This is a photo of me taken last weekend on my daughter's cell phone (not the best photo of me but our camera is broken):

This is a photo of my 16 year old daughter:

This is a photo of me with my 16 year old daughter, also taken last weekend:Can you spot the difference?

Why am I posting these and asking this? Because of this comment here:

"This is a great pic as it is a reminder of you on more than one level. Big piles of chocolate chip biscuits are a good reminder that the hot photos of Madeleine on this blog are probably photos of her daughter she pretends are photos of her because she is such a big fattie (and now a big fat liar too about what she looks like).Come on Maddy show us a picture of what you really look like. But then of course no one would want to read your blog because looking at you would make them sick.

Now this is kinda funny, kind flattering and kinda strange - whilst its nice at age 35 to get mistaken for your 16 year old daughter, what can I say its a combination of my Anew Skincare regime and my Knapp genes, but being accused of impersonating her because I am in reality ugly and fat is ridiculous!

Whilst my daughter wrote a response, I had intended to just ignore this post but recent events on Kiwiblog have led me to change my mind. In the comments section I find myself being slammed for being fat, loving burgers and biscuits and telling porkies about what I really look like because I wrote a comment critical of the current government's welfare programme for workers a.k.a Working for Families.

James (207) Says: September 30th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
We all know how much Maddy loves her burgers and chocolate biccies.
Did you see on her blog she has been outed for using her daughter to impersonate herself?”
Well theres a suprise….Mad woman Flanagan telling porkies….golly! Next it will be claims of sexual harrassment….oh wait…

A few weeks ago someone gave me a copy of this interview with John Key. Now the first thing to note is that the article was published by Gaynz.com. Gaynz.com are not a terribly reliable media outlet, and Madeleine would say that they are beneath the term “media outlet”. Hence, much of what is written may be highly inaccurate. (The fact Gaynz.com have removed this article and I had to link to it indirectly through a liberal Anglican site perhaps speaks to some of the above.) Despite this, if John Key did say these things, how would one respond to them? I will endeavour to do this in this post.

1. Key states he voted against civil unions because the majority in his electorate were opposed it.
This is clearly an inadequate stance, suppose that same-sex sex is wrong, contrary to the laws of God. If this is the case, Key is suggesting that he would follow the beliefs and will of the majority over the beliefs of an omniscient, all knowing, perfectly-good God. This is irrational to say the least. The mistaken views that are popular are more authoritative than the decree of God.

On the other hand, suppose there is nothing wrong with same-sex sex. Suppose that discriminating against such unions is on par with discriminating against inter-racial unions. Then Key is suggesting he would follow the racial prejudices of the majority even though he abhors this prejudice himself.

Such a position is bizarre. For my part I expect legislators to be people of integrity and have the courage of their convictions to stand against evil and injustice even when it is unpopular to do so.

2. Key dismisses the argument that “civil unions undermine marriage” in a far too cavalier manner. Though I myself do not endorse this argument, I believe a critique of it should be based on an accurate and fair interpretation which must also be a valid argument. Key’s is neither. Key responds by saying, “I have been married for 22 years and the fact that a gay couple may choose to have a Civil Union would have absolutely no impact on my marriage to my wife”. But that is not the issue. Opponents of civil unions claimed it would undermine the institution of marriage not that it would under mine one particular person’s marriage.

Of course Key is not alone in dismissing the arguments of others simply by a cavalier caricature, but this fact does not alter the spuriousness of doing so.

3. Key states “I don’t care what people’s sexual preferences are” and states that a persons sexual preference “is their business and their business alone.” Several things can be said here; first whether Key cares about an issue is irrelevant. The issue is whether certain actions are right or wrong and this is not determined by Key’s personal feelings.

Second, if a person’s “sexual preferences” are “their business alone” why does he have no problem with the State solemnising and legally recognising a person’s sexual union. If it is no one else’s business then why is it the states business?

Thirdly, contrary to what Key says, a person’s “sexual preference” is relevant. Some people prefer little children; by definition this is a sexual preference. If Keys’ trite sounding slogan were correct, this is their business alone and no one else’s.

