It's awful. Thank you for posting this - I haven't watched it, and will not, but I've seen videos of police and military brutality towards captured suspects (often accused of serious crimes), and it turns me. I don't want to see these things unless I have to.
It also shows us why we should set very firm limits on the application of force by police - because violence of any kind is not the role of the police, and because the capacity for escalation is rapid. Boots quickly hit heads, and batons hit bodies, and where such conduct is normalised.
Someone I know was subject to prolonged and intense pain holds by NZ police after an arbitrary detention (he was not charged with anything, there was no conceivable reason), and while there was strong video evidence, did not go forward with the issue. In the absence of an independent police complaints authority, he felt the act would be fruitless. Where there is no independent press, a breakdown of the rule of law, and no independent judiciary, the outcomes are much worse again.
So much goodness this week; so much consistency from Watercolours, and the Phoenix Foundation have been producing goodness for such a long time that it’s easy to take for granted just how incredible they are. They might be part of the furniture, but they’re that amazing ornate sofa that fills the room and makes you incredibly comfortable. (Like a few others; have Carter, Donnelly, Runga, or the Neilsons ever made a bad album?)
My favourite mashup of the week? Call Me A Hole – Carly Rae / Reznor.
Loud and stupid. Turn it up and sing along. (Why it works just so well – the songs have the same father.)
An audience that’s a lot more sophisticated (and cynical, both for better and worse) that it used to be.
People say that. I don't believe them. Our brains operate on a base pattern-dependent level, and going up and beyond that takes work, and requires deliberate engagement. Being informed protects you somewhat, but most people don't have that information readily to hand. Those who do must see past what their brains compile for them.
It's really hard work to think past a made-up and photographed celebrity on the side of a bus-shelter.
And there is harrassment of the different- and, o George? I know another asexual who is also in the Armed forces – but she is female-
... armed forces around the world are set up in ways that deliberately intensify certain social dynamics. Men don't find a aggression completely unnatural, but they have to be trained to kill. A deep assumption of male heteronormativity underpins and reinforces those dynamics. Shifting from that is necessarily disruptive, and while it has been done in limited ways, it has been others (women, gay men, invisible asexuals) who've had to conform to it; their acceptance is based on their ability to fit these pre-existing standards.
There's a fair bit out there, but I found this particularly useful. The role of gender in war is certainly not arbitrary. http://books.google.tl/books/about/War_and_Gender.html?id=KXs_LS5g57MC&redir_esc=y
Hi Bob, welcome to the PAS hivemind.
Militaries are deliberately strange environments, as they have to be able to send men to do unusual and awful things. That works for certain purposes, but when it exacts costs on men they tend to be severe.
They usually make sensible recommendations. Where there is a identifiable risk and a clear policy response that would reduce or eliminate this risk, they make a statement to that effect. Eric Crampton has helpfully compiled a list (for the purpose of saying saving lives is too burdensome).
They're not experts on everything; their focus on reducing deaths means we get the occasional not-so-sensible one, these stand out. It's their job to make recommendations, but decisions about implementing these is the responsibility of the relevant agencies.
As for whether they are implemented? That's not clear.
Fortunately, we don’t really.
The Ministry of Justice seem to think they do, stating on their website
A coroner speaks for the dead to protect the living.
The role of the Coroner is to establish when, where, how and why the death happened, and also to work out whether anything can be done differently that might stop similar deaths in the future. If so, they make recommendations.
I've also been labouring under this understanding. It's unlikely we're both wrong.
I think he’s now at the same stage as, say, Neil Young or Leonard Cohen. A formidable reputation based on a long run of classics in his first 10 years or so, but now well into being patchy, quality-wise. There’ll be a good album or two, then a clunker.
Nothing of his has been to my taste since Abattoir, so I can't speak with certainty, but I've found his musical theatrics to somewhat underwhelming.
I like the new Bowie single. It'll be on repeat for a while.
It's up there with the largest killers in NZ, and for those under 60 is the leading cause of death. These graphs are illustrative (Thanks to Mike Dickison and Siouxie Wiles). As a cause of years of potential life lost (YPLL), it's almost certainly at or near the top.
I don't generally take views on the judiciary, but I do hold the general principle that they must be able to apply their role without significant prejudice, and act in a public rather than private role. Being a coroner cannot be an easy job, and I appreciate anyone who caries out its duties. But given the place of alcohol in our society and its role in many deaths, I wonder if someone who might strong religious beliefs about alcohol, homosexuality, and other 'sins' has the deftness required to understand and deal with many of the cases that come their way. If their beliefs were to interfere with their carrying out their function, that would be of severe impact - particularly as we rely on coroners to understand deaths and thus prevent future ones.
And yet, as long as anything but NORML are the face of reform, the conversation will stall. I imagine it will take a Gareth Morgan style figure to charge a public debate; someone squarely from middle-and-respected New Zealand.
(Not that Morgan can assume that mantle comfortably any time soon, he's said too much.)