Posts by dyan campbell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__Danielle, if by moral you mean a responsibility to other people in society not to squander precious resources on binge drinking, then yes, moral.__
Woah, Dyan. Would you deliver the same sermon to, say, HIV victims? They cost heaps. Fact is, people don't always make good choices.
How do we get from me saying individuals have a moral responsibility not to squander precious health resources on binge drinking to me sermonising to either HIV+ or AIDS patients who need medical assistance?
And why is the legitimate public health concern at a global trend that sees alcohol being marketed to younger and younger people - particularly women - dismissed as moral panic? The massive jump in alcohol consumption in young people in general and young women in particular is a global trend, and a very costly and depressing one.
There is a distinct parallel to the tobacco industry in the 1960s and 70s - when sales began to decline when the link between tobacco and disease was impossible to ignore, tobacco companies began marketing specifically to women, and the Virginia Slims "You've Come a Long Way, Baby" campaign was launched. Smoking and equal rights for women became inextricably linked in the global psyche. To this day, all over the developed world, far more girls than boys take up smoking. And if that can be done for tobacco, why not alcohol?
-
Danielle, if by moral you mean a responsibility to other people in society not to squander precious resources on binge drinking, then yes, moral. And yes, women are much more expensive to clean up after in terms of binge drinking, as they are smaller, metabolise alcohol less well and, well, cost more to clean up after.
These same women want medical treatment, once they have screwed up their health, but again we are faced with a moral question when we decide who gets resources and who doesn't. Not all resources are purchasable. There are only so many livers available.
Alcoholics are receiving one in four of all liver transplants in the UK.
According to The Daily Mirror, the number of transplants being awarded to alcoholics has risen by 60% in the last 10 years
And the demand may be up 60% over all, but it's up 90% in the last decade for binge drinking induced liver failure in women. Yes, there is a moral element to this. Is it just to deny these women liver transplants? Is it just morally right that they get liver transplants and people who have other liver diseases become much, much, less likely to get them? No budget increase will solve this one. Some moral responsibility has to be put somewhere, though there are whole branches of ethics in philosophy devoted to deciding that exactly.
-
Personally I think if we all stand back and watch, and that includes the government, we are in some way either condoning, or complicit, in the inevitable outcomes of excessive drinking. And just so it's clear, throwing drunken people in prison for ignoring a liquor ban is not going to fix it.
Exactly.
And between that and the fact that alcohol fuelled consequences are very expensive to clean up, it seems a travesty to lump an honour for someone like Doug Myers with an honour for someone who actually deserves it, like for public service - in just about any field - but not for making money at the expense of public health and with clean up put on the public's tab.
-
What is it in the national psyche that some Kiwis cannot celebrate, if only for a couple of days each year, the achievements of outstanding New Zealanders?
Well I can't speak for New Zealanders as I am Canadian but from what I see the objection NZers have to Doug Meyers being honoured is the idea that he is an "outstanding NZer" or that he has any "achievements".
Lesley Max is very deserving on an hounour, and all the respect and adulation that goes along with it. Her work for children and NZers in general has been outstanding and she has not turned a profit or in any way tried to do anything other than further the health, happiness and welfare of NZers in general and children in particular.
The problem with Doug Meyers being put in the same category is that his profiting from the sale of alcohol and the insidious linking of his alcohol brands to what should take pride of place in the national psyche - well that rankles. And his lobbying for a lower drinking age, given his motive for profit would have raised considerable ire in my country and no doubt he would have been barred (on the obvious grounds of conflict of interest) from any lobbying related to something that has as profound an impact on public health as the drinking age.
And Helen Clark lead a government that was quite happy to profiteer off addicts to the tune of billions of dollars in excise tax on tobacco and alcohol, so I'm wondering if that moral high horse is about ready for the knackers yard.
Craig, it's not profiteering if the coffers you fill are not your own but the public's coffers. And if you take the time to read the actual statistics published by the WHO, CDC, and other public health agencies, you will see that the taxes charged for tobacco and alcohol do not begin to pay for a fraction of the cost that these drugs iincur .
For example my step-mum Jeanne is dying of emphysema at the moment - she has a message for all of you by the way: - "Don't smoke". But her illness is taking a long time to kill her and her suffering is affecting a lot of lives and using a lot of resources. Quite apart from her physical suffering - which is enormous and into its 5th year - the flow on effect has been tremendous. The physical suffering of one person can cause enormous suffering in those who have to witness that - I won't go into detail, but there are many, many other consequences besides the cost of her medical care. She is serious about the message - she reminds me every time I talk to her to pass that along. "Don't smoke".
Anyhow Craig, my point was the cost of applied to tobacco or alcohol will not begin to pay for the effects. Tax the manufacturers I say.
-
But you and your posters surely can't take from the man - the Lion's sponsorships of Peter Blake's Steinlarger, America's Cup, first Rugby World Cup etc.
Like other posters here I am appalled at any promotion of sporting events by either tobacco or alcohol companies. Promoting drugs by associating their brand to some physical or healthy activity should be against the law. And may be against the law soon.
Global Strategy to Reduce Harmful Use of Alcohol - WHO
I look forward to seeing alcohol companies barred from sponsoring sporting events as tobacco has been banned.
