotely qualified to help rule a country.

***

I should probably go to bed. But for some reason I've only just started getting tired. No doubt I'll rue this mightily in the morning. Even more so on Sunday, by all accounts; I'm away on a church camp of sorts this weekend, which in all probability means little sleep, among other things.

D'oh!

2009-08-31T18:21:00.001-07:00

Technology bit me on the posterior, today. This kind of thing happens altogether too often, and is often at least partly my own fault. Today's episode was not - perhaps, the exception that proves the rule.

M., with whom I share an office, was surprised by his keyboard going into the technical equivalent of cardiac arrest. Yep, it just stopped working. Completely.

We tried the dead keyboard on my computer. To no avail. He went and got a spare from the tech support guys. That one didn't work either. We then tried to plug my keyboard into his computer, since my keyboard was known to work. Not only did my keyboard not work on his computer, once it had been plugged in over there, it no longer even worked on my computer.

Diagnosis: USB port somehow providing too much power, killing every peripheral plugged into it.

Outcome: One sick computer, three dead keyboards and an unknown number of dead portable hard drives. Warranty repairs and replacement are underway.

Smacking, again

2009-08-30T20:03:00.000-07:00

So, after much sound and fury, this blog signified nothing for its first two weeks of existence. Oh well.

Anyway, one of my last substantial posts on my other blog was my position on the recent changes to Section 59 of New Zealand's criminal code, the Crimes Act 1961. In brief, those changes prohibited parents or guardians to use corporal punishment; in New Zealand law, parents or guardians are now permitted to use force only to prevent harm to the child or someone else, or to stop the child from engaging in criminal, offensive or disruptive behaviour.

This, of course, creates a legal minefield; if a charge is brought under the sections of the Crimes Act dealing with common assault or assault on a child, it will, presumably, be up to the parent to prove that without force, the child would have hurt himself or another, or gone on to commit (or keep committing) some act or omission which would have been criminal, offensive or disruptive. Furthermore, it's quite possible that the parent would have had to prove that the force used was no more than what would be absolutely necessary to prevent the unwanted act or omission; and especially that no part of the force used had a "corrective" purpose (was designed to stop the child from pursuing the same course of action at some unknown time in the future). Lastly, the Police were given "discretion" not to prosecute.

A referendum was held, asking the question of whether smacking "as part of good parental correction" should be considered a criminal offence. About 54% of registered electors voted; of that 54%, 87% voted No. The percentage of spoiled or wasted votes was very small.

The general arguments of those who support a law against corporal punishment, in light of the referendum question, were that it was misleading, which I think is false as the question is quite straightforward for anyone with an acceptable command of English. The other claim was that it was "leading": that of course nothing should be illegal if forming part of "good parental correction", whatever that means, and that the writers of the question assumed that there are circumstances in which smacking could form part of this "good parental correction". Many supporters of the existing law strongly deny that assumption. I myself would not deny it; and though I don't know what I myself would do, I don't want it made a criminal offence.

Almost on the very day the referendum result was announced, a Private Member's Bill was drawn forth which would modify the Crimes Act along the lines of the so-called "Borrows amendment", proposed in 2007. This amendment would have allowed for "reasonable force", as under the old law, provided the reasonable force met certain limiting conditions.

This Bill was apparently squelched by the Prime Minister, ironically of the conservative National Party, who said his Party would not offer it support even as far as a select committee. If no MPs break ranks, this guarantees an overwhelming Parliamentary majority against the Bill, and stops it in its tracks. Instead, the Prime Minister offers to reiterate the "discretion" guidelines to Police and social services, and to review the operation of the law at intervals.

I'm joining the opinions of those who think this is a bad solution.

Not necessarily because of the overwhelming vote which any reasonable person would interpret as in favour of at least "light smacking". I'm generally of the opinion that laws are often tricky and complicated things to get right, and that Members of Parliament, especially those on the relevant select committee, are much better informed on the issues surrounding any particular law than the public. Thus, I support the right of Parliament to overrule the public on any non-constitutional matter. However, Members of Parliament must be aware of the political risks involved in doing so; and I do think that where Parliament decides to ignore a clearly expressed opinion, it should be prepared to explain why, equally clearly, to the public. I suspect that on most issues the rationale would be something like, "we really do know better than you". It's harder to say so when child-discipline measures are at stake, since that would often be interpreted as "we know your children better than you", which many parents would, I'm sure, find grossly insulting. Nevertheless, under current law, Parliament is not so much as obliged to respond to a CIR.

No, my problem is really based on the relationship between Parliament and the Government.

In brief, the situation should be this. Parliament makes the laws; the Government - that is, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the apolitical officials who carry out their orders - enforces them (with appropriate reference to the judiciary to decide how to enforce them in particular cases). If Parliament makes a law, the Government should certainly not be free to ignore it. If Parliament decides corporal punishment administered by parents or guardians to their kids is illegal, the Government may be constrained by lack of Police resources not to enforce that law, but certainly does not have the right to decree that the law won't be enforced anyway.

Am I alone in that opinion? No; indeed, one of the oldest pieces of law still in force in New Zealand, the Bill of Rights - that's the original Bill of Rights of 1689, not the BORA enacted in 1990 - has this to say:

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons...for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare: That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal.

That is, the Queen, or a Minister acting in her name, can not just refuse to execute a duly passed law. Of course, the clause in the Crimes Act permitting "Police discretion" probably constitutes "consent of Parliament" as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned. Nevertheless, giving officials such broad "executive discretion", especially in pursuit of a nebulous goal such as "the public interest", amounts in my view to an abdication of responsibility by Parliament.

If Parliament means smacking for corrective purposes to be a crime, it should say so, remove discretion from officials, and take the consequences. If not, it should amend the Crimes Act forthwith.

Welcome

2009-08-14T19:38:00.000-07:00

Dear reader,

Welcome to my ramblings. This is the second part; earlier musings can be found at my LiveJournal.

If this blog is anything like my last one, it will touch on matters personal, political, philosophical, theological, scientific, linguistic, and miscellaneous. I hope you find posts here enjoyable and thought-provoking; but I won't try to make every post be all things to all people. Nevertheless, happy reading.

At this time, I also welcome comments from readers. I think it's appropriate to put a few ground rules out there. The following text is a bit unfriendly, so I don't blame you if you don't read it (even though it's not as bad as, say, a software EULA). By commenting here, though, you agree to be bound by it.

I have the right to vary these rules at any time, with or without notice to readers.

I haven't enabled anonymous commenters at this time. Sorry, folks, you'll need a Blogger ID or OpenID.

Commenting on this blog is not your right; it's a privilege I extend to you. By posting a comment here, you give me the right to copy, refer to, edit or delete it as I see fit, with or without notice or warning. Candidates for deletion include, without limitation, spam; off-topic comments, or those which attempt to direct readers to off-topic material; comments which are profane, abusive or defamatory; comments which attempt to discuss a matter before any court; or comments which incite any criminal act. Serious or repeat offenders may be moderated or banned, with or without notice or warning, for a length of time I decide (and which I may shorten or extend any time before it ends), or indefinitely.

All right, that's the fine print - and probably the scariest post - out of the way. Happy reading!