Female Ex-Act MPs: Should we send some back.
Shonky business dealing are driving NZ to the wall. Recent statistics show the root cause of the problem being the rise of being the rising numbers of female ex-ACT MPs. In the 1996-2006 period violent offence have risen from 35,000 to 40,000. In the same period the number female ex-ACT MPs has risen from ZERO to an astonishing FIVE! A clear correlation! If we examine the individual cases we find that a staggering 20% of these female ex-ACT MPs, deborah Coddington & Donna Awatere-Huata, have been associated with dodgy business dealings!
SEND THEM BACK!!!!!!
So, has Ms Coddington taken stock of criticism, acknowledged that her story was misleading, and apologised?
Er, no, she hasn't.
PS: My initial response on reading that column was to write something highly abusive. I haven't, and I'd be grateful if readers could follow suit in their responses.
I noted in her radio interview and in that new column she makes much of people mounting "ad hominem" attacks rather than criticising the "argument". This is a good example of DC's tactics---rather than address the issue, complain about how you were treated by those who disagreed with you. Anyhow, when writing an opinion piece (as the latest column certainly was, and as the N&S column must be viewed, given the way the statistics were used to mislead and reinforce a certain view when they in fact do not support that view) surely, since it is your opinion then you must expect to be attaked for that opinion, and therefore to be personally attacked! The disingenuous, self-congratulatory tone around being pleased to have raised a serious issue that needs debating is intellectually (and surely therefore journalistically) very dishonest. DC uses this cover very often, it seems. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded cinema just to get people talking about how all the emergency exits are locked (and ignoring the "collateral damage" that would ensue) is not clever!
I haven't necessarily been following this debate, but having just read the Herald on Sunday column, it seems to be that Coddington is really really bothered but all the flack she's getting over this.
Despite her dissing of blogs, her column reads like a slightly moderate version of an angry blog entry written in response to some blogospheric tiff (and I don't mean that as an insult).
I noted in her radio interview and in that new column she makes much of people mounting "ad hominem" attacks rather than criticising the "argument".
And then she responds to detailed, measured and, in the circumstances, remarkably good-humoured criticism of her argument, by insulting the author as an "insane blogger" who no one listens to anyway. It really is unbelievable.
Wow, she just keeps on abusing statistics doesn't she?
This quote comes directly from the article:
"Here's a disturbing fact: in 2003 four of every five pregnant Asian women aborted their babies"
Fortunately Statistics New Zealand keeps records of both live births and abortions and provides these counts (note counts, not projections) by ethnicity
This page here contains a record of live births by ethnicity from 1996 to 2004 (see chapter 2 spreadsheet 2.2) . There are 5285 live Asian briths recorded against the year 2003.
This page here contains a record of induced abortions by ethnicity (see table 7 on the attached spreadsheet) . There are 3502 Asian women who had abortions recorded in the year 2003.
This puts the rate of abortion per pregnancy at (very) roughly 40% Bearing in mind that still births and spontaneous abortions have not been included in the count of pregnancies and that the count of abortions will include some in which the baby is already dead or which will demonstrably endanger the life of the mother.
Deborah's 4 of every 5 gives us 80% which is demonstrably false.
Where on earth is DC getting her statistics from?
I'm sure the "research" in the rest of her article is every bit as thorough.
(Keith feel free to use this stuff however you see fit, the statistics took all of 20 minutes to pull together)
BTW, Russell, in that RNZ interview David Farrar was introduced as the man with NZ's most popular blog---can this be true? How was it measured? Did David supply the stats :-)? Did he consult DC :-) ??
Where on earth is DC getting her statistics from?
Good question. The Statistics NZ figures show clearly that it is only pregnant Asian *teenagers* who display the 80+% abortion rate, compared with the 50+% abortion rate of pregnant Pakeha teenagers. Additionally, 'Asian' teenagers have the lowest pregnancy rate in the country. Here is the rather clear and concise summary of the statistical information that Coddington seemed unable to read.
