Archive for category A Rant
Mirna is an educational psychologist from Stellenbosch. She taught at several schools, amongst others Stellenbosch High School, Bloemhof Girls’ High and Jan Kriel School for learners with barriers to learning. She is a mother, loves art, the ocean and children.
I have been writing on the effects of divorce for the last couple of letters and would like to conclude with this short but powerful voice for the rights of children to be respected when a family is going through a divorce.
I found this at Children in the Middle-and added thoughts I found important for children going through a divorce. It really succinctly encapsulate the essence of going through a “good” divorce.
Children of Divorce’s Bill of Rights
- Recognize that we love and need both parents.
- Don’t turn us into messengers. Mom and Dad should talk to each other directly.
- Don’t say bad things about our other parent.
- Don’t grill us about what is going on at our other parent’s home.
- Don’t ask us to take sides.
- Don’t make us feel like we’re being disloyal to you if we enjoy being with our other parent.
- If you have something angry to say to our other parent, don’t say it around us.
- We do not want to be used as weapons against the other parent.
- Do not bribe us or give us gift because of your guilt or revenge. More than anything we need your time, patience and attention.
If parents who are divorcing could follow these guidelines – they can ensure to go through the separation with less trauma and more secure children.
I don’t know about you, dear reader, but they make a lot of sense to me.
I would wager that the many parents we read about who kill their children rather than let their spouse have them have not followed these rules. God, but they must really hate. Yes, I know they must be unbalanced, but why and how did they get that way?
Sony showed this to attendees at their Annual Shareholder’s meeting in 2009 but I have only just come across it and think it needs a wider audience.
The frightening thing is when they talk about first year and third year students…
Tell us what frightened or excited you below in the comments!
The following is part of an article from the Adam Smith Institute and you can read the rest of the article here.
Camden Council has effectively banned a street party planned by republicans to coincide with the royal wedding. This is a shame, since those opposed to the monarchic principle should be allowed to express their views. It is not as if they were trying to occupy part of a public space in perpetuity; it was just a day’s party they planned.
It does highlight the debate between those who support our constitutional monarchy and those who favour replacing it by a republic with an elected head of state. To those of a libertarian bent, what matters is not how democratic or representative is either form of government, but how friendly they are to liberty.
On an empirical level, constitutional monarchies have been quite friendly to liberty. A monarch who inherits the office feels no popular mandate to impose their views on everyone else. They did not have to claw their way to the top, but simply inherited it, and are conscious of the limitations this implies.
Our constitutional monarch occupies the top slots, not only as head of state, but as head of the armed forces and the judiciary. As such, they deny these posts to ambitious self-seekers who might wish to use them to promote an agenda. A monarch who simply inherits the position can act as a focus for the nation more easily than someone elected as head of state via partisan politics.
Many, if not most, of the theoretical arguments would win the case against a head of state who came from a family that had emerged by the blood and chance of history to occupy that position from birth alone. Yet in practice the record of modern constitutional monarchies has been a good one for tolerance, for the rights of dissenting minorities to do their own thing, and for upholding the rule of law and the rights of free speech.
The bit that convinces me, hands down, is the passage I have highlighted above, in red. It makes good sense to me as we all know what partisan politics have done for our country since the second world war.
Politicians are, on the whole, hated more than estate agents, and certainly more than bankers. The right question to ask here, is a simple “why?”
It is because they are self-seeking, and on the whole, in it for the power or the money. Certainly not for the peoples of these islands.
Everyone is asking the wrong questions.
The right questions are:
1. Is the NHS working?
2. is it working to the best of its capacity?
We really need to answer these questions, not just of the NHS as a whole, but of each section or department.
Once we have these answers, and only when we have these answers, can we decide how, with the same money, whether we can improve it.
It is not enough for the Conservatives to say, “Yes, we have already asked these questions.” They must prove it to us by itemising each department and not only giving the answers to the above questions in relation to each of the departments, but list what they are doing in each department to improve matters, and by what yardstick they intend to be judged at the next election on each department.
But Governments, whether the Coalistion or Labour, hate (a) explaning too much to the general public, and (b) hate giving any sort of yardstick with which to be judged.
They say the people get the Government they deserve. (Yes, the Libyan’s did nothing about Gadafi for many decades so don’t cite that as an answer against this statement.) We, in Britain repeadedly get the Government we deserve, by ignoring the smaller parties and never giving them a chance to mature. So, at the next election, I can categorically assure you, you will have a Socialist or Conservative Government – and can you honestly swear that one is better than the other?
On the 12th April, 2010, The nurses union stated:
“The RCN is committed to working with the party that wins the election to improve care for all during this tough financial period. This manifesto makes clear that up to £20 billion will have to be saved in the NHS over the coming years.”
They must have been convinced that Labour were going to win!
And AV is no solution to these problems either.
28 MPs who secretly handed their fiddled expenses back, and the civil and criminal crimes of other MPs.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph, of all the Members of Parliament who fiddled their expenses, twenty-eight MPs have been given the money they publicly handed back, back to them quietly and without publicity. These are substantial amounts, and the top five who received their “cash backs” in terms of amounts, the total came to £29,910.98!
The following interesting comment was submitted by the nom-de-plume of dipsplepskik#
What would expect from a group such as this ?
This is unbelievable, but can you imagine working for a Company that has a little more than 600 Employees and has the following employee statistics…
29 accused of spouse abuse
7 arrested for fraud
9 accused of writing bad cheques
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 arrested on drug-related charges
8 arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 arrested for drink driving in the last year and collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer £92,993,748 in expenses!!!
Which organization is this?
It’s the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of the population of Britain in line.
What a bunch of bastards we have running our country – it says it all…
And just to top all that they probably have the best ‘corporate’pension scheme in the country!!
… pity he didn’t follow it up.
Pity nobody has followed it up, both before him, and afterwards.
The girl in this video probably went to a private school. The video is all about changing outcomes from using the right words.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but this is not necessarily true if the words are chosen by a poet or educated person.
Enjoy the video, but do reflect on the message right at the end…
There is nothing new about the idea of an Alternative Voting system.
When the idea was last mooted in 1931, Winston Churchill spoke up against it as elections being determined by “the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”
Churchill said of AV “it adds new features of caprice and uncertainty to the conduct of each individual election… Imagine making the representation of great constituencies dependent on the second preferences of the hindmost candidates. The hindmost candidate would become a personage of considerable importance, and the old phrase, ‘Devil take the hindmost’ will acquire a new significance.”
As with so many things, Winston saw the danger to democracy clearly.
I am not too sure whether I believe the statement from the No 2 AV campaign which suggest that around 35 constituencies could have their outcomes determined by the second preferences of BNP voters.
However, if they got only one seat, that surely would be one vote too many?Hat tip: Guido Fawkes