Stop the problem at the source

I do not often find myself agreeing with ACT party policies but in this last couple of years I find myself agreeing with a couple of these, and while radical I think it seriously needs to be looked at...because it could solve a lot of problems.

The latest is around ACT MP David Garrett and his comments or statements around abusive parents being paid to be steralised. I would rather their steralisations be paid for rather than pay them to get it done but I tend to agree with this.

Child abuse and neglect is rampant in this country and its the parents of the kids who are not taking enough responsibility, living their own lives rather than focusing on the kids they brought into this world. Spending more money on booze than books, smokes than shoes, eating out more than education.

On the Stuff.co.nz website article there are comments about genocide and Nazism, and what I see as an unfortunate truth, many found in this situation will be Maori or Polynesian. I also have to think that to some degree this is about population control because it would control the amount of our child population that are abused and neglected.

But I do not agree with the assertion that this is to control the Maori or Polynesian population at all. While they may be fewer of them, European people will be caught up in the mix. My family can testify of that and I have seen it over the years in European descent families as much as I have of other ethnic groups.

I honestly do not have a problem with the idea, its how you would determine the criteria for this would be. Severe abuse? I do not think you can put a measure on this kind of thing. Personally, if you aren't feeding, clothing or teaching your child then that could be abuse. Does it have to get to the Nia Glassie level to be defined as enough to warrant offering this kind of intervention?

The problem lies more in how to stop the perpetuation of the cycle of abuse. Therein lies a less radical solution, but it takes more time...and runs more risks. I have a very dear friend right now who is in a situation...which is not entirely his doing. As a direct result of his nurture he has no idea how to relate to his two kids, or his partner in a civil way. He has no good example to draw on how to be a good father or partner and there is a degree of neglect there, though not severe.

Her family are a bunch of morons...more than your normal family funny farm, but a bunch of people who have less than a clue themselves and have nothing positive to offer their daughter and sister. General examples. Mum is dating and living with a P-Addict, in love with someone in prison for murder and can't leave the druggy until the murderer leaves prison. Their idea of support is saying choose us over your partner.

Neither him nor his partner have the tools or the close level support network to help them with their children, their issues or to help them become better parents. Friends can only do so much and while his mum is good intentioned, still has ghosts from past disasters of her own. I wouldn't consider these people as a case for the extreme measure of cutting the child making capabilities but certainly a need for intervention.

Listening to this mornings Breakfast interview with Annabel Taylor from Family Help Trust was in my view trying to protect her own job and funding pool. Certainly there is effective interventions and people can change...but Paul Henry did ask a very good and direct question. "How many children have to be abused and in many cases killed before they change? Regardless the reasons why it happens, how many cases of the Kahui twins or Nia Glassie, other children who die as a result of abuse, neglect or other forms of non-violent abuse is it going to take before we try and stop figuring out why and deal with it.

I've long been passionate about being brought up in a home surrounded by a family who love and care for the child they bring into the world. If they cannot, then they give that child up for adoption so it can be loved and be given opportunities that it otherwise would never have gotten. I remember years ago, being assigned to escort a social worker into a home where smoke billowed out when the door opened. The house had been sealed by those inside who were smoking dope and drinking. Inside the house was an infant who was already asphyxiated, another who was not asleep but unconscious, and at least two toddlers who were showing signs of alcohol and drugs in their systems. I was 17.

On the other side of things I have seen families who have at one point or another, had their kids taken from them for intervention purposes, made the necessary changes in their lives and their children were returned so I have seen both extremes.

In an immediate and intimate situation a birth mother we know has lost all four of her children here, age ranges from 9 to 3 because she neglected them all at one stage. When the youngest was 6 months or so breakfast if she was lucky was coke and bread. Until she was 2, she got very little attention what so ever. There is a rumour there were four other kids in Australia who were taken off her and are now in better care situations.

This measure may be extreme and I more than understand that. When you compare the cost of steralisation of problem parents, parents who cannot change, who bring children again and again into abusive situations, to the cost of cleaning up the mess..there is more to be gained than lost.

What about the cost of a child's life against the possibility of change? Is it too much to hope that an abusive and neglectful set of parents (both mother and father) will change their stripes, and in the mean time, not kill or abuse any more of their kids. How much money does the government have to spend on intervening again and again for abusive families to make changes.

Anyway...enough said at this point.

The Truancy Issue

I think there are better things in the education system that you could throw $32 million at. Forcing kids to be somewhere they do not want to be is honestly not one of them. As much as I am passionate about education and the need for a good quality education, you can't force feed it to someone who does not want to be there.

But throwing money at a problem seems to reduce it somehow in someones mind. Putting people onto the streets to take kids back to a school that they will run away from again given the first opportunity just seems to be a waste of cash.

Here is my two cents worth.

The education system is fundamentally flawed or broken (nothing new there). It fails to cater for the needs of New Zealanders and still people who go into school struggle with the basic needs in the world today. Just today, a student in a level 3 class I was supervising, who had already been through level 1 employment skills, and level 2 computing, failed to read and understand the simplest instructions in a an assessment.