Similarly Key notes that “We have friends who are gay and lesbian, just as we have dozens of friends who are heterosexual.” This may be true but it is beside the point. The fact that you know people who do something does not mean the State should endorse their activity through recognising and solemnising it. I have had friends who sleep around and regularly get intoxicated. Does that mean that the government should set up state funded clinics for those who want casual sex or provide tax payer funded alcohol?

4. In discussing the origins of same-sex attraction Key states “I believe it is innate. I am not an expert in these areas but I have had all these religious groups in my electoral office trying to argue that this is learned behaviour, personally I believe that is crap.” It is not just religious people who make that claim (and not all religious people do anyway). Socially liberal New York University Sociologist, Dr David Greenberg, in his book “The Construction of Homosexuality” concluded that homosexual conduct is socially learned. He based this on a huge survey of cross-cultural studies. This work may be mistaken, but I think Key is reaching if he thinks his credentials warrant writing off such research as “crap” because of what his consciousness tells him.

4. Key goes on to note: “I think we largely live in a secular society, I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate. I’m no supporter of these hard right religions. [For instance,] I was never offered, I would never have accepted any financial support from the Exclusive Brethren. I met them as a constituency MP, as I would meet anyone as a constituency MP on constituency issues as I believe it’s wrong to discriminate.”

There is so much here it is hard to know where to begin.

(a) Key states “we live in a secular society”. This mantra is trotted out by politicians of the left and right continually, but it is spurious. The fact that society currently displays a trait does not mean it ought to display that trait, we currently live in a Labour led society, does Key think that means Labour ought to continue to lead?

(b) Key goes on to state he does not believe in discrimination. However, he then immediately notes that he does not “support hard right religions.” His position is contradictory; unless Key does not support any groups at all (which is clearly false he supports National) he is discriminating against these groups as he is supporting some but not others.

Moreover, legislation by its nature discriminates. A law regulates human conduct, it states that people who engage in certain actions will be censured (incarcerated or fined) while people who do not engage in those actions will not. This is discrimination. Contrary to what Key states discrimination in and of itself is a morally neutral concept. Some types of discrimination are wrong i.e. depriving people of their life on the basis of their race, and others are not, depriving people of liberty because they have committed murder. The fact that such an elementary and obvious point is lost on someone who seeks to lead the country speaks volumes for the intellectual and moral acumen of today’s politicians.

(c) However, Key’s core argument is “I think there are many religions operating in NZ and it is in the best interests of the state to make decisions that are on a secular basis so they don’t discriminate.” The argument here seems to be that because there are many differing religious groups in NZ, it would be discriminatory to base the laws on moral principles taught by only some of these groups. Hence legislation should be based on secular (i.e non-religious) values and ideals.

The problem is that if this argument is not sound. If it were, there is an equally sound argument for the claim that we should not base laws on secular values and ideals.

Consider: There are many secular philosophies operating in NZ. They disagree on all sorts of matters. Compare the Socialist Workers Party with the Objectivist Society, or both with the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists. Hence, if we follow Key’s logic, to avoid discrimination we need to base laws on “non-secular aims”.

In fact one can push this silly argument further, there are numerous different political parties in NZ, hence to avoid discrimination we should not base laws on the aims or values of any political party. Which means that if elected Prime Minister, Key will not support any National Party policies being implemented.

Does any of the above mean that people should not vote for National? Not necessarily. While Key is clearly mistaken on these issues, it does not follow that he is mistaken on every other issues. Moreover, it could be (lets face it, it is probably the case…) that the alternative to National will contain people who are more mistaken on more issues. John Key has a lot of faults but he has one big tick in his favour, he is not Helen Clark.

Those of you who have followed my discussions with Peter Creswell on the history of Christianity and the relationship between faith and reason in the middle ages may find this article interesting.

The article is abridged below but is available in full here.

God’s Philosophers
How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science
James Hannam 2007

Dr Hannam has recently completed his Ph.D. on the History of Science at the University of Cambridge.

Some extracts:

Rethinking Science in the Middle Ages
The most famous remark Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727) made is, “If I have seen a little further then it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” What most of us assume he meant is that his scientific achievements were built on the discoveries of his predecessors. In the same passage, he alludes to René Descartes (1596 – 1650), the French philosopher and mathematician, so presumably this is one of those whom he meant. Few people realise, however, that Newton’s aphorism was first coined in the twelfth century by the theologian Bernard of Chartres (d. c. 1130). Even fewer are aware that Newton’s science also has its roots embedded firmly in the Middle Ages.