In 2002, European women had an abortion ratio of 209, below the national average of 242, while Asian women had a ratio of 374. The corresponding ratios for Māori and Pacific women were 245 and 243, respectively. Among women aged under 20 years, Asian women had the highest crude abortion ratio (824 abortions per 1,000 known pregnancies), compared with European (534), Pacific (377) and Māori (331) women.
Quite apart from this, I wasn't aware that abortion was a crime, let alone an 'Asian crime.'
Wow wow wee wah! I wish to congratulate your journalist Deborah Coddingham on her glorious fight to rid your country of the Asian, in the same way I am working to rid my beautiful country of Jews.
It is well known that the Asian is source of all crime and evil takeaway food. I would like to visit the minor nation of New Zealand to help Mrs Coddleston with her fight. I have adapted my famous song for this:
Throw the Asian in the sea
So my country can be free
They have too much money
They never give it to me
In my country, insane bloggers are kept in cages and provide many amusements for the villagers with their arguments. Real journalists like Mrs Doodlington are allowed to poke them with sticks until they admit their arguments are wrong!
Mrs Codderton sounds like my kind of womens, even more attractive than my sister who is fourth best prostitute in all of Kazakhstan! I would like very much to meet her, perhaps for sexytime! Wow wow wee wah!
Wow, that's mind-blowingly dishonest on her part. Confusing the actions of a population of teenagers with the population at large is such a basic error that I cannot believe that it is anything other than a wilful distortion on her part.
More grounds for a complaint to the press council?
I would like to visit the minor nation of New Zealand to help Mrs Coddleston with her fight.
Greetings, Borat. But you wouldn't like it here. The place is run by homosexuals.
The abortion argument undermines the "help help we're about to be swamped by the teeming hordes" argument, though. Even if you do make some effort to get the statistics right, you can't have it both ways.
Apparently it's far far worse to be called racist, than it is to use patently false statistics to advocate for one race to be treated differently to the rest.
If I might briefly quote myself:
Deborah Coddington's vocal indignation (on Friday) at Matt Nippert's performance-art response (on Wednesday) to her article is perhaps understandable but rather misses the point. In fact, given that Nippert's piece was really a personalised demonstration of how (basically) accurate statistics can be used to cast some wildly unfair aspersions, the fact that Coddington was offended rather proves his point.
BTW, Russell, in that RNZ interview David Farrar was introduced as the man with NZ's most popular blog---can this be true?
Kiwiblog's traffic has been higher than ours for a long time, thanks in part to the repeat traffic that comes with discussion forums. But I did a comparison on Alexa just now and was surprised to find that we've been ranking above Kiwiblog nearly all this month - ie, since Public Address System launched. As they say, it's a not a competition, but I'm chuffed with how PA System is going.
...it's a not a competition...
But, you know, right?
Full credit to David. He really is the first 'big' New Zealand blogger - he's the only one around who can consistantly generate long discussion threads (dispite the faulty comment functionality on that blog). Also he isn't a journo (:P@U'S).
PA/Classic is less a blog and more a collection of editorial comment: more a 'content generator' than a 'content collator'.
(By the way, any possibility of confirming if that was actually Mr Cohen?)
Strange that it didn't rate a mention on MediaWatch.
Russell: what do the Nielsen Netratings numbers show for P.A. vs Kiwiblog? They'll be more reliable than Alexa, which is often little more than a random number generator.
What is DC on?
1. "Let's not pretend all Asians are good", ah, who is doing that?
2. "NZ once regarded Chinese immigrants as hard working, law abiding, good kiwis", ah, that would explain the disgraceful 'Chinaman' taxes of 100 years ago, one of our more shameful episodes. Not only statistically inept, but historically wanting as well.
3. "We're paying for it (Asian crime)", Ah, statistically 'they' are paying for more of 'our' crime. Clearly she does not see Asian immigrants as the 'good kiwis' she laments about.
4. "While researching the story", no, you did not.
