Friday, 18 December 2009
When I saw this this picture, I literally laughed my head off. That's what us non intellectuals do.
Forget conservatism, it is literalism that is killing the Christian faith. Weak minded, shallow thinking sheep who never challenge what they think and need an Anglican Archdeacon to show them the way. That's right, literalism is a fundamentalist's blunt instrument.
It's easier to think that everything in The Word happened exactly as it's written verbatim. The universe was created in six days, Satan appeared as a serpent, Mary's conception was immaculate. To question what's in the Bible is to question the foundation of your faith. Hopefully the outcome will be a more liberal thinking, open minded 21st century Christian.
Thankfully the Church of England, the highly relevant and non symbolic denomination is able to set us straight. The story of Christmas is not a romantic fairly tale as told in the Bible. It's one of a black Jesus, born to a promiscuous mother in a dirty, stinking barn.
What is most important is that we 'think' about the things rather than having a misinformed faith. A Virgin birth may or may not have happened. Jesus might not have literally risen from the dead. Who cares?
The message is muddled, although somewhat well meaning. The sentiment to challenge our thinking is helpful, but it contradicts itself by insulting those who's faith is based on the very foundations of a traditional (read medieval) Bible.
2009 has been a very challenging for me. I'm left finishing this decade feeling a little lost and disillusioned. Hopefully the next ten years will be more enlightening.
Merry Christmas. Have a safe and enjoyable season.
Posted by Stephen Buck at 10:30 am
Friday, 20 November 2009
Poor old Witi. Every sour faced, four eyed, crossed legged academic (which is all of them), is laying down the hate on what has been defended as an accident.
Call it envy, call it racism, I don't care; plagiarism is what makes the world go round. Without free moving ideas societies would (and have) fall(en).
In today's NZ Herald the headline reads 'Plagiarists like drug cheats'. Excuse me! Just google that phrase and see that is not a unique idea, in fact one article (which I can't be bothered crediting) says 'Performance Enhancing Drug Users are Guilty of Athletic Plagiarism'. A stolen idiom, not tabled and cited correctly. Shame on the doyen of New Zealand literature for making such allegations, (the alligators).
One of the most frustrating aspects to study in the electronic age (not my phrase), is the requirement to credit all the good ideas that you've nicked out of textbooks and journal articles. In fact this scientific approach to study has been a two edged sword.
On one hand writing an essay or a dissertation is more like colour by numbers. Find the pre-written material that answers the question exactly as the academic institution expects it to be answered. Just make sure all the citations and the bibliography are written in the correct style. Pepper in a bit of biculturalism for good measure and bingo!, A+
On the other hand (or side of the sword, you pick the metaphor), this clinical approach shows nothing of of the students or authors writing ability or retention. Even worse it show them to be crafty googlers and nothing else. The fact that science has taught us that ideas aren't always best kept in the lab, proves empirically that theories need to be exercised in the real world.
OK so that sentence was a little long winded, but think about it. Theories are researched, often based on a hypothesis. For example, people are generally honest. Think about the results of the lost wallet in street experiment that Readers Digest does occasionally. Now take that experiment back into a lab, scientists watching with clipboards and video cameras. I'd bet the contents of the wallet that 100% of the eager test subjects would hand it back. Humans perform differently when they are watched under scrutiny.
So what does that have to do with the medias word of the week, plagiarism? Everything. Our obsession with who had a good idea first is ridiculous. People have had good ideas for ever, the wheel, the light bulb; I could go on. That fact that Witi Ihimaera took a couple of pages out of some old and irrelevant book without citing it was technically an incorrect thing to do. Especially with the way academic institutions are fixated on plagiarism. It wasn't a crime though.
My point is this. The book is a novel, a wallet on the street experiment if you like. In the real world ideas flow freely, we sing 'Happy Birthday' without acknowledging the copyright holders. Witi would have done well to have credited his research in a bibliography, but he's no thief. The only thieves are those who seek the attention to get their boot in. Shame on them.
Oh, and the last word is for the media. No industry is based more on plagiarism then your's. Reading newsfeeds all day and republishing them in your own words is not journalism. Get off your chairs and go into the real world and investigate some real stories.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
For the past couple of years our family has dramatically reduced the amount of meat we eat. It's made a huge difference to our overall health. Less illness, no stomach bugs and both parents have even lost a bit of weight.
Part of the decision was made for us after a dodgy lamb experience from the Mad Butcher's. Apart from tasting like lanolin cream it cost us $30. That buys a lot of fresh fruit and veges we thought. The meat malarkey was over.
Some people have said it's dangerous for the kids, that they're not getting the protein and iron they need. Someone even said that it was no wonder our daughter was so small for her age.
Please. The health benefits have spoken for themselves.
We're not vegetarians, we have meat and fish about once a week. New Zealanders have had meat consumption pushed on them as a patriotic duty. Support the farmers, because they support you.
Farming is killing New Zealand's clean green image. It's a disgusting industry; fertilisers and effluent running into our freshwater supplies everyday. Sure farming is a necessary evil, but the way we do it in New Zealand is revolting.
So join the revolution, become an occasional meat eater and feel better for it.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Thursday, 12 November 2009
In today's NZ Herald, Brian Fallow writes an enlightening column on New Zealand's commitment to reducing climate change.
The headline shouts that taxpayers will be stuck with 84% of the financial responsibility when the emissions trading scheme commences in 2011. In real terms this is billions of dollars a year, the exact amount is not clear yet. Like the numbers the whole scheme seems a little foggy (or smoggy, if you prefer). The intentions are admirable, but analogous to most big schemes directed by the government, it seems destined for the scrap heap.
I'm not wanting into wade in the whole Climate Change debate. My opinion is just that. No doubt I'll be on the earth for a few years to come, my children for a few more. I am concerned that any any scheme that involves borrowing money is not sustainable. It's inevitable that we need to take a long term view of pollution and our responsibilities as global citizens. What isn't so clear is why we need to spend taxpayers money, or worse borrowed money, to resolve the problem.
I say make the polluters pay. If the product or service emits heat or worse, burns stuff, tax it. If it's unhealthy, tax it again. If we're serious about reducing emissions then the cost must start with the polluters, otherwise our responsibilities will be paid for by future generations and that simply isn't fair.