This book will show just how much of the science and technology that we take for granted today has medieval origins.

....

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great deal of science, which it also kept control of when speculation could impinge on theology. Ironically, by keeping philosophers focused on nature instead of metaphysics, even the limitations that the Church set may have benefited science in the long term. Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas. The most famous clash between science and religion was the trial of Galileo (1564 – 1642) in 1633. Academic historians are now convinced that this had as much to do with politics and the Pope’s ego as it did with science. I will examine the trial fully in the last chapter of this book when I will also explain how much Galileo himself owed to his medieval predecessors.

....

Popular opinion, journalistic cliché and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD500 and AD1500.

True, these inventions originated in the Far East, but Europeans developed them to a far higher degree than had happened elsewhere.

....

The development of printing and paper meant that an incredible 20 million books were produced in the first fifty years after Johann Gutenberg had published his printed Bible in 1455. This dwarfed the literary output of the ancient world. Printing probably had an even greater effect than gunpowder, which, like the stirrup before it, revolutionised warfare and allowed Europeans to dominate the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, the people of medieval Europe invented spectacles, the mechanical clock, the windmill and the blast furnace by themselves. Lenses and cameras, almost all kinds of machinery, and the industrial revolution itself all owe their origins to the forgotten inventors of the Middle Ages. Just because we don’t know their names, does not mean that we should not recognise their achievements.

They lived much tougher lives than we do and we are the ones reaping the rewards for their hard work.

Most significantly, the Middle Ages laid the foundation for the greatest achievement of western civilisation, modern science. It is simply untrue to say that there was no science before the ‘Renaissance’. Once medieval scholars got their hands on the work of classical Greeks, they developed systems of thought that allowed science to travel far further than it had in the ancient world. Universities, where academic freedom was guarded against all comers, were first founded in the twelfth century. These institutions have always provided scientific research with a safe home. Even Christian theology turned out to be uniquely suited to encouraging the study of the natural world because it was believed to be God’s creation. Thus, my own research over the last decade has led me to believe that it is a gross injustice to label the Middle Ages as ‘stagnant’, ‘barbaric’, or ‘uncivilised’.

....

Watermills had existed in the ancient world but the Greeks and Romans never adopted them in large numbers. In the Early Middle Ages, they became increasingly common and the Domesday Book lists over 5,000. Tidal mills were adopted on suitable estuaries where a dam harnessed the high tide and released it through a channel containing a watermill. Finally, the first recorded European windmill sprouted in Yorkshire during the twelfth century and the idea quickly spread all over those parts of northern Europe where suitable rivers or estuaries were not available.
Taken together, these improvements in agriculture led to a population explosion. Estimates for the population of France and the Low Countries rise from three million in 650AD to 19 million just before the arrival of the Black Death in 1350AD. For the British Isles, the equivalent figures are 500,000 people and five million. In Europe as a whole, the population increased from less than 20 million to almost 75 million. These figures must be estimates, if not guesstimates, but the upward trend is clear. For comparison, at the height of the Roman Empire about 33 million people lived in Europe. Well before 1000AD, the population far exceeded what is was when the continent was ruled by Rome and remained above that level even after the Black Death had killed a third of the inhabitants of Europe in the fourteenth century.

....

In some ways, the medieval worldview was closer to ours than we sometimes imagine. For example, Gerbert and all his fellow men and women of any education in 1000AD were perfectly well aware that the Earth was a sphere. They also knew that the universe was very large compared to the Earth. As Boethius wrote in his Consolation of Philosophy:
It is well known and you have seen it demonstrated by the astronomers, that in comparison to the extent of the heavens, the circumference of the earth has the size of a point. That means that, compared to the heavenly sphere, the earth may be thought of as having no size at all.
Comments we hear today about people in the Middle Ages inhabiting a ‘poky little universe’ or believing that the Earth is flat are born of modern rather than medieval ignorance.

….