I'll leave it there (the end of column one), wondering how her 'mature debate on immigration' is possible when anecdotal evidence over sausage rolls in Bulls takes precedence over even a glimmer of fact.
Her wheel is still spinning but her mouse has clearly died.
What I can't comprehend is the sheer arrogance of DC.
I heard a great term last night that applies to DC perfectly: FigJam.
Fuck I'm Great. Just Ask Me.
Someone buy her a jar for Christmas so she can have it with her backwater scones.
"Quite apart from this, I wasn't aware that abortion was a crime, let alone an 'Asian crime.'"
Great point, amazing how the media in NZ will pick up on a minority statistic and report on it as if it was a crime. This happens time and time again, and it's really disapointing.
For example when Ngai Tahu fisheries laid off workers it was reported upon with such virtiol that one assumed that Maori business are not allowed to do such things.
too many people in this country are self described journalists, take that bizzare fellow Ian Wishart. Some of the most amazing radio I have ever heard was Brian Edwards just laying into the guy with his homophobic expose on Peter Davis. Edwards (yes we all know his political bias) a guest on the panel was beyond civil to the guy, but in listening to Wishart I can hardly blame him. It was as if we were back in the days of the Homosexual Law Reform.
Another example is Mathew Hooton in the SST (?) claiming that NZ was a quasi facist state or something along those lines. No disrescpect Russell et al here, but his columns are less than what I'd expect in the blogosphere. Often factually incorrect, they are as opinion pieces shoddy and in serious need of an editor.
Did anyone pick up on the comments by Hone Harawera in Canada yesterday. Newstalk ZB did. How astonishing a Maori of some radical background at an Indigenous peoples conference suggesting that full and final back here in NZ might not mean full and final for future generations. My god we could see that coming, but apparently it was shocking news for ZB they ran with it for their main headline, because radical Maori make great talkback starters (for ten, sorry word association football).
Speaking of football, FigJam, now I know many a footballer (the beautiful game) that I could apply that to. Might try and slip it into a sentence at the Otago vs Waitaikere game this afternoon.
here we go again.
Stuff is running a poll, I hate those bloody polls.
Do you think it is appropriate for spiritual leaders to bless state roading projects?
Under the title of "Blessed are roads under the Treaty"
and not surprisingly the poll is running at 80% against the idea.
How does this add to any debate of the treaty and of the place of the indigenous in NZ. But this is trypical of the drivel that we are talking about.
Followed by a poll asking whether it is appropriate for public representatives to begin every parliamentary session with a spiritual blessing?
Didn't think so.
More from Ms Coddington's War on Statistics (WAS):
Aucklanders forget it's not the Gilda Kirkpatricks or the Kelly Swanson-Roes who drive the economy. The bulk of our wealth is still created by people in agriculture, fishing, viticulture, horticulture.
From the CIA World Factbook
GDP - composition by sector:
services: 68.4% (2005 est.)
Alt treasury stats here
Where in hell was DC educated?
I'm not sure that Mr Cracker would appreciate us all referring to Ms Coddington as DC...
backtracking a bit here, but my favourite DPF quote of recent times is the reference to System as a nifty, 'bulletin-board-type thing' and the generous provision of a link.
on a sunday afternoon.
three days after System launched....
but dave, thanks for the nod.
anyhow, as for DC, IMHO the best of the aforementioned herald article is this:
Research also killed another assumption of mine - that international students are those aged between about 12 and 25 who are willing to come here and pay for a good-quality education before returning to their homeland. Not so. There's no age limit for starters, which is why a 66-year-old woman was able to rob the Auckland District Health Board of $50,000 in healthcare. And most international students come here hoping they'll get permanent residency when they graduate.
ummm... where's the link between education of overseas students, crime by a pensioner [ethnicity unknown, we can only assume she is Asian], and application for permanent residency? even better, where's the freaking research debs?
i'm with "richard elwin" on this one (i suspect he's adolf fiinkenstein in disguise), send more former ACT MPs overseas.