If you look across the entire NZ spectrum - State energy company sponsoring Opera, NZ Herald owner the Auck Phil - to name just two. Are more power or newspapers sold from these?
Did the NZ Apple & Pear Board sell more apples from its Am Cup sponsorship? I doubt it.Fran, the commercial advantages that corporations gain by sponsorship of sporting, artistic, cultural events or charitable ventures are enormous .
The sole purpose of this association and branding is a financial bottom line, achieved by the branding or the resulting tax break. Usually the sort of exposure that goes with branding is many, many times more valuable and economical than running an advertising campaign.
NZ Tax Structure and Corporate Giving
Sponsorship is an effective way for a company to provide support while generating good public exposure. The event does not necessarily need to be directly connected to the company's business to be beneficial, as any funding provided will assist in creating a favourable public perception.
In addition, if the corporate sponsor can show a connection between the costs incurred and the business, a tax deduction is available for those costs. This connection could be as simple as the sponsored event helps to provide advertising for the company in an attempt to increase the level of sales.
The profit gained by the exposure and resulting good will any company gets from sponsorship deals is and always will be what motivates companies to make and maintian sponsorship deals. When that association stops being profitable for the company, that association stops. Just ask Tiger Woods's sponsors.
-
Stella looks very comfortable in her garden.
Digression: I knew a guy in Canada who called his cat Stella (a former stray cat) so he could stand on the stoop of his (downtown Vancouver) apartment in his undershirt and yell
"STELLA! STELLLLAA!"
and when the little cat came barrelling around the corner, he'd plop food in her dish and say, to whoever was passing:
"She has always depended on the kindness of strangers."
Eventually Stella moved into his apartment and they could no longer play out that particular scene.
-
I have spent the last couple of days tidying/changing the back garden.
Yes, Sofie, what Geoff said - what a beautiful garden. I love your canine bandana wearer.
Anne Tolley - and National in general - are keen on streaming kids early in academic assessment, but for what purpose is anyone's guess. If they were testing health (dental, nutritional etc) they would advance academic achievement much more.
On a related note - well it's education - my sister runs a school in Kathmandu (Shree Dvip Mangal) which is one of Jane Goodall's project schools
Roots and Shoots South Asia Partners
here's a
Video Portrait of the School (made by the kids)
and was just invited by the Prime Minister of Bhutan (along with a bunch of other educators)
-
Gay's generally avoid the sport for reasons of mutual dislike.
Gay men avoid sex with women. They most emphatically do not avoid not male athletes.
You really must read this article Giovanni so kindly linked to:
-
rugby culture isn't generally gay friendly and so I agree with Haydn - rugby players are a self selecting and pretty much heterosexual group.
You mean "rugby players are a self-selecting and pretty much closeted group." To conflate gay with effeminate is wildly misguided. Effeminate does not necessarily even accompany out-ness .
A gay man is a man who has sex with other men. Men who have sex with men often refuse to classify themselves as gay or bisexual, particularly those who are very fixated on "masculine" imagery. There is a large group of men who think of themselves as heterosexual, even when it is evident they are not. So in sports teams, military organisations and blue-collar circles you find deeply closeted men who, despite all protestations to the contrary, have sex with other men. The incidence of out-ness in an organisation is directly correlated with the level of acceptance of being out, nothing else.
There is a big difference between a homo and a faux-mo. The flip side of the deeply closeted butch fellow on the rugby field is the faux-mo - an effeminate man who does not have sex with men. Any fashion show or shoot is likely to have more than one faux-mo running around helping pretty girls do things like get their nipples straight in clothing. Sexually insecure men call them fairies, poofs. Observant people call them sneaky.
In pro sports - sports at any level - you will find men who have sex with men. There are walks of life where men are more likely to be out than other walks of life, but as the old psychological cliche goes, homophobia is usually a sign of self-loathing and fear. Many of the gay men I knew who had come out in middle age, after marriage, after children - some of those men had been very butch, insecure, gay-bashing homophobes.
-
Is there really any doubt about the gayness of rugby? Have you not read the classic short story by A.P. Gaskell The Big Game about a game in Carisbrook in... the 1930s I think.
I'm afraid I can't link to it - I have it in an anthology of NZ short stories, but it is a steamy, homoerotic... um... description of a team. Set among rippling chests, powerful thighs and firm buns, young men cavort in the locker room:
Inside the dressing-room there was a strong human smell of sweaty togs, muddy boots and warm bodies as the men came prancing back naked from the showers and stood on the seats drying themselves. The room was so crowded. Togs and boots lay over the floor, clothes hung emptily from the pegs and men were everywhere, shoving, jostling, reaching out their arms to dry themselves. Everyone was happy now...
and
"Like Hell!" shouted Buck, dancing about on the seat and sawing his towel across his back. "The backs? The pansies! I sweat my guts out getting the ball for you and then you canter along very prettily about ten yards and then drop it in." He struck a chesty attitude, standing naked on the seat. "Do I look like a pansy?" he demanded.
"Not with that thing!"
Someone shied a ball and Buck and left a muddy mark on his backside...