Another modern misconception about the medieval worldview is that people thought the central position of the Earth meant that it was somehow exulted. In fact, to the medieval mind, the reverse was the case. The universe was a hierarchy and the further from the Earth you got, the closer to Heaven you came. At the centre, underneath our feet, the Christian tradition placed Hell. Then, second worse only to the infernal pit was our Earth of change and decay. Above us, acting as a boundary between the earthly and the heavenly, was the sphere of the Moon. This marked the dividing line between the perfect unchanging heavens and the transient sub-lunar region containing ourselves, doomed to die. Next, there were the crystalline spheres of the seven planets – the Moon, the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – eternally orbiting with uniform circular motion. The spheres were thought to be made of a transparent and imperishable fifth element called ether or quintessence. Above them were the fixed stars whose positions relative to each other never appeared to change. Above even them was the firmament and beyond that, Christians like Gerbert imagined, was the realm of God. This hierarchical system gave people absolute directions of up and down, one towards the heavens and one down to Earth at the bottom of the celestial ladder. To move the Earth away from the centre of the universe was not to downgrade its importance but to raise it up towards the stars.

RELATED POSTS:
The "Dark Ages" and Other Propaganda
Things They Don't Teach you in Public Schools...
The Flat Earth Myth

Alistair told me I had to write this so its all his fault!

Our 7 year old son Noah has a 'girlfriend' who he 'is going to marry one day.' His 'girlfriend' also turned 7 yesterday and had a party. His 'girlfriend's' mum went to a heap of trouble to decorate the house, make the food and plan all sorts of fun activities to make sure their daughter and all her little friends had heaps of fun. She did way more games than I do, I draw the line at decorating the cake and making just one pass-the-parcel (which I make my teenagers wrap and supervise the execution of).

Back when I was a child (did I really just use that sentence?) pass the parcel was completely random; some kids got to remove 3 layers and other kids missed out completely. The excitement and anticipation when the music stopped was all centred on getting to be the person who got to take the wrapper off and hoping you got to take the wrapper off on the very last layer. If you sulked because you missed out, you were a poor loser and got a lecture from your parents about good sportsmanship. These days, in our PC culture, for the kids its all about getting the lollipop or other goodie taped to each layer and every parent I know - including me (well my teenagers) - 'cheats' and makes sure that every kid gets a turn taking off a layer before letting the game run randomly.

The party progressed to musical chairs. My kids have not really played it that much (as I am slack, see above) but they, along with the others, picked up the rules and with big smiles of anticipation got ready to play.

Now unlike pass the parcel, musical chairs does not lend itself so well to PC-ising.

The music stopped, they all scrambled for chairs, one kid missed out, got eliminated from the game and promptly began crying. There were cries of "Oh... poor thing... its just a practice run" and the rules were re-explained and the heat was run again. A different kid missed out this time and promptly began crying. The next round was played and each chair was removed every kid was reduced to tears when they lost, even my children!

I know the families that were present quite well and I know that all of them despise the PC culture and have tried to raise their kids in a manner counter to it, us included, yet seeing all of our kids fall apart because they lost really gave us pause. The host parents were horrified that all the guest were in tears (barring the kid who won), they had been trying to make the party fun for everyone afterall. They categorically stated they would never play musical chairs at their parties again and apologised to the parents who by then all had at least one crying child on their laps.

The episode was really disturbing. We all began questioning how the children of today's culture are going to cope with real loss in life and knocks to their confidence. I wondered what it would mean for their ability to persevere, to believe in themselves when life sent them knocks, Alistair wondered about the impact long term on suicide rates - how will teenagers cope if parents shield them from 'losing' or always try to correct situations where their child 'misses' out? Obviously the musical chairs is just a symptom and not the cause but I think it made us see that despite our efforts to the contrary we are raising a generation of kids whose definition of 'fairness' and 'equality' is something quite different from what it should be.

Last night I really felt for the host parents' embarassment, completely empathised with it and mentally congratulated myself on my slackness of never having more than one party game and that game never being musical chairs! However, on reflection I have decided I owe it to my kids to add musical chairs to my party-games repertoire and I am going to stop allowing my teenagers to 'cheat' at pass the parcel - I might even take the lollipops off the wrappers too!

I saw this birthday video a few months back and thought of Glenn and as today is Glenn's birthday I just had to post it.



Happy Birthday Glenn!

Hey! Andy just sent me this pic he snapped at Subway that made him think of us.