I have to admit to going to school to eat my lunch. I say that because other than eating my lunch I did little else when it came to the reason for being there. Learning or achieving School C, SFC and bursary. I had a maths teacher who was less than interesting, a human biology teacher hell bent on teaching more about plant biology, as as much as my english teachers tried, I just never really was going to get verbs, adverbs and all the other junk that I have now come to appreciate. The difference for me though, as much as I did not achieve, I wanted to be there for some unknown reason.

I guess perhaps I was still naive enough not to really know what else to do.

But there needs to be more options for students to attend some form of learning environment that taps into their aspirations. But in that mode of thinking...do they know what their dreams and aspirations are? Have they been encouraged to dream? Some school kids I know have been encouraged to dream too much.

I remember talking with a school kid a year or so ago, who had been sold on the dream of being a professional athlete. The more I listened to his talk, the more I grew concerned about his mode of thinking. As much as I do not want to trample someones dream, I also do not want someone to get trapped in an almost impossible trap. And all it took was...and if you get injured to a pont where your career is over...what happens next? What is your fall back plan?

How do we make school more interesting for kids and get them more engaged. Maybe don't worry about getting the schools engaged, get the parents engaged. How do we get them to give a toss about their kids education when in some instances, it was meaningless to them.

The other side is the apathetic attitudes of the parents or family members. How do they get involved. Is the stick of prosecution the right one in the end? It ultimately makes families who have difficulty in making ends meet under more financial pressure and prosecutions could put employment at risk. Throwing money at the problem won't I think solve it. It's a concerted combined effort that at least some of those who need to be, won't be willing to be a part of.

The problem with forcing someone to be where they do not want to be is that they will continue to rebel and ultimately nothing will be gained thus money spent getting them there is wasted. I don't have a perfect solution. I'm not in a position where I can influence government policy. I'm giving my perspective.

Film Review - Avatar

Finally...managed to squeeze some time and funds to go and see Avatar in 3d and while I didn't experience some nausea from the movie in this 3d world I have to admit to feeling some overall.

Don't get me wrong, the 3d effect of the film certainly painted a more vivid picture of the movie than it ever could in 2d, but in saying that I have never been a fan of distract them with visual effects to avoid them picking up other faults or problems with the movies.

Certainly there were wow moments for me and a lot of them around the visual world of 3d movies. My last 3d experience was the blundered Television KFC King King or something promotion of the late 80's or early 90's when it broadcast to the nation in 3d but only like 10% of the countries TV's could manage a 3d image, yet hundreds upon thousands purchased $5 red and blue 3d glasses that became useless from the opening credits.

But that aside, Avatar was of a slightly bigger budget and James Cameron is not your average schmuck director trying to make a buck. I was blown away by Titanic and this epic film certainly had tones (almost literally) of Titanic.

The almost literal part is that James Horner, who was responsible for the music on Titanic was the music director for Avatar. While it was a good soundtrack and I likely will buy it or get it someway, there were shades of other soundtracks in Avatar. But I liked it, it was emotive and played its part well.

Overall I thought the character's did very well but others were more superficial than I think they could have been. Especially the Marine colonel. In a short film there obviously will be the less involved characters but from what I saw the Colonel was a primary character but had very little development.

Lead characters played by Sam Worthingon (Jake Sully), Sigourney Weaver (Grace Augustine), Joel David Moore (Norm Spellman) and playing native Na'vi Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) held their parts very very well. Their interactions were felt and their whole portrayal of their characters were from start to finish excellent.

No one can deny that the animations and CGI of the movie were excellent. Much like the futurism of the Star Wars special editions, George Lucus was restricted by the technology of the time, maybe one day, movies will become interactive holograms. What would this kind of film be like in 10 years time.

While I loved the symbolism and the spiritual aspect of the film I was certainly stirred to some degree of detest of our own race. The simple nature of human arrogance that because we have bigger machines and deadlier weapons that little respect is shown for anything or anyone else. The paralelles, intended or not were certainly there. How many forced movements of races simply because they were perceived as lower than others is flaw seen through and through human history. This portrayal was nothing more than a big screen slap in the face as to human nature. We'd screwed up our own world, now we're going to screw someone elses world up and take what we do not deserve.

Whether this was an intended message it smacks of a message of environmentalism in a time when I think we should be taking care of ourselves. I dont know if I personally believe in a 'Mother Nature' but as a spiritual person I can relate to and cannot dismiss the possibility. However, one thing is very certain, if you do not look after something, it eventually comes back around to bite you, and maybe 'Mother Nature' is gearing up to bite us back big time.

Overall, Avatar was a good and entertaining film for three hours. I'd certainly buy it on DVD.

Acting/Cast: 3.5/5
Special Effects: 4/5
Soundtrack: 3.5/5
Entertainment Value: 3.5/5
Overall impression: 3.5/5

Total Rating: 18/25 = 3.5